HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-26 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. 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.
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting September 26, 2017 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 COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonabletime restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to
limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT
V.BUSINESS1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the August 22, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting – PRC Chair Keith Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Junior Museum & Zoo Redesign Park Improvement Ordinance – Rhyena Halpern – Action –(20 min) ATTACHMENT3.Baylands Boardwalk Park Improvement Ordinance – Megha Bansai – Action – (20 min)
ATTACHMENT
4. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Park Improvement Ordinance – Megha Bansai –Action – (20 min) ATTACHMENT5. Allowing Public Access to the 7.7 Acres of Park Land at Foothills Park – Daren Anderson –
Discussion – (40 min) ATTACHMENT
6.Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion
– (20 min)
•Discuss council direction to develop a funding plan7.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min)
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 24, 2017 MEETING
VII.ADJOURNMENT
REVISED
MEMO
APPROVED
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
August 22, 2017 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11
12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Don McDougall, David 13
Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Ryan McCauley 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Peter Jensen, Kristen O'Kane, Tanya Schornack 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Tanya Schornack 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS:19
Chair Reckdahl: Next is Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions. Does anyone have any 20
changes they want to make? We'll move on to Oral Communications. 21
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:22
Chair Reckdahl: We're now going to talk about anything that is not on the agenda 23
tonight. We have one speaker, David Carnahan. 24
David Carnahan: Good evening, Chair Reckdahl and Commissioners. My name is 25 David Carnahan in the City Clerk's Office. You can all guess why I'm here. I'm here to 26 share with you some exciting opportunities available on the City's Boards and 27 Commissions. As you know, these are fantastic ways for members of the community to 28
both give back to Palo Alto and to help shape the future of our fantastic community. 29
We're currently recruiting for the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources 30
Board, and the Planning and Transportation Commission. There are two openings on the 31
Architectural Review Board, four on the Historic Resources Board, and two on the 32
Planning and Transportation Commission. Our ask of you is we hope that each one of 33
you is willing to reach out to at least two community members that you think would be a 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
good fit for one of these roles since you have a fantastic reach and are, as we would say, 1
embedded in the community. The application deadline is September 19th at 4:30 p.m. 2
Applications are available on the City Clerk's webpage, cityofpaloalto.org/clerk. I will 3
leave some flyers for each of you to take as a reminder of your homework to reach out to 4
some community members. I will leave some flyers in the back for anyone who is here 5
in the audience interested in either participating yourselves or if you know someone in 6 the community that might be a good fit. Thank you. 7
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, David. Please, if you have anyone you know that is good, 8
the best Commissioners usually are recommended by other Commissioners. Please, if 9
you have anyone that's sharp, please recommend that they apply for something. 10
[The Commission moved to approval of the minutes.] 11
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 12
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. Good evening. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services 13
Department. I have a few things to report. I also wanted to introduce Jazmin LeBlanc, to 14
my right, who I believe you've all met before. Jazmin is Community Services' Strategy 15
and Operations Senior Manager. She's here today just to learn the Commission process 16
and to help me out here as staff. She wants to get to know the different Commissions and 17
the different work that we do a little bit better. She's just going to join me up here today. 18
I have a few things, and then I'll turn it over to Jazmin. I wanted to give a short 19
presentation on our summer camps just to provide a recap of what we've done over the 20
summer. Just looking at camps by the numbers, we've categorized them by different 21
themes. Our total number of camps is nearly 300 that we offered this past summer, for a 22
total of 3,583 total campers. That produced a total revenue of over $1 million for the 23
City. One of the other benefits of our camps is that we do provide a lot of summer jobs 24
for local teens. We have 38 recreation camp staff onboard with us in the summer. We 25 also provide opportunities for junior camp staff and also a Counselor in Training program 26 to teach some of the younger kids, who will eventually become camp counselors with us, 27 the ropes and get a head start on that. One thing that we're doing is we're really trying to 28
refine our in-service training. The first week of camps is actually just for us to train the 29
counselors. We're adding new things every year. This year we did a lot of diversity and 30
inclusion training. We also review the developmental assets with them, customer service, 31
how to handle conflicts and sticky situations in addition to all the legal requirements 32
we're supposed to do. It really is a great leadership opportunity for them, and they do 33
learn a lot. Recreation camps. Our most popular camps still are our Foothills camps. 34
Some of the traditions that have been going on in those camps for 40 years are still going 35
on. Our overnights at the campground, sing-alongs, hikes, canoeing, all those things are 36
still just part of the Palo Alto community, which is great. We also are in our second 37
year—just finished our second year of doing a teen week out where a small group of 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
teens go to a different location every day for a week and get to experience different 1
things. In addition to our recreation camps, our Art Center as well as our Junior Museum 2
and Zoo also provide a lot of—and our Children's Theatre—exciting opportunities for 3
kids. Some new camps this year in the Art Center were very popular—there were quite a 4
few waiting lists—including one that travels around to different Bay Area museums and 5
artist studios. At the Children's Theatre, the next time you're at Mitchell Park 6 Community Center, you need to check out the teen mural project that was done over the 7
summer. There were also some new camps related to actually producing a musical. 8
They produced the musical 13. It's just a great opportunity for kids who are interested in 9
the arts to get really hands on and involved in the process. The Junior Museum and Zoo 10
had a great summer, offered some camps that are focused on science-related topics. Just 11
the feedback we got back from them is that this is one of the best summers ever for their 12
camps and got a lot of great feedback from their campers and parents. Finally, I just 13
wanted to do a little summary of what happened over the summer with our swim lessons 14
and swim camps. Spring and summer, we served with Palo Alto Swim and Sports, our 15
third-party operator—over 700 students learned to swim. They report what are called 16
splashes. A splash is every time a student gets in the water. We had over, 7,000 17
splashes. We also had a new camp this summer which is a summer aquatics camp that 18
includes—it's a day camp that includes a swim lesson, time in the water but then also 19
land activities as well to give parents the opportunity to have their kids do a swim lesson 20
but be occupied for the entire day. We had 125 campers, so it wasn't completely full. It 21
is a new camp, and I think we'll continue it next summer hopefully and get the word out 22
that we offer this camp. That's all I had on that. Any questions? 23
Commissioner Cribbs: How many kids did we have to turn away? Do you know? For 24
the camps that were full or oversubscribed. 25
Ms. O'Kane: I don't have that number with me, but I can find out. 26
Commissioner Cribbs: It's probably not easy to get, but it would be interesting to know 27 how many were turned away and then the percentage of Palo Alto residents. I think there 28
are scholarships available for kids. Yes? 29
Ms. O'Kane: The fee reduction program, mm hmm. 30
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 31
Ms. O'Kane: Sometimes when the kids are—if a camp is full, the parents will find 32
another camp for them to go into. That might be a more difficult number to track, but I'll 33
see if we can find that. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Commissioner Cribbs: The sports camps that we have, do people go to other sports 1
camps rather than coming to the City's? Do you think that's why there's a lesser 2
enrollment? 3
Ms. O'Kane: I think so. There are a lot more opportunities available for sports camps. 4
That is one that we're noticing a decline in participation over the years. I think it's just 5
because there are so many choices out there. 6
Commissioner Cribbs: It's a great tradition. I'm really glad that you brought this. It's 7
really great to see, and it's great to see the photos and everything. Once again, a good job 8
by rec staff. 9
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. 10
Commissioner LaMere: Just a quick question. Do you know if the camps do surveys or 11
how do they receive the feedback from the parents? Is it through email or just purely a 12
parent going up to a counselor or someone and making a comment? 13
Ms. O'Kane: It's both. Definitely, we have open communication. If a parent wants to 14
provide a comment to the counselor or anyone, they're welcome to do that. We also do 15
surveys as well. 16
Commissioner McDougall: Kristen, I think congratulations to everyone. I think that's 17
spectacular. I think Tanya lied to me because a copy of that presentation is not in the 18
package. Could we make sure we get that? 19
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. 20
Commissioner McDougall: The reason I ask is any amount of reinforcement and 21
publicity that we could do personally by talking to people about how good the programs 22
are and how well it's done would be useful to everybody. 23
Ms. O'Kane: Absolutely. 24
Vice Chair Moss: I too wanted to know the percentage of Palo Alto residents. Also, the 25 714 students for the lessons, how does that compare with last year and the 7,200 26 splashes? Are we a double or a third or what, a third more? 27
Jazmin LeBlanc: This is Jazmin LeBlanc. I can't remember the exact number that we 28
had last year. I do think it was closer to 4,000 splashes. 29
Chair Reckdahl: That's just due to more offerings or is that due to more recruitment or 30
better publicity? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Ms. LeBlanc: I think the main reason is that it's a longer period, and we're offering it at 1
more times. We're really becoming more flexible. 2
Chair Reckdahl: The camps that were full, what was the limiting factor? Is it that we 3
couldn't get more counselors or that we didn't have the space? Or all the above? We 4
don't know how it breaks down. 5
Ms. O'Kane: It's mostly space. We do try to offer a diverse selection for people to 6 choose from, so they can focus on what their kids' interests are. Some camps tend to be 7
more popular than others. We can use that information to make some adjustments the 8
following year. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Like the metal working class that you said was very popular and had a 10
wait list, was that just a space constraint or why couldn't we have multiple versions of 11
that? 12
Ms. O'Kane: I don't exactly know the answer to that, but I'm assuming it's a space 13
constraint and probably instructor constraint. 14
Commissioner LaMere: What's the process of adding a new camp if, say, there's 15
someone in the area that does have an interest in offering a skill or offering something 16
that might be a good camp? What would be the process of referring them to Parks and 17
Rec or who would that be? 18
Ms. O'Kane: They could contact me directly, and I'll get that to the appropriate staff. We 19
get contacted frequently from people who are interested in having some camps in Palo 20
Alto. We look at all of them. Just send them over to me. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: Are we aiming to break even financially with these programs 22
and how did we do on that? 23
Ms. O'Kane: That is our goal for summer camps, to break even on those. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: Do we know if we break even? 25
Ms. O'Kane: We do. 26
Commissioner McDougall: I should have said this initially. I can speak to this 27 personally because both of my sons were camp leaders at one point. The double impact 28
of the impact on the young kids and the leverage for them and then the impact on the kids 29
that are leaders really needs to be reinforced. It's really, really positive. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. I agree. A lot of campers become the Counselors in Training, 1
and then they become the counselors. It's really neat to hear those stories of kids that 2
have started out and pretty much grown up in Palo Alto's camps. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We'll move back to business. Next is the Baylands 4
Boardwalk replacement. 5
Ms. O'Kane: Chair, we actually had a few more things on Department Report. 6
Chair Reckdahl: I'm sorry. I am shortchanging you tonight. 7
Ms. O'Kane: Jazmin reminded me. I was right along with you. Just a couple of other 8
quick things. I do want to report that the RFP for the golf course did go out. This is the 9
RFP for golf course operations, maintenance, and also the food and beverage space there 10
as well. That went out yesterday. We are having a pre-bid meeting on August 29th, and 11
then proposals are due September 29th. We're hoping that it will go to Council in 12
December for the final approval of our selection. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Are we sending it to select companies or are we just putting it on the 14
website and hoping that people come? 15
Ms. O'Kane: Both. It's gone out to some companies that we know have that interest, and 16
then we also do our normal advertising. Finally, the last I have is I wanted to let 17
everyone know that the YMCA and the City are partnering again this year on a 18
community health fair. It is September 23rd from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. In the past it's 19
been at Mitchell Park and Mitchell Community Center. This year it's going to be here at 20
City Hall, out on King Plaza. There will be more focused speakers and seminars within 21
City Hall. I can send out that information via email to all of you. I think it's going to be 22
a great event and probably bigger than it was last year. 23
Chair Reckdahl: When is it? 24
Ms. O'Kane: September 23rd. It's a Saturday. Jazmin just has a couple things. 25
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah, two more things. Just wanted to quickly announce that we're going 26 to be offering a 3-week series of free dance fitness classes out on King Plaza in 27 September as well. Sort of a small-scale, special event called Get Fit. We'll be 28
advertising that later this week. That will be the three Sundays in September after Labor 29
Day weekend, 3:00. Free for anyone to join. It should be really fun. It's likely to be 30
Zumba, LA dancing, and hip hop dance. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Is this something that people register for or you have to drop by? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Ms. LeBlanc: Just drop in. It's at King Plaza. Anyone can join in. It's meant to be for 1
all ages. The other thing I wanted to update was quickly on the aquatics contract. Palo 2
Alto Swim and Sport began operations of the lap swim and open swim programs last 3
week. It seems to be coming around relatively smoothly. Still plenty of hiccups. 4
They've already got 137 monthly memberships and had over 450 people drop in for lap 5
and open swims. In terms of the Rinconada Masters contract, that is still an outstanding 6 contract, but Tim Sheeper, the owner and operator of Palo Alto Swim and Sport, and 7
Carol McPherson have had several conversations. They're getting very close to having 8
an agreement. 9
Chair Reckdahl: In the meantime, Masters is just keeping their current … 10
Ms. LeBlanc: Yeah. 11
Chair Reckdahl: We don't have a contract for that. We're just doing that … 12
Ms. LeBlanc: It's month to month. My understanding from the Attorney's Office is that 13
it can be ended at any time. We do fall back on that contract. 14
Chair Reckdahl: It'd be nice to get that done. 15
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. We're all hoping for that quickly. 16
Chair Reckdahl: Otherwise, it seems to be going well? Sheeper's happy with the 17
facilities, and people are happy with the new offerings? 18
Ms. LeBlanc: In general. Obviously, there are people who are unhappy with changes, 19
but most of the comments have been more around just having to get adjusted to a new 20
point of sale system. Hopefully that's going to get a lot better as people do get onboard 21
with the membership program and things. 22
Chair Reckdahl: Refresh my memory. If you have a membership at Palo Alto, can you 23
use that in Menlo Park? 24
Ms. LeBlanc: No, not at the time. It's something that, I think, is worth exploring the 25 feasibility of in the future. Right now, they're totally separate. 26
Chair Reckdahl: At one time, that had been discussed, having reciprocity between the 27 two groups. 28
Ms. LeBlanc: It would make sense. We'd probably have to really work with the 29
Attorney's Office to structure it in a way that works legally for both cities. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Any questions? Anne, do you want … 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Commissioner Cribbs: I don't think so. I think we should all wait and see how 1
everything develops and see if it's good for the City and we can provide the kind of 2
service that we want to provide and we have enough lifeguards and we have enough 3
teachers and we have enough swimming lessons and people are using the pool to the 4
max. The fact that it's an 18-month contract I'm encouraged by because we'll all have a 5
chance to review it, I expect. 6
Chair Reckdahl: We should be able to make everyone happy. I don't see any 7
showstoppers. It's just people don't like change. Any other questions? Is that it? Okay. 8
Now we can move on to business. 9
[The Commission moved to Item Number 2.] 10
IV. BUSINESS: 11
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the July 25, 2017 Parks and Recreation 12 Commission meeting. 13
Approval of the draft July 25, 2017 Minutes was moved by Commissioner McDougall 14
and seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 6-0 McCauley absent 15
Kristen O'Kane: Chair, could we do the Department Report at the beginning? 16
Chair Reckdahl: I'm sorry. I'm not used to that. 17
Ms. O'Kane: I know. It's a change to the agenda. 18
Chair Reckdahl: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. We were quick on that. 19
Department Report is next then. 20
[The Commission moved to the Department Report.] 21
2. Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Preliminary Design Update 22
Chair Reckdahl: We have the Baylands Boardwalk rehab. 23
Megha Bansal: Good evening. I'm Megha Bansal with Public Works Engineering. I 24
would like to introduce our team tonight. We have Elizabeth Ames with Public Works 25 Engineering and John Aikin with Community Services in the audience. Sitting next to 26 me is Anthony Notaro, our consultant with Biggs Cardosa Associates. Tonight, we are 27 here to provide you an update on the Baylands Boardwalk replacement project. Our 28
presentation includes a brief background of the project. We'll be discussing project 29
elements, and we would like your input specifically on certain items including overlooks, 30
railing and decking, benches and viewing panels. Then, we will talk a little bit about 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
schedule and next steps. A little background. As you all know, the Baylands Boardwalk 1
was closed in 2014 due to structural damage and safety concerns. We performed a 2
feasibility study in 2016 to assess the condition of the Boardwalk. That study 3
recommended replacement of the structure to have a longer life, reduce maintenance, an 4
ADA compliant structure, and to address sea level rise. Soon after, in 2015, we also 5
made minor structural repairs in the first 200-foot segment of the Boardwalk, which is 6 now open to the public. We also presented findings of the study to the Commission back 7
in March 2016, and Commission was in favor of replacement of the structure. A design 8
contract was approved by Council with Biggs Cardosa in September 2016, and we 9
developed initial design concepts and presented those in a community meeting in May 10
this year. The next slide shows an overview of the project. It includes all the project 11
elements, which is essentially replacement of the existing Boardwalk with a new 12
Boardwalk that follows the same alignment and that has same length. We will have some 13
other components including additional overlooks and an observation platform, new 14
railing and decking, pile supports, and some amenities. Tony is going to go over the 15
details of the design. With that, I give it to Tony. 16
Anthony Notaro: The first slide just talking about alignment, height, and width. We're 17
going to replace it, exact same alignment. The existing structure is 4 feet wide; we're 18
going to widen it to 5 feet to better provide ADA access and passing lanes. One change 19
since the previous presentation. The elevation of the deck has changed due to sea level 20
rise conditions and our coordination with the BCDC and the other regulatory agencies. 21
They are interpreting the higher end of the curve, so they've raised our upper bound of 22
where we can put the deck elevation. We're proposing to match basically the deck 23
elevation of the existing Nature Center at elevation 13.5. 24
Chair Reckdahl: How much of a change is that? 25
Mr. Notaro: That's about a 3-foot change, I think, from the existing 3, 3 1/2. It's about 26 elevation 10 now plus or minus. 27
Ms. Bansal: I think it is between 3.6 to 4.3 feet higher. 28
Mr. Notaro: The higher end is where the collapse of the existing Boardwalk is. The 29
original constructed height was about elevation 9.9 or 10, so it's about 3 1/2 feet. 30
Chair Reckdahl: The final overlook, the viewing platform? 31
Mr. Notaro: The final overlook at the end, we're just going to take it straight all the way 32
out. 33
Chair Reckdahl: That's unchanged? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Mr. Notaro: That would be unchanged, yeah. Instead of ramping down from the Nature 1
Center out and then ramping up at the observation platform, you'd basically go straight 2
out. Another item that had changed since we previously presented. The original concept 3
was to replace in kind, have two overlooks, and the observation platform out at the end. 4
Per discussions internally, with the public and with operations at the Nature Center for 5
seizing opportunities for more interactions with the Baylands site itself, we're proposing 6 four overlooks strategically located to highlight different elements out on the site. Those 7
can be seen on that one exhibit, where the two existing are and where the four are 8
proposed. The structure, we're proposing to use timber railing, a similar style to what 9
was done on the Interpretive Center. The railings will be customized for use on the 10
Boardwalk, since we have a very long, linear structure, a lot of repetition. We're going to 11
design the railings to be constructed in a panelized configuration, which will allow the 12
construction to proceed quicker, less construction work on the site, more work can be 13
done offsite and carried on. The railings will be a minimum of 3 1/2 feet high to meet 14
ADA criteria. One element that we'll look for input from the Commission on has to do 15
with observation panels at the overlooks and the observation platform to allow viewing 16
through the railing. On the Interpretive Center, there are glass panels there. For the 17
Boardwalk itself, in consultation with the biologist we've shrunk the size of those 18
openings to be a little bit smaller, less likely to cause a bird strike farther out where the 19
birds are more active. We have two alternatives to look at. One's a glass panel like on 20
the Interpretive Center. There's also been some discussions about using a wire mesh 21
panel to be the safer alternative for some of the birds. Another change since we spoke 22
last, that came out of our consultation with the biologist and in coordination with the 23
regulatory agencies, is their concern with the higher Boardwalk elevation of raptors 24
perching on the higher railing, giving them an opportunity to hunt the mouse out there. 25 It's been proposed to put what we're calling raptor deterrent rollers. They're basically a 26 roller system. If a bird lands on it, it rolls so they can't just sit and perch. There's a 27 similar system in place at Alviso Park. There's a photo up there of that system. 28
Basically, it's just a roller that sits along the top rail, that would discourage raptors from 29
perching there. Let's see. Another key feature is going to be the decking of the 30
Boardwalk. The existing Boardwalk has longitudinal planks where the key boards are 31
running parallel to the direction of travel. The project's proposed to use a transverse 32
decking system. That's very common on many of the pre-fab bridge structures along the 33
trails. The advantages of that are we get to use a smaller member because you've got a 34
shorter span. That helps us with costs; it helps with maintenance costs down the road 35
because you would be replacing smaller elements. All of the decking elements, we're 36
looking at using redwood similar to what was used for the Interpretive Center. The main 37
structural elements consist of very similar to the existing timber posts or pilings that go 38
down into the Bay muds of the marsh. They'll be capped with timber beams, and then 39
we'll provide timber cross-bracing to provide lateral stability to the system. There will be 40
longitudinal stringers that support the deck elements. All of these primary structural 41
elements, we're proposing to use Alaskan yellow cedar, which is a natural, durable 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
softwood. It mostly comes from Alaska and areas in Canada. That's an alternative to 1
pressure-treated Doug fir, which the regulatory agencies have been strongly discouraging 2
to avoid the chemicals getting into the wetlands. That was a material that's already been 3
used on other projects and approved by them. It was recommended by the Water Board 4
for this project. 5
Chair Reckdahl: One of the options before was the metal screws. 6
Mr. Notaro: The metal screws, when the structure got higher, the cost factor for the 7
metal screws went down. It was no longer cost effective because they're very flexible. 8
The higher we got, the more sway you're going to get out of your system, so we would 9
have to increase the number of elements in shorter spans. We moved away from that. 10
Chair Reckdahl: What type of lifetime do we think we're going to get from these posts? 11
Mr. Notaro: These, we're looking at 50-75 years as the target. 12
Chair Reckdahl: In the mud, we're talking? 13
Mr. Notaro: Yeah, in the mud. The Alaskan yellow cedar is a fairly durable material, 14
and in marine environments, salt water, it also is resistant to marine borers. It has good 15
natural properties. This graphic shows visually what the cross-section of the Boardwalk 16
would be. The elements in more of the yellow/brown are the Alaskan yellow cedar. 17
That's the primary structural elements below. Your walking surface, your decking and 18
your railing, we're going to use heart redwood similar to what was used on the 19
Interpretive Center. We would like to include benches at each of the overlooks and the 20
observation platform. The photos on the left side show what's existing. On the right are 21
just some initial concepts for the proposed benches. We would like to include armrests to 22
help facilitate getting up and down. It's a lot easier for folks. We would have one at each 23
overlook and back-to-back in the center of the observation platform, similar to existing. 24
In accordance with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto Baylands 25 Natura Preserve—a long title for your guidelines for out there—all the wood would be 26 stained with this natural gray product from Olympic. Any metal fasteners and 27 components would be painted sandy hook gray from Benjamin Moore, exactly what was 28
done at the Nature Center. We have the opportunity with the follow-on project that 29
there's going to be interpretive signage incorporated into the project at the overlooks and 30
the observation platform. Our design will accommodate some slanted railing that will 31
incorporate the signage in the future. We'll also design the elements to be able to 32
facilitate the attachment of different interpretive features that are being developed by the 33
City separately. The last thing for me, just a reminder of some of our key construction 34
constraints that we're dealing with. Environmentally, because of the Ridgway Rail out 35
there, we have a work window from September 1st to January 31st to stay out of their 36
breeding season. That's one of our key constraints. Hydrologically during that time 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
period, we can expect a high tide usually once or more a month. We're going to have to 1
accommodate some flooding during the course of the project and some loss of workdays. 2
The construction window is in the rainy season, so we've factored in some rain days for 3
our construction estimate. Subsurface conditions, we're in a marsh, very weak soils. 4
That's accommodated in the design of the supports as well as we don't really have a good 5
ability to work from the marsh deck level itself. We've proposed and designed the 6 elements to be small enough to be constructed with small equipment from the Boardwalk 7
itself. The contractor, we would expect, may have to do some localized strengthening to 8
support his operations of the existing before he removes a bit. The plan is to work from 9
the existing Boardwalk. The only caveat to that is access out to there. Instead of going 10
through the nice, newly renovated Nature Center, we need to come around the outside 11
with a series of marsh mats on the marsh level to get the access for the contractor on a 12
daily basis. With that, I think Megha will take over schedule and next steps. 13
Ms. Bansal: Regarding schedule, we have completed preliminary design of the project. 14
We are currently preparing CEQA document. We plan to come back to the Commission 15
for review and recommendation of Park Improvement Ordinance in September during 16
CEQA circulation. What you see on the schedule for agency permit and completion of 17
design by summer 2018 is a best case scenario. We can be in construction next summer 18
in September pending permits. Our more likely scenario is September of 2019 due to the 19
construction window that Tony just mentioned, about 5 months construction window, if 20
we don't get our permit. With that, I think you can ask questions. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Anne, do you have anything? 22
Commissioner Cribbs: I just was curious if the price continues to go up with the changes 23
and then with the delay of the construction. Does it continue to increase? 24
Mr. Notaro: So far we're still projecting to be within the budget constraints that the City 25 has set. Any time the project moves farther out in time, there will be associated potential 26 cost increases. One thing we have done in our design that I had failed to mention is the 27 existing Boardwalk has supports every 10 feet on center along the length. We've 28
increased that with the materials that we've proposed to a 12-foot spacing. We're actually 29
putting in fewer elements than originally estimated in our feasibility study. That has 30
helped to sway some of the additional costs associated with materials and things that have 31
changed. 32
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 33
Ms. Bansal: Also, the panelized construction of railings will make it faster, so we are 34
hoping to complete construction in that one 5-month window. That will also help with 35
construction costs. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 1
Vice Chair Moss: I'm really hoping that you can start September 2018 since we've 2
waited so many years. Is there any way that you can start construction in that 2018 3
timeframe even if you don't have all of the permits yet? Is there some staging or some 4
stuff that you can do ahead of time? 5
Mr. Bansal: I think that is less likely due to our experience with permitting agencies. 6
Vice Chair Moss: Another thing is that a number of things changed because the height 7
level was higher. I was actually hoping that it could stay low enough that once in a while 8
it would flood because that's so dramatic. One of the highlights that people look forward 9
to when they come to the Baylands is to see the flooding that happens once or twice a 10
year. Is there no way—you said that certain agencies required that you be up that high. 11
Do we have to do that? 12
Mr. Notaro: In general, it's been primarily BCDC that's driving that criteria. Their 13
primary goal is they're looking at maintaining access. They want the structure to be high 14
enough to maintain the access. We've approached them about trying to avoid getting it as 15
high. We originally proposed kind of a happy medium between the existing and the 16
current proposed. So far, we haven't had any luck in getting that criteria adjusted. 17
Vice Chair Moss: One other thing, and that is you said that you couldn't use the metal 18
screws because you had to raise it. I also thought that you were going to use the existing 19
base so that you wouldn't have to drill more holes into the mud, that you would use the 20
same holes and that you would build out the Boardwalk from the safety of the existing 21
one, working out, out, out. Is that not going to happen? 22
Mr. Notaro: We're going to use the existing Boardwalk as a working platform to 23
construct the new. Actually the new piles are constructed outboard of the existing 24
Boardwalk so that they can be constructed while the existing Boardwalk's in place. 25 Another benefit of having them outboard is they're out of the shadow zone. The 26 vegetation grows more robustly out there, so there's less erosion. Currently, underneath 27 the existing Boardwalk, with it being low there's a heavy shadow, and nothing grows. A 28
channel has formed with the water coming in and out. That's been part of the problem 29
with why the structure had failed in the first place. It lost some of that support. 30
Vice Chair Moss: It's really going to be in the same spot; it's just going to be wider. 31
Mr. Notaro: Yes, same spot. In the very back of our presentation, there's the anticipated 32
construction staging. The first one is the existing Boardwalk. The contractor does 33
whatever minor repairs he needs to be able to move his equipment out on it. The second 34
one shows the piles being put in outboard of existing. When we no longer need the—35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
then, they'll work their way backwards, remove the existing as they're building the cross 1
frames so that stay out of the marsh to the greatest extent possible. 2
Vice Chair Moss: On the sidings, you said they could either use the bird deterrent glass, 3
which seemed like an oxymoron, or the wire mesh. I would hope that you would go with 4
the wire mesh because it seemed like you're making it much more difficult to see down in 5
there. There's more stuff between the kids and the marsh. If you have the mesh, you can 6 actually see straight through the mesh. If you have a glass thing, it's going to get 7
scratched, it's going to change its opacity over time. It'll just be that much more difficult 8
for people to look down in there, especially little kids. The last thing is the raptor roller. 9
You know that the raptors, the majority of them, are going to be on that Boardwalk that 10
PG&E uses or they fly over the marsh hawks, the harriers. They just fly over, and the 11
herons land in there. I'm dubious that that's going to work, but you say it's in action 12
already. What do you … 13
Mr. Notaro: We've had numerous debates internally with the City and the design team 14
and the biologists on that very issue. It will come down to really the coordination with 15
the regulatory agencies and what they will allow. To some extent, because there is that 16
other project, there's a precedent which they rarely relax their requirements once they've 17
gotten it out of somebody before. We'll continue to work to reduce that. I did talk them 18
out of—everywhere I've got a horizontal piece of wood that sticks out, like at each of the 19
bents in the piles, they wanted bird deterrents out there. I talked them out of that. That's 20
sufficiently low that they won't perch there to hunt. We're making every effort to try and 21
glean back as much as we can. 22
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I had. 23
Commissioner LaMere: Just a quick question. You said that the expected life of the 24
project is 50-75 years. Is that correct? 25
Mr. Notary: Yes, that's the target life. 26
Commissioner LaMere: Some of that has to—is there a way—does that have to do with 27 the choice of the wood and how it goes into the mud? What's the maintenance on 28
something like that to keep it going? 29
Mr. Notary: In our mind, the key elements are going to be the timber post piles. From 30
our understanding, that's an area where the City had spent most of their budget in the 31
past. Although, there were, I think, some issues with the existing railing because you had 32
a lot of metal components in that. There was some problems with that and the detail of 33
how that got connected down at the base. There was a lot of splitting of those particular 34
boards. We've tried to be strategic in some of the details we're using to avoid the things 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
that had trouble in the past on the project and taking a lot of cues from what's out at the 1
Interpretive Center. 2
Commissioner LaMere: That's all I have. 3
Commissioner Greenfield: It's a very comprehensive plan and very well thought out. I 4
applaud you for that. I like the accounting for sea level rise—that's very important given 5
the projected lifetime of the project—also the environmental considerations during 6 construction. I like the traverse plank decking plan that you've suggested. A question on 7
the glass panels versus the wire mesh. I'm wondering is the Interpretive Center happy 8
with the glass panels that they put in. Said another way, if they had to do it over again, 9
would they put the glass panels in or would they put the wire mesh in? That would seem 10
to go a long ways towards answering what to recommend putting there. 11
John Aikin: Hi. John Aikin, City of Palo Alto. We are happy with them. The 12
instructors that give me feedback for the classes that they're taking out there say that the 13
kids gravitate to those glass panels to be able to see out because the pickets are a natural 14
barrier. They're a little bit more maintenance for us, especially when the swallows are 15
nesting and pooping on things, but we're happy with them. One of the issues with 16
continuing that design further out into the marsh, though, is you have more nocturnal 17
species in the marsh that can't see the glass that is designed to reflect UV light. The 18
agency has asked us to narrow that down and perhaps put other kinds of designs on there 19
so that nocturnal birds can see them. We're trying to improve visibility for humans but 20
take visibility away for birds so they don't strike it. One of the things about mesh is 21
horizontal lines human eyes have a harder time seeing through. If we end up going with 22
the mesh design, we may look at a hexagonal pattern or a vertical pattern or something 23
just to try and maximize visibility for people because that's really the goal. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. I was definitely wondering how clean does the 25 glass stay and how much of a problem is that. It sounds like it's manageable. 26
Mr. Aikin: It stays relatively clean. It's actually sort of self-cleaning glass; it sheets stuff 27 off, but we have to go out and clean it off every once in a while too. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: Regarding the deterrent roller rails, it sure seems like a wood 29
railing would be preferable if we can swing that. It sounds like we're considering the 30
roller rails if we're basically tasked to do so. We wouldn't do that unless we had to; is 31
that a correct assessment? 32
Mr. Notaro: I would agree we'd like to avoid them if we can talk them out of it. We'll 33
keep putting that pressure and see where that takes us. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Commissioner Greenfield: Full speed ahead on that one. I like the armrests on the 1
benches. I just wanted to confirm that, given the examples that you have, the benches 2
will be looking out towards the view so the back of the bench will be closest to the main 3
part of the path. 4
Ms. Bansal: Yes. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: I think that's reflected in the drawings. It's just … 6
Ms. Bansal: Yeah, it is reflected on the drawings. 7
Commissioner Greenfield: There was some mention of using the FSC wood for the 8
Alaskan yellow cedar. I'm wondering if that's something that the City has done before or 9
has considered doing or has elected not do because of cost considerations or if this is 10
something new that's available. 11
Mr. Notaro: I just want to make sure I understand. The plastic composite wood, is that 12
what you're talking about? 13
Commissioner Greenfield: No, the Forest Stewardship Council approved wood. 14
Mr. Notaro: Got you. I'm not aware if the City has done that before. They did have me 15
specifically talk to the mills or the suppliers. The ones that I've spoken to have indicated 16
when you use the FSC it basically drops you down to—about 15 percent of the mills will 17
certify. For the Alaskan yellow cedar in particular, it's a tree that's naturally in decline at 18
the moment because of environmental changes, temperature changes and things. The 19
material is good for up to 80 years after the tree dies, so they're currently harvesting 20
primarily a lot of these stands of the trees that have died. There is a general supply out 21
there. Also in talking with them on the FSC, there will be a—if you go that route, there is 22
a premium that you pay for that. That would be estimated about 10-15 percent price 23
point, and it takes about—because of the fewer mills, you need an extra month basically 24
in lead time for acquiring the material. That may have a factor as to when we can get the 25 design done and out to bid. We just need to factor that far enough in advance to account 26 for that extra time. 27
Commissioner Greenfield: Is time more of a consideration than cost at this point? 28
Mr. Notaro: I guess it depends on when we get everything finalized and can get it out to 29
bid. 30
Commissioner Greenfield: Last question. How confident are we that we can complete 31
the project within the 5-month window? What can we do to help ensure this can be 32
accomplished? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Mr. Notaro: I did take a close look at it. We've consulted with our hydrology consultant 1
to find out a reasonable number of rain delays and potential flood days. We've looked at 2
breaking it down into work crews and structure. One of our key components is 3
panelizing the railing system. Basically, each 12-foot length between the supports, we'd 4
bring out a panelized piece that's constructed offsite. We use the top rail to tie all of 5
those panels together, so we'd have a longer top rail. It's all attached to the side rim joist. 6 That's one of our key factors in shortening our work window. Based on the numbers we 7
have so far, we're optimistic that we can do that. I have a little bit of float in the 8
schedule. I do need to still, as the design develops, vet it with some more folks in our 9
office and things. Yeah, we definitely want to try and do everything we can to help hit 10
that window. 11
Commissioner Greenfield: If we had a rainy season like we had this past year, would that 12
make this fairly difficult to accomplish? The second part of the question is, if we get 80 13
percent completed and we run out of time, what happens. We just have an 80-percent 14
completed project sitting there for 7 months and then we can get back to it? 15
Mr. Notaro: That would be likely; however, the first 200 feet is open. They would be 16
utilizing that existing structure throughout their construction. We figure they'll be 17
working back from the platform in. There is the opportunity, if we can get it far enough 18
back so that you have to winterize it but we can get it far enough back to the existing 19
portion that was still structurally sound and can stay open, then we could facilitate a 20
transition from the old to the new, a temporary one, at the end of our construction 21
window. 22
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 23
Commissioner McDougall: Or you might just have one 12-foot gap that you had to jump 24
over for 7 months or something. 25
Mr. Notaro: Spring board. 26
Commissioner McDougall: Your first question in the presentation was the number of 27 overlooks, and nobody's spoken to that. In the presentation, you talked about the 28
different interaction—you talked about interaction with the Baylands, and you talked 29
about the different kinds of elements. I don't mean to be cynical or whatever, but it's all 30
Baylands. I'm not sure that there are different elements as you go. You could create 31
different stories; I agree with that. We have no evidence of the cost of having four bulb-32
outs or whatever you want to call them, overlooks, as opposed to just one. I would 33
personally vote for fewer. That would reduce the cost and would allow us to get it done 34
faster, if that ever became a question. My second is it wasn't in the presentation that you 35
did today, but it was in the material that we had ahead of time. We're providing PG&E 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
access to their platforms along the way. My question is has anybody asked PG&E what 1
their participation in paying for this is. 2
Ms. Bansal: We have not. 3
Commissioner McDougall: I don't know that anybody here could answer that, but I 4
would think that, if we're providing PG&E access, it would be kindly of them to help. 5
Ms. Bansal: We are planning to meet with PG&E to discuss about that interface, where 6 their catwalk crosses over our Boardwalk. We have not discussed about them paying for 7
… 8
Commissioner McDougall: I don't know why we wouldn't ask. I would encourage us to 9
ask. Frankly, I'm going to ask you again later how much they're paying. I don't think we 10
should just give it to them without the question. In terms of the rollers that spin or 11
spinning rollers on the handrails, I'm both skeptical, as other people have suggested here, 12
about the importance of that. Although, eliminating raptors' opportunities, if we can—I 13
don't know what percentage we're eliminating. I think that's important. If you go to 14
Byxbee, where there are all the signage holders—there's no signs but signage holders—15
they're all covered in guano or whatever you want to call it at this point. It's obvious that 16
that's where they will sit or birds will sit. If we cover all of the rails, but still in your 17
picture here it shows the signage platform, all you're going to do is make it so that we 18
know exactly where the birds are going to sit. They're going to sit on the signs. I'd like 19
to hear at some point a more complete explanation of, if we put rails on 90 percent of it, 20
does that solve the problem because the birds just sit on the other 10 percent. They're not 21
stupid. What we're trying to protect is—another comment is in the documents we had, it 22
said several endangered species. I don't know that there's really several as opposed to 23
two. Certainly, the CEQA for the Buckeye Creek was pretty definitive in terms of what it 24
was. I don't know at what point will we define how much we're trying to protect. My 25 lack of success in seeing Clapper Rails or Ridgway Rails as you call them today tells me 26 they're pretty rare and the same with the mouse. I'm all for protecting it; I'd just like to 27 see better definition. The conversation about whether we're using wire mesh or 28
plexiglass, one of the things that's incredibly successful in the Environmental Volunteers' 29
EcoCenter is the plexiglass in the floor, not just the plexiglass on the wall. I would like 30
to hear if we've explored that at the overlooks or at the far end, if there was an 31
opportunity to do that. I realize from what was previously mentioned that would 32
probably be a maintenance issue because people will step on it or whatever. You don't 33
have to put it on the pathway; you can put it to the side or whatever. Maybe you have to 34
replace it every 3 years. I don't know what it would be, but it's certainly an effective way 35
to allow people to really get a close look. My other comment is I would agree with the 36
comment that, if we—I think more than one comment's about if we didn't have to go to 37
13 1/2 feet, I'd sure like to not go to 13 1/2 feet. All of a sudden this feels like the New 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
York—what do you call it where you're on the old railway line, and you're 30 feet above 1
the ground? I'm a little worried that we're going to lose that contact, that interaction that 2
you talked about with the Baylands if we do that. My last comment would be about the 3
cedar. I think the issue is 50 years later we not only know a lot more about which woods 4
are good for this kind of thing, but care a lot more about which woods are good for this 5
kind of thing. I understand why it's cedar at this point, and I would applaud that. Thank 6 you. I think this is really good work, so I'm really excited about getting it done. 7
Chair Reckdahl: I have a couple of complaints. One complaint being just the height. 8
You'll lose that connection to the Baylands. Is there any way that we can lower that 9
down or at some of the overlooks have some steps that go down? Are there panels down 10
below that the kids could go down and see? When you're that far up, you can't see the 11
pickleweed at all. If you get down close, you get a much different view than if you're up 12
10 feet above. Even if we can't do the whole thing at the height, can we have portions 13
that go down to provide the close viewing of the pickleweed? Next is the schedule. 14
When I look at the schedule, it says agency permits—first of all, I'm surprised that Don 15
didn't catch this, fall 2017 to summer 2018. It would be nice to have a little bit of 16
resolution on that. It kind of scares me that we're doing the permitting and then starting 17
construction right after the permitting. We're really susceptible to permitting delays. Is 18
there anything that we can do to feed the preliminary designs to the permitting agencies 19
so they can get a first cut through and then, when we get the final designs, we can get it to 20
them? We know it's not going to change dramatically. 21
Ms. Bansal: At this point, we are hoping to—we cannot submit applications for 22
permitting before CEQA is circulated and approved. The reason you'll see these seasons 23
right now is it's a wide range. We will have some more, better understanding of the 24
months or definitive dates maybe in a couple of months. We are currently anticipating 7-25 8 months of permitting, maybe by April if we do circulation in September or October. 26 Then, we can continue working on the design to progress it to 100-percent design, and 27 then we will have a couple of months for sending the project out to bid and award 28
construction contract. That's our best case. We are still hoping for that. 29
Chair Reckdahl: CEQA is scheduled to end in December. 30
Ms. Bansal: End of December, but that would be approval of CEQA document. It may 31
be November; it depends on when the CEQA is circulated. This is just giving you more 32
conservative schedule. 33
Chair Reckdahl: When we look at all these things, are there things we can do in parallel? 34
What can we do to push this to the left? If you had to push this to the left, what would 35
you attack? 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Ms. Bansal: I think what we can do at this point in parallel is continue design, but we 1
cannot submit any application for review, any permitting application, before CEQA is 2
circulated and the comment period ends. 3
Chair Reckdahl: That CEQA has to have the final design on it? 4
Ms. Bansal: No, it doesn't have to have final design. The design we currently have 5
would be adequate for CEQA. 6
Chair Reckdahl: Can we start the CEQA right now? 7
Ms. Bansal: Yeah. We are working on the CEQA document right now. 8
Chair Reckdahl: When will that be released? 9
Ms. Bansal: We are hoping sometime in September or latest in October. 10
Chair Reckdahl: Can we pull that to the left at all? 11
Ms. Bansal: I'm sorry? 12
Chair Reckdahl: Can we make that start earlier? 13
Ms. Bansal: Probably not. Maybe mid-September is the best case I can think of. 14
Chair Reckdahl: The Baylands Boardwalk is probably the most common thing that 15
people complain to me about. They say, "It's been closed forever. What's taking so 16
long?" The public just doesn't appreciate this hoop jumping that we have to go through. 17
Still, can we do anything to make the hoop jumping go faster? This whole project, we've 18
been too happy just letting it slip. It'll get done when it gets done. Every year that goes 19
by is one more year that the kids don't get to see it. The kids grow up, and they don't 20
appreciate it anymore. You're missing a generation here. 21
Ms. Bansal: We will try to have some initial discussion with permitting agencies. We 22
will discuss with their environmental consultant and see if we can feed in some 23
information to them about the design. We can get back to you on that. 24
Chair Reckdahl: Anything that we can accelerate this. Anything we can start right now, 25 I think, we'd be well served to do that. I really want to make—I agree with David. I 26 really want to see the 2018 start. 27
Ms. Bansal: We are trying for that. 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Vice Chair Moss: If it goes to October 2018 or November 2018, can we go halfway out 1
by January 31, 2019, and finish it up the following year or do we have to do all or 2
nothing? 3
Mr. Notaro: The problem with the halfway out is we've only got existing Boardwalk that 4
goes 25 percent out, that's open. We need to target, if we're going to split it, try and get it 5
back all the way up to the current open portion. We'd have to try and construct 75 6 percent. 7
Vice Chair Moss: You're going from the outside in. I'm thinking to go from the inside 8
out. 9
Mr. Notaro: I see. If you go from inside—if we have a … 10
Commissioner McDougall: Or go from the middle in, in the first tranche and then go 11
from the total end to the middle. 12
Mr. Notaro: If we're resigned to a two-season construction, then you have the ability to 13
build out from the one end. Then, you would have use of half of the structure for January 14
to September. You'd lose it again until they finish the construction. Yeah, that is a 15
feasible option, I think, from the staging we can do. 16
Commissioner McDougall: If it's 3 years, a third. 17
Mr. Notaro: We don't want to go that route. 18
Commissioner McDougall: The other thing I would suggest is that communications and 19
marketing about the status needs to be part of the plan and the scheduling that you have 20
there. To the Chairman's point, people are frustrated, and part of that frustration is lack 21
of understanding of what's happening. 22
Ms. Bansal: We will make sure that we … 23
Commissioner McDougall: There needs to be a Facebook page for the Boardwalk or 24
something. 25
Ms. Bansal: Absolutely. 26
Commissioner Cribbs: This is crazy probably. Is there any way that somebody at CEQA 27 could understand about the nesting birds and the short season that we have to construct 28
this and give us some sort of go, start? Did we ever ask that? I know you're not 29
supposed to be able to do anything until you have the design and have it submitted and 30
having CEQA review it. Because not everybody has this issue about the nesting birds 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
here with only—what is it—5 months for construction, can we not get some sort of 1
variance or a pass or something? 2
Ms. Bansal: I do not think that is possible with the permitting agencies. When we were 3
doing Interpretive Center, we had the same limitations. Maybe we can do a 6-day work 4
during construction. We can incorporate something like that to expedite construction. 5
Commissioner McDougall: I'm afraid it's only because they understand. They do 6 understand the nesting birds; that's the problem. 7
Ms. O'Kane: It's a matter of complying with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It would be 8
a violation of a federal law. 9
Chair Reckdahl: If we go outside of that range, you're saying? 10
Ms. O'Kane: Yeah. 11
Chair Reckdahl: Anything that you can do to move things in parallel, to do things 12
iteratively instead of just waiting for the final and passing it on would be very good for 13
the project. 14
Ms. Bansal: We will make sure—we will work with our consultant, and we will also 15
have discussion with permitting agencies. 16
Chair Reckdahl: You're coming back next month for the PIO? 17
Ms. Bansal: We are planning for that. 18
Chair Reckdahl: That PIO will have the final design or is that … 19
Ms. Bansal: It will still have preliminary design but all the project components and scope 20
of the project. 21
Chair Reckdahl: The PIO then will go to Council thereafter. Council has funding 22
arranged? We don't have to ask for funding on this. This is … 23
Ms. Bansal: The design funding is in the CIP, and $1 million is in 2019 fiscal year 24
budget, already in the budget. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We appreciate it. 26
Ms. Bansal: Thank you very much. 27
Commissioner McDougall: Is the presentation that you gave available on the website for 28
us? 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Ms. Bansal: We will make it available tomorrow. 1
Commissioner McDougall: Could you do one thing for me? Could you add your names 2
to the front page? 3
Ms. Bansal: Absolutely. 4
Commissioner McDougall: If you do that, that would give some of us the opportunity if 5
we were meeting with Council Members to make sure that we were lobbying and helping 6 them understand what we're trying to do here. 7
Ms. Bansal: Thank you. 8
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 9
3. Review of the Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Long Range Plan 10
and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Chair Reckdahl: The next is Rinconada Park and Junior Museum and Zoo Long Range 12
Plan and draft. Peter Jensen will be talking about that. 13
Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 14
City of Palo Alto. We're going to go through a presentation tonight for the Rinconada 15
Long Range Plan as well as touch on the environmental work that is associated with the 16
project in conjunction with the Long Range Plan. Because the Zoo facility of the Junior 17
Museum and Zoo is within the boundaries of the park, the two projects were tied 18
together. We'll be touching some on that as well because the environmental report ties 19
those two things and starts to look at the development of the Long Range Plan and what's 20
recommended in that as well as the proposed Junior Museum and Zoo development, 21
which you've seen recently and will see again. I'm going to go through a presentation. 22
We'll go through the Long Range Plan first. When we're done with that, I think we can 23
do questions specifically to the Long Range Plan. I'll do a short presentation very similar 24
to the Master Plan CEQA work that we did there, the environmental work, and then we 25 can answer questions about that as well. John Aikin is here from the Junior Museum and 26 Zoo. If there are specific questions about that, they can address those as well. Just go 27 through the presentation here. The Rinconada Long Range Plan started in 2012. It was 28
put together to review and evaluate the park and make recommendations on the future 29
development and improvements of the park. It went through a full design and 30
community outreach process, which we can talk about that schedule. The goals of the 31
Rinconada Long Range Plan were to create a better connection and awareness to all the 32
community facilities that exist around and within the park; coordinate and update the 33
park resources and amenities to reflect the current and future needs of park users and 34
guests; respond to park usage as it relates to the surrounding uses and the neighborhood; 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
also to address building and ADA Codes and to coordinate the user group objectives. 1
This is a schedule of the process that was undertaken for the Long Range Plan. It 2
included several meetings with the Parks and Rec Commission as well as the community. 3
A stakeholder group was also involved; that was made up of representatives of the 4
facilities around that, some City staff including the Children's Library, Lucie Stern, the 5
Junior Museum and Zoo, the Art Center, the Library as well as the community groups 6 that use the park regularly including the swimmers, the tennis association, the Girl 7
Scouts, the Boy Scouts and the like. You can see that in the process of 2012 and 2013 8
the major work was done to put the Long Range Plan together. At that point, the CEQA 9
work started. Like I said, it was tied to the JMZ project. That project has been under 10
development. If you've been on the Commission for a while, I think you've seen it a few 11
times over the last few years. Getting that design finalized to a point where we could 12
embark on the CEQA work has dictated the schedule we've been on. If you'd like to see 13
more information on the project, the project webpage does have all the presentations that 14
went along with the process of the project. In general, what we found from the 15
community was that the community wanted to maintain the park pretty much as it is 16
today. The Plan does a good job of addressing that need. The actual—let's see here. The 17
actual park and how it's broken down into its pieces in the Long Range Plan are known as 18
the park elements. Those park elements that were really reviewed were the pedestrian 19
and bicycle circulation, the gateways into the park, the playground areas, the area around 20
the Girl Scout house which is the location of the only group picnic area in Rinconada 21
Park, the main lawn area, the tennis courts, the pool area, the part that runs along the 22
street frontage along Embarcadero known as the arboretum because of the existing 23
mature trees that are there including an historic or heritage oak tree number two for the 24
City of Palo Alto which is a 200-year-old oak tree, the concrete bowl, the Magical Forest, 25 the substation perimeter, and then the Hopkins Street frontage. If you had an opportunity 26 to take a look at the Long Range Plan report, it broke down the park into these elements, 27 and then they discussed what the recommendations were for future either maintaining or 28
improving those spaces. One of the neat parts about Rinconada Park is that it does sit in 29
the middle of very diverse facilities for the City. I named them previously . It does act as 30
the hub. One of the main factors for the Long Range Plan was looking at the circulation 31
through the park and how it could be enhanced to connect the facilities that do exist 32
around the park. This diagram was put together looking at the different levels of paths 33
that are there. The yellow is the primary pathway that's connecting from the Library over 34
to the Lucie Stern Center, which would be a more enhanced walkway. The orange 35
represents some secondary walkways that feed into the main walkway. The purple are a 36
level below that, that are connecting the secondary pathways together. It was very 37
important—we looked at actually two different designs for the main pathway in the 38
process of the Master Plan's development. One that followed and went more towards the 39
Hopkins side. It was felt by the Commission, staff, and the community that the more 40
direct link through the middle of the park currently, very similar to what it is now, would 41
be the way to maintain that. I would like to say too that in the development of the Junior 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Museum and Zoo plan that we've developed a better connection from Middlefield Road 1
into the park, which is a great enhancement from what we started to look at in the Long 2
Range Plan a few years ago. It's also interesting to note too because you've seen the 3
process of the Parks Master Plan for all the parks. This is a Long Range Plan, which is 4
very similar to that, even though it was put together a few years ago. In the process of 5
time, things change and evolve. You'll see that the parking lot design shown in the plans 6 here is not what is being proposed today. It's been tweaked a little bit because of the 7
more intense design process that has gone into the Junior Museum and Zoo. The 8
recommendations of the Plan over time will be something that we can revisit. The 9
majority of them are very good recommendations that don't impact the park a lot but add 10
the amenities we need there. Like the Master Plan, it is an evolving document, and it's 11
not totally set in stone. I'm going to go through four slides here. Each one of them 12
represents a different aspect of the recommendations to the park. This one is the existing 13
park element to be enhanced. These are things that exist currently in the park, and the 14
recommendation is what we can do to improve them slightly. The first one is the open 15
turf area. That's talking about maintaining that space as it is now. That's a very 16
important area of the park. It's used for large group gatherings. We would like to 17
maintain that. We'd like to improve the irrigation and drainage of that site to make it 18
more usable and to make it more sustainable. The children's playground to the west, right 19
behind the Girl Scout house, will remain in that location with continued equipment 20
upgrades and ADA upgrades as we deal with playgrounds over time. The multiuse 21
concrete bowl will maintain its current form, adding some amenities like power. That 22
can be used more as a performance space that it doesn't have the opportunity now. The 23
arboretum area would be to address removing the turf in those spaces to help mostly the 24
existing oak trees that are there. The tennis courts, a slight shift of the tennis courts to 25 allow a pathway. We'll talk about that pathway in the future. If you walk through 26 Rinconada Park in that location, you have to circumvent the well site and through the 27 Magical Forest to get to the pool. That seems to be a popular path to get to the pool, and 28
we'd like to make that an actual, real path that addresses some safety and access concerns 29
at that point. The pool area, maintaining the pool area and expanding the deck. The 30
Long Range Plan doesn't delve into a recommendation of expanding the pool. I think we 31
all realize that that is an option to do in the future if that is decided. What the Long 32
Range Plan does do is expand the pool deck around the pool to provide the opportunity to 33
have a full-size, 50-meter pool installed there. Of course, when we talk about the 34
implementation over the long range, we can talk about when we're planning on doing that 35
and the cost of doing such a thing. The group picnic area adjacent to the Girl Scout 36
house will remain, just be enhanced with new tables and a new trash receptacle area to 37
remove the dumpsters from that area. The Girl Scout house location would remain the 38
same with some added amenities there. We are proposing to add some type of fire pit 39
area that would replicate the Boy Scout house fire pit area to provide the same amenities 40
to the Girl Scout house. The main loop walkway, we would maintain that. We've heard 41
from a lot of community members that the pathway around the main turf area is used as 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
an exercise facility, so we want to maintain that circular pathway and even have the 1
opportunity to increase the distance of it. These next items are existing elements in the 2
park to be impacted more by their improvements or renovations. This includes the 3
children's tot lot. Currently, that children's tot lot is closer to the tennis courts under an 4
existing heritage oak tree. It's not the greatest location in association with that oak tree 5
because of the compaction and just the hard playing that's happening under it. The Plan 6 is proposing to relocate that tot lot closer to the Girl Scout house, combine it with the 7
existing children's playground over there. The other reason for doing that is it allows 8
caregivers the opportunity for their kids to play in one location without having to watch 9
in two far locations. Providing a new restroom structure. The current one that's in the 10
middle of the park, we'd like to remove that aspect because it does block a key view 11
straight through the park that's connecting all the elements. That would be done by 12
adding on a new aspect of the pool building for a restroom facility there. We'd have to 13
have a new restroom building structure anyway to meet current ADA standards. Moving 14
that, like I said, out of the line of sight would be beneficial. The fencing around Walter 15
Hays School, enhancing that somewhat. Right now, it's chain link, and it does take up 16
quite a bit of view out there. It's not the most pleasant. That could definitely be 17
addressed. Creating a better connection to the rear of Walter Hays School, we heard that 18
a lot from the community. A lot of the students from Walter Hays actually come in 19
through the backside, through the park. There's not really a direct path to get you to that 20
gate. We looked at doing that as well. The reconfiguration of the Lucie Stern/Rinconada 21
parking lot, which is hard to figure out and drive through. Looking at renovating that to 22
make it a better and safer experience. This next slides discusses the new improvements 23
to the park that don't exist there now. That would be the addition of two new group 24
picnic areas. As I mentioned before, Rinconada Park only has one designated group 25 picnic area now. There is demand to have more group picnic areas. One of those 26 locations is behind the tennis courts, which there are picnic tables there now. This would 27 just be a more organized and larger group picnic area out along Hopkins on the west side 28
of the tennis courts. That development with that picnic area in the Long Range Plan is 29
proposed to have a covered picnic shelter. The tennis association has shown interest in 30
wanting to develop that and help fund that structure. The local tennis group uses 31
Rinconada as their main facility. They hold tournaments out there. They don't really 32
have a check-in or a place for their committee to meet. Along with funding that, they 33
have requested that the structure have a room for them to use for storage and for their 34
meeting and also have an outdoor area that larger groups can meet. It also could be used 35
by the community when they are not using it for picnic purposes. The next one is called 36
out for bocce courts. 37
Chair Reckdahl: Where would this new building be? 38
Mr. Jensen: It's right next to the tennis courts, right here. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Chair Reckdahl: That's where the tot lot is right now. 1
Mr. Jensen: The tot lot is more underneath the oak tree, but it's right adjacent to it. The 2
bocce courts and the group picnic area are in this area adjacent between the pool and the 3
power substation. The Plan recommends to activate that area and to provide some type of 4
usable activity in that space. Bocce is an option. When we get closer to developing that 5
space and when we get it on the books as a CIP to do the project there, we'll have further 6 discussions about what that space is actually going to be developed as. We want to add 7
two trash enclosures. If you've been through the park, you'll see that the dumpsters are 8
scattered around. We want to make a specific place for them that is more concealed, that 9
trucks coming to pick them up can more easily access than where they are now. 10
Developing a better plaza outside the pool area, providing adult exercise equipment in the 11
park associated with the playgrounds, providing entry monuments at the entries, mostly at 12
the entry from Rinconada parking lot and then from the Newell Street entry. The idea is 13
to either use art or some type of structure or architecture there to highlight that those are 14
the main entries. From the parking lot or from across the street at the Library and Art 15
Center on the Newell side, you would very clearly see where the entryway to the main 16
connection pathway that leads you through the park. Developing a new walkway along 17
Newell, along the power substation. Right now, along Newell there is a stand of redwood 18
trees that are planted underneath the high voltage lines there. Continuously they are 19
topped every few years because they, of course, cannot grow up into the high voltage 20
lines. Unfortunately, the redwood tree is known for its height and columnar form; it's not 21
that way anymore. That continuous cutting of the tree like that will eventually lead to the 22
tree's demise. What we would like to do there is actually remove the redwood trees from 23
that location, pull the walkway off the back of the curb and get it more towards the 24
middle of the space, have it more meandering in that space, much more of a nicer 25 pedestrian walk that's leading you from the corner to the main walkway, and then 26 replacing the tree planting in there with a more appropriate size for the power lines, 27 native trees in re-treeing that area to help conceal the power substation there. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Where are those trees on the map? 29
Mr. Jensen: That area would be right along here. 30
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 31
Mr. Jensen: Right along Newell. If you're standing at the Art Center/Library and you're 32
looking right here, you're looking right at that row of trees. Of course, for sustainability 33
purposes we'd like to address removing some of the turf area that's out there, especially in 34
spaces where it's not really usable, on the edges, and also capturing and filtering of storm 35
water onsite. We have an opportunity to do that as well. The last slide for improvements 36
are the recommended street improvements around Rinconada Park. Most of these have 37
started to occur already. Like I said, we started to do this back in 2012 and 2013. You'll 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
see actually a project right now going on, on Middlefield at the Lucie Stern Center. 1
That's adding an enhanced walkway there. That was one of the aspects and 2
recommendations of the Long Range Plan. A few years ago, an enhanced walkway was 3
installed on Newell between the Art Center and the park. We'd like to also add an 4
enhanced shuttle stop along Newell. There's one there now; it's basically a park bench. 5
We talked about covering it or making it special somehow in that location. If you've 6 been to the park, there's head-in parking that runs along Hopkins. There is a location 7
now towards the west. If you move towards Lucie Stern, that parking could have the 8
opportunity to be expanded to give a few more parking spaces over there that would start 9
to address some of the tennis and pool users, to give them a little bit more flexibility with 10
our parking to use those facilities. The next few slides I'll go through show the ideas 11
behind implementation. The Long Range Plan is set up to be developed over a 25-year 12
period. That's mostly based on economics and getting all the money necessary to 13
renovate the park. We're looking at doing a project there every 3-5 years to fulfill the 14
Long Range Plan. It will go through the process just as the projects of the Master Plan go 15
through our standard CIP where the projects will be on the books. We know we want to 16
do these things in Rinconada Park, and we will discuss them and address them every year 17
to try to get them into the calendar. These next slides, like I said, focus on what those 18
phases will be. That first phase looks at the west end of the park. It's more in association 19
with the development of the Junior Museum and Zoo. While that project is going on, of 20
course, we want to renovate the parking lot and then renovate some of the amenities that 21
are down there like the playground. That constitutes the first phase of the project. We'd 22
like to finish enhancing the pathway that runs through the park, since that is one of the 23
main objectives of the Long Range Plan, which would focus on Phase 2. We'd look at 24
the development of the space in front of the pool as well as the development of the 25 second group picnic area. The third phase starts to look at the main lawn and renovating 26 that space as well as developing the third group picnic area and the covered picnic trellis 27 with renovations also to the Newell walkway, completing the connection of the walkway 28
along Hopkins. That, I guess, is a two-phase thing. Currently there is no sidewalk along 29
the Magical Forest section, which is this section right here. It has the decomposed 30
granite pathway. We'd like to connect the concrete path from there to there, so it is a 31
continuous one. There also is not a concrete path between the parking area and the tennis 32
courts. There is ample room to create a walkway there, so we'd also like to continue the 33
walkway in front of the tennis courts as well, and that hooks up to the sidewalk that's on 34
the other side to enhance that whole edge and the connection to that whole edge. It also 35
looks at the pathway improvements to the arboretum and upgrading those paths there as 36
well as kind of the secondary entries along Embarcadero to give the park more of a 37
statement so you can notice it and see the entryways from Embarcadero as driving by. 38
The fourth phase is the development of the arboretum, which again there's not a lot of 39
development there. It's mostly the renovation and removal of turf to enhance the trees 40
and then the minor renovations for the concrete bowl. The fifth phase is looking at the 41
Magical Forest and developing area between the pool and the power substation that's 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
there. The sixth phase is put further down the line. I touched a little bit earlier on 1
creating a pathway in this location that currently ad hoc-ly exists there now, but we'd like 2
to make a real pathway. In the scheme of the tennis courts, the paving will need to be 3
replaced at that point. When it does, then we'll shift the whole tennis court area over 15 4
feet, but that is not really required for the next 10-15 years' timeframe. We're going to 5
allow that transition to play itself out naturally. Of course, the final phase of this is the 6 swimming pool area. You can see what's happening here is the development of the 7
expanded pool building with a restroom facility inside. There's also been some talk to 8
have a multipurpose room in there that could be used for classes. A lot of classes happen 9
at Lucie Stern. It's a beautiful building, but I don't think it was intended to be a 10
gymnasium. It would be nice to have another space for small-scale classes to have a 11
location. You see the actual pushing out of the pool deck area that would allow the pool 12
to be expanded to a larger size in the future. The next slide starts to talk a little about our 13
schedule. We're here tonight to represent the Long Range Plan to the Commission since 14
most of the new members have not seen the project at all. We will be coming back at 15
some point when the CEQA aspect is done. I would say that is currently going on now. 16
It's a 30-day review period we're in the middle of. It ends on September 5th. If you have 17
any comments per that environmental study—again it's for the Long Range Plan and the 18
Junior Museum and Zoo—September 5th is the deadline or cutoff to comments per that 19
environmental study. I will get more in detail of the findings of that study in a second. 20
Of course, we will take the actual Long Range Plan and the environmental study to 21
Council for adoption. I'm hoping that happens at the end of this year, that we can do that. 22
Phase 1 construction, again, is predicated on the construction of the JMZ or the Junior 23
Museum and Zoo, which I think we're currently looking at around the summer of 2019. 24
Whenever that takes places is when that first phase will kick off and be done. It'll, again, 25 focus on the parking lot and then that west end of the park. With that, I'll take questions 26 and comments about the Long Range Plan. 27
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 28
Commissioner McDougall: You shouldn't have done that, Keith. First off, I wanted to 29
say I'm impressed with all of this. I'm particularly impressed with this fold-out drawing 30
that has probably 700 different items on it. I will talk to this, the presentation just made 31
briefly for a minute. The slide that says project goals talks about create better connection 32
and awareness and facilities around and within the park. The one thing that I thought was 33
missing from this is another version. I understand why this one is just the park. In fact, 34
there are tennis courts here. There's the Library here. There's another park across the 35
street. There's the community center. Then, there's Lucie Stern and whatnot down here. 36
The same comment that I made with the bridge, the safe routes, and access and so on. I'll 37
use this while I'm holding it up. On that same slide, project goals, it says park users and 38
guests. Down below, it says coordination of user group objectives. I'm missing the same 39
thing I've missed on again the bridge one, for example, of who really is the audience. On 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
the bridge one, it was are we the spandex crowd or the weekend crowd or the Google 1
crowd or whatever. Here, I didn't see anything either in the presentation or the 2
documents before that that said what we're really worried about is the aging population of 3
Palo Alto because that's the speech you get all the time or is it the teens or whatever. 4
What, I think, this addresses is the organized groups, the tennis players, the swimmers, all 5
of whom had their own lobbying capability. It didn't address the people who didn't have 6 that. The reason I say that is, if you go back to some of the other park stuff we've done 7
and said, "What are people most interested in, in Palo Alto," you get access to nature. 8
Nothing here really says, by the way, access to nature. On the other hand, you're doing 9
things that are access to nature. That's why I looked at this and said the arboretum area 10
and behind the power station area and the Magical Forest and then extending that across 11
the street to the rest of the redwoods and the other parks that are over there are all in 12
nature area. It would seem to me that if we looked at all of that as a nature area, maybe 13
we would address it differently in terms of access. I was there today because I knew we 14
were doing this tonight. I wanted to go through it again. I live relatively close, so I go 15
there all the time. If you go into the Magic Forest, you find feathers on the ground. 16
There are birds in there. How do we make this more of a nature area? This whole area is 17
suitable for accommodating that. The next diagram is the one that shows the paths. 18
Thank you for doing that because I was going to recommend we have something like 19
that. My first comment would go back to the slide above where it says pedestrian and 20
bicycle circulation. I would love to see two diagrams, one that said bicycle circulation 21
and one that said pedestrian circulation. They're not the same thing. I advocated them 22
being separate in the Comprehensive Plan all along. Different people do different things. 23
Inside a park like this, they're counter to one another, I believe. You have to worry about, 24
if you have a 15-foot wide path, does that mean you can go faster on your bike, and it 25 then becomes more dangerous. I don't know. I think we should address that. The other 26 thing that this does—I have a couple of friends who are currently having to use a walker. 27 I end up going to Mountain View Baylands or whatever with them or going to Stanford 28
with them where I can take them with their walkers. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a 29
trail—if this thing showed a trail all the way around, not just around the grass area but all 30
the way around the park? Silly me, when you said circulatory pathway, I got sucked in 31
because I said circular, but it's not circular. It's a straight line through the middle of the 32
park. I would sure like us to see—if you were really imaginative about it, you could 33
make a very long walk that went across the middle of the park, through the arboretum, 34
around behind the Magic Forest. You could make it so it was all walkable, and you could 35
even cross the street and go all the way around the Library and through the redwoods 36
there. Since we're always getting speeches about the aging population, I'd sure like to see 37
that. We're trying to address that by having adult exercise areas. Adult exercising is 38
walking these days if we could address that. You say that one of the elements of 39
maintenance is the Magical Forest, and then you say in a further slide that one of the 40
things you're going to do is put a picnic area into the Magical Forest. I think those are 41
contradictory, particularly if you do what you've done in the arboretum, put concrete 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
platforms on which to put the picnic tables. That's a dangerous thing to do with all those 1
redwoods. In the next slide, we talk about the restroom structure being part of the 2
swimming pool. Does that mean the restrooms will only be open when the swimming 3
pool is open? 4
Mr. Jensen: No. 5
Commissioner McDougall: We need to make that clear, that that's one of the things. I'll 6 skip some of this stuff. The other thing is you've got an enhanced shuttle stop along 7
Newell. I guess that's okay because I can't figure out where else you'd put a shuttle stop. 8
It'd sure be interesting if you could make the shuttle stop be an indentation or something. 9
In redoing the whole park, I'm not so sure why you wouldn't change where the main 10
entrance was instead of just having it at the two ends. Could we maybe put the main 11
entrance to be along Hopkins? I applaud what you're doing by adding potentially seven 12
more parking spots along Hopkins. Is that all? Can't we find a way to add more? The 13
parking usage here is a bit of a contradiction. It's not a contradiction; it's a conflict. 14
We're going to put in a brand new, beautiful Junior Museum and Zoo that's going to 15
attract, I believe, more people. You've got more parking, and now you're making that 16
also parking for people at the same time for your park. I would try and find that. 17
Anything we could do to eliminate access along Embarcadero? One of the other things 18
you said is you want visibility of the entrance into the park on Embarcadero. I would do 19
anything you possibly could to hide the entrance. Yes, you may want to get into the park, 20
into that part of the arboretum, but I think the parking right up against the fire station 21
there is a very dangerous thing when you're coming along Embarcadero. If we're going 22
to the park, maybe we can walk a little further. The only other thing I thought when I 23
was over there is as you redo some parts of the park, if there was some ways to make 24
some elevation change, even little mounds that made you—it's just incredibly flat. I've 25 got more notes, but I'll write them down and send them to you. Thank you. I told you, 26 you'd be sorry to let me go first. 27
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 28
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. Lots of excellent plans and ideas and details. I 29
especially like the enhancements near the Girl Scout house, the combined play areas, 30
removing turf in the arboretum, protections for the heritage oak in the tot area, improved 31
focus on alternate transportation. I do like the idea to have separate bike and pedestrian 32
circulation diagrams. The connections to adjacent facilities is important to consider. 33
Maybe it doesn't fit in this document, but it would be nice if we could find a way to 34
dovetail that in. Could you just clarify the main parking lot plan as far as the flow? 35
There's access from Middlefield, and there's access from Hopkins. Those sections do 36
connect over the raised pedestrian way? 37
Mr. Jensen: Yes. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Commissioner Greenfield: That'll be a raised pedestrian bikeway that you have to go 1
slowly over. Thank you. Regarding the Magic Forest, mention is made that the 2
redwood's shallow rooting structure would "limit improvements in this area." I'm 3
struggling with the implicit philosophy of this wording and wonder if we could focus on 4
advocating and planning for planting species native to the redwood forest understory and 5
look at that as being the development rather than considering hardscape. I agree that we 6 want to avoid concrete in the area for picnic areas or what have you. 7
Mr. Jensen: I think the idea was that the actual picnic tables would be just loose picnic 8
tables. They would not be attached to the ground. They actually would not sit on any 9
type of pad; they would just sit on the existing grade that was there. The Magical Forest 10
does take up an area of the park. It is a beautiful space but not overly used for items. I 11
think there is some debate on having anything there at all, just benches. When we have 12
that aspect of the project to enhance that area, we do want to hash that out and discuss 13
more of what we want to have there. The idea would be to have the least amount of 14
impact. Right now we would consider the Magical Forest as one entity as all the trees are 15
growing together. They're basically all as one. Because of that interconnectedness, it 16
does make it very difficult to start to build or develop things in there that have any type of 17
impact at all. Currently, they are and have been under extreme stress. Unfortunately, the 18
redwood tree our City is named after, El Palo Alto, lived in a very isolated area. Outside 19
that area, redwoods require a lot of irrigation. We've had to address that and start to 20
water those trees more because we do want to maintain that space. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: The trees are certainly cherished here, and they also don't 22
really belong here historically or ecologically. I think that's all the reason to focus on 23
preserving this grove. They have suffered in the drought years of being under-watered. 24
Could we consider adding interpretive signage about redwood forests and redwood 25 ecology to further focus on that area? It seems like that would be a plus for the area. 26 You mentioned there was a desire to improve the path through the area. I'm assuming 27 that doesn't mean paving in the area or is that paving on the side by the tennis courts? Is 28
that what you're talking about? 29
Mr. Jensen: Yeah, it would be closer to the tennis courts. We do want to try to limit the 30
amount of compaction to the soil there and direct people to a more established pathway. 31
We did try to move it on the other side of the well site to avoid impacts to the trees. 32
Commissioner Greenfield: There were mentions that there would be bike racks added, 33
but I didn't see them on the diagrams anywhere. I was wondering if there was a reason 34
for that or if they could be added so people could comment. 35
Mr. Jensen: We can put a symbol on there showing the degree of the additions. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Commissioner Greenfield: I understand this Plan's been in progress for a number of 1
years now. Pickleball seems to be rapidly growing in popularity. It could be expected 2
that it'll have a strong foothold within the next 25 years. I'm wondering if it would 3
appropriate to include any reference to pickleball within the tennis court and pool area 4
section. 5
Mr. Jensen: At the time of the—like I said, all these projects will come back to the 6 Commission and to the community for further feedback. When this plan was started in 7
2012 and 2013, pickleball didn't even exist at the time. You can see this is an interesting 8
study that goes along with the whole Master Plan thing. As time goes on, things will 9
change. Because we have this process where we'll come back and look at these and study 10
these things again, who knows? Maybe pickleball won't exist anymore and there will be 11
another game that we want to look at. That's why I prefaced that area that the bocce court 12
is called out. Who knows exactly at that time what we do want to put in there to activate 13
that area? Definitely, all those things will come up through the process of renovating 14
those spaces. 15
Commissioner Greenfield: In a similar vein, you were subconsciously referring to this 16
earlier. The Magical Bridge type facility is looking for a location in north Palo Alto, I'm 17
sure, on the other side. Is there any consideration that something could happen in 18
Rinconada Park? Maybe it's not appropriate to include it in the document at this time. Is 19
there a place to make a reference to that? 20
Mr. Jensen: I don't know about the scale of the playground being the size of Magical 21
Bridge. Definitely we will bring the ideas and elements that were learned from that 22
playground and the popularity of the playground into what we design and build there in 23
the future. It will be a lot more inclusive. It will have some very similar equipment and 24
accessibility aspect to it. Again, I'm not sure if the scale of the playground will be the 25 same, but it definitely will live along the lines of more of a Magical Bridge than what it is 26 now. Now, it is really not inclusive or accessible at all with the tan bark and the 27 equipment that's there. We do want to address that in the future. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: This discussion would come up at the time the playground is 29
redesigned? 30
Mr. Jensen: Right. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: The older kids and the younger kids. Thank you. Just a 32
minor point in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. On page 37, I'd suggest correcting 33
the scientific names of the tree species. The littleleaf linden is called out as Tilian 34
cordata; it should be Tilia cordata, remove the "n." The linden planetree is referred to as 35
Platanus. I'd suggest Platanus x acerfolia. That's all. Thank you. Great stuff. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 1
Commissioner Cribbs: I will wait 'til the end. 2
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you. A quick comment is I appreciate the ideas of 3
putting some—finding ways to shade areas is very good, especially for the adult area and 4
the younger kids. One thing about the tot play area, as we think about design of that, is 5
it's important to, if it's for tots, have some sort of barrier to entry for the older kids. If 6 there is any shared playground space, it doesn't matter if it—you might think a bigger kid 7
wouldn't want to play on that. They'll migrate towards the whole space. I have a 5-year-8
old, and I see that often going to different types of playgrounds. We go to Eleanor 9
Pardee a lot where you see that. They have an older playground, and within that same 10
complex there's one for more towards 3-7 or whatever. You still get older kids coming 11
over there. Especially if it's for tots, find a way to keep it separate for them. I also saw 12
the idea for the field as those tress age out, you mentioned not replacing them. Is that 13
maybe they become multiuse perhaps for a soccer field at some point? I don't know if 14
they're big enough. Just other ways to use those fields. 15
Mr. Jensen: Yes. The idea would be not to—I think mostly the idea was not to 16
recommend planting any more trees out in the turf area. Mostly that's just for the trees 17
because usually new trees take on a lot of damage when they're planted in the turf area. 18
The existing trees out there are in good health, so they could live past the Plan. The idea 19
would just be that where they are currently, we wouldn't replace it right in the exact same 20
spot. We do and will plant more trees and more native trees in the future around the park, 21
but we would like to keep that turf area open for group activity. 22
Commissioner LaMere: I have a question about the multiuse concrete bowl. Does that 23
currently see use by groups? 24
Mr. Jensen: It does on a smaller scale, not a lot. I think the last thing I really remember 25 being programmed there was the yoga that was done in that space. Rhy can speak more 26 to that. 27
Rhyena Halpern: Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director of CSD. We use that amphitheater 28
space sometimes for the twilight summer concert series we've had there. We had the clay 29
and glass festival there once in the last 5 years. We've had irregular regular use there. 30
That's one thing we hope, when we actually do reconfigure the park, we'll be able to 31
make it a more usable space. 32
Chair Reckdahl: The summer concerts, are they always in the bowl or are there other 33
locations in the park where they do them? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Ms. Halpern: They're at different locations in the park. We also have them at other 1
locations, California Avenue and Mitchell Park. We've actually been using a lot of 2
different locations. We've had them in the bowl, and then we've had them closer up to 3
the west end as well. We try out different ones depending on the sound, the amplification 4
needs of the particular concert. 5
Chair Reckdahl: With the changes to the bowl proposed, would you anticipate that all the 6 concerts would be at that new location or would you still move them around to different 7
parts of Rinconada? 8
Ms. Halpern: I'm not sure because we're moving them around to different parks and 9
locations too. I don't see Rinconada being the only or even the main … 10
Chair Reckdahl: I'm not talking about—if you were to have a concert at Rinconada. 11
Mr. Jensen: I think it mostly depends upon the concert and the anticipated crowd. 12
Ms. Halpern: We haven't determined that. 13
Mr. Jensen: Most of the activities like that, outdoor movies and things of that nature are 14
done in the turf area because it is a larger space that can accommodate a larger crowd. 15
The bowl is restricted in its layout to the size of the crowd. I think that's one factor that 16
limits the bowl space. There are other things we can also discuss with the bowl when we 17
start to enhance it. There was discussion of installing moveable skate apparatuses, that 18
attach to the ground, that you could move out of the way to open up the space if you 19
wanted to use it to active the space more. When it was designed, it was designed as a 20
skate bowl. That's what RHA intended it because at the time that was a good thing to do. 21
People did a lot of skating. That's mostly why the bowl was developed. The little stage 22
part that's out there now, which is an ad hoc little concrete space, was added afterward. 23
The Long Range Plan recommends moving that over a little bit to reduce the amount of 24
sun in spectators' eyes and to get it a little bit closer to the pool building, which has the 25 power and those types of things that would be easier to get to that location. 26
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 27
Commissioner LaMere: I imagine with some of this, especially with the Junior Museum 28
and Zoo, there's hope for even higher usage of the park. Is that correct? 29
Mr. Jensen: It's felt that the development of the Junior Museum and Zoo will definitely 30
have a higher use at the beginning just because it's a new attraction, a new building. The 31
overall review of that facility and because of the size of the display areas are fairly close 32
to what there is now, it's not anticipated that the actual use will go up in that respect. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Commissioner LaMere: One of the reasons I ask is just in terms of—there's times where 1
Middlefield is so impacted. Some of you who work with Lucie Stern or are in that area 2
just know that it—whether the transportation committee or whoever is looking at 3
Middlefield—seems to get more and more crowded by the month with people using it as 4
a way to get places or for the bigger trucks especially to find their way around Palo Alto. 5
Ms. Halpern: One thing that is going to mitigate that is in the new parking lot design 6 we're actually going to be able to accommodate buses a lot easier. Hopefully we'll see an 7
increase in pedestrian and bike visitors, but we'll also be able to have buses instead of all 8
those single cars and accommodate a lot more. Right now, we accommodate about one 9
bus a day, and we'll be able to accommodate about five. We'll be able to see a lot more 10
visitors with less impact in the traffic. 11
Chair Reckdahl: By buses, you mean school buses? 12
Ms. Halpern: Yes, yes. 13
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you. 14
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 15
Commissioner Cribbs: If you don't mind because I'm going to excuse myself. Thank 16
you. All I'd love to say is that I love Rinconada Park forever and ever and ever. I'm glad 17
we're doing this. It's great to see the thoughtful responses and the plans that you put into 18
this. I loved all of the comments that the Commissioners have made. It's all good, 19
especially the part about pickleball, the swimming pool, and the bowl area, which has a 20
ton of history because there used to be the Pickle Family Circus in the bowl area many, 21
many, many years ago along with Tai Chi and the women's equal rights march last 22
spring. I wouldn't want to lose the bowl at all. I love it that you're thinking about putting 23
sound in there. I think that's going to be really great. As an event organizer, I would 24
welcome that. The only thing that I have to say about this is that summer 2019, is that 25 when Year 1 starts of the 25-year Plan? 26
Mr. Jensen: Yes. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: I was hoping I misread that because that's what I understood too. 28
I would just say that I really liked our Chairman's comment today that children do grow 29
up. If there's any way that we can accelerate the park Plan, it would be a great thing to 30
do. That's all. Thanks for letting me leave early too. I appreciate that. 31
Ms. Halpern: Can I just add something that you'll like to hear to that? We're actually 32
expecting to break ground on the new JMZ, if all of our plans go as planned, in June 33
2018. That's about a 2-year process. When Peter says it'll be a year later, it's to 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
coordinate the west end park improvements with the JMZ construction. We are moving 1
really, really quickly, constantly. I just want you to feel really assured of that. 2
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 3
[Commissioner Cribbs left the meeting at 9:15 p.m.] 4
Vice Chair Moss: This is really terrific. I had many of my questions answered. When 5
the Junior Museum and Zoo presented to us earlier this year, they talked about doing the 6 bathrooms for Rinconada Park so we didn't have to do it ourselves, at least they would be 7
used by both facilities, the park and us. I was wondering has that changed. 8
Mr. Jensen: It has. Looking at—let's go back to these slides. The original footprint of 9
what was studied in the Long Range Plan for the Junior Museum and Zoo pushed the Zoo 10
quite a bit further into the park. Along with that pushing out, one tradeoff for that would 11
be the rear structure of the Zoo would also house a restroom that would be accessible to 12
park users. Because of the reduction of size into the park as well as just the cost of the 13
overall project, that aspect of the project was removed as far as the bathroom being 14
incorporated within the structure of the JMZ. It is still the recommendation that we do 15
have a bathroom installed at the west end, giving the park two restrooms, but it would 16
stand more as an individual structure closer to Hopkins due to the fall of the utility that's 17
out there to hook up to. Currently, that's the idea. The Long Range Plan is still calling 18
out and recommending a bathroom down there. It sites it in the Junior Museum and Zoo, 19
but we know that cannot take place at this point. We do still want to recommend to have 20
a restroom facility added to that end of the park. 21
Vice Chair Moss: They will have their own bathrooms separate and distinct from the 22
bathrooms that we want to add in the park? 23
Mr. Jensen: That will be within the Junior Museum building. Access-wise you'd have to 24
walk into the building to use that bathrooms. We would like to provide just park users a 25 facility that they didn't have to access the Junior Museum and Zoo. 26
Vice Chair Moss: The Junior Museum ought to use that same bathroom and not waste all 27 that space that they could be using for their exhibits. I don't know. Similar to that 28
question, at one point we were going to have them come out into the park—the Zoo come 29
out into the park a little, tiny bit and have a little mini, mini amphitheater where they 30
would show animals or share animals. What happened with that? 31
Mr. Jensen: That was something that was discussed within the development of the Zoo. 32
Again, because of the reduction of the encroachment of the Zoo into the park, that's not 33
an aspect of the development of the Junior Museum and Zoo plans. When we do work on 34
and bring back the plans for that west end of the park, we can look at that. We have 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
started to study a more expanded group seating picnic area that's closer to the Zoo that 1
can be used to facilitate outdoor activities. Most notably the flying of the bald eagle is a 2
popular thing that occurs in the park. That area could allow groups to gather at to partake 3
in that event. 4
Vice Chair Moss: The last question I had is that we've had separate discussions with 5
Kristen about dedication of undedicated land. One of the pieces is the tennis courts that 6 are, I guess, not in the park. They're just across the street. There are tennis courts and a 7
parking lot. As part of this Master Plan, is it possible to add those tennis courts, get them 8
dedicated and added to the park? 9
Mr. Jensen: I think that would require further discussion with staff. 10
Daren Anderson: Hi. Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf. We call them the 11
Newell tennis courts. That is dedicated parkland. It is part of Rinconada; although, it is 12
separated by the road. It's already dedicated. 13
Vice Chair Moss: They should include it in the Master Plan—the Long Range Plan. 14
That's all I have. 15
Chair Reckdahl: A lot of good stuff. I liked a lot of the comments. The 3-D topology, 16
having some berms or something for the kids because it is very flat would be a good 17
addition. I love the Magic Forest, so let's not mess with it. I like maybe putting some 18
benches in there, low-impact benches. I like the native species under the redwoods. That 19
would be a really good—if we can work that out, that'd be another good addition. 20
Multipurpose rooms are really good for the camps, birthday parties. There are a lot of 21
reasons why you want some space right at the pool. I think that should be a good 22
addition. Phase 1 will add the tot and the older kids playground next to each other. What 23
will happen to the existing tot playground when you do that? 24
Mr. Jensen: The idea would be to leave it until the next phase of that development, and 25 then we would remove it. I think it has another 5-10 years of its life before it actually 26 needs to be renovated. We will be looking at that. If that project doesn't come along by 27 the time that playground needs to be renovated, then we probably will just remove the 28
equipment at that time and open up the space. 29
Chair Reckdahl: West restrooms, we have no restrooms down there. If we have a 30
separate building, how much of a penalty is that from cost and logistics as opposed to 31
having it butt up against an existing either Girl Scout building or the Junior Museum? 32
Mr. Jensen: It's definitely an amenity that takes up some space out there. We looked at 33
the location closer to the group picnic area behind the Girl Scout house. There's an 34
existing screen fence that exists there, that runs along Hopkins, that screens the picnic 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
area from the street. That would be a good location to put it in that location and meld it 1
into that screening so there is really no visual impact to the park. There is an area there 2
that's in the "Y" of the existing path, that it could fit, that's not overly usable. We have 3
started to look at an area where that's feasible to do, that has as limited impact on the park 4
as far as using space and being an obstacle and incorporating the feature into that end of 5
the park. 6
Chair Reckdahl: The cost and maintenance of these small buildings are not a big deal? 7
Mr. Jensen: No. It would be very similar to the restroom that was put in Juana Briones 8
Park, a standalone, prefabricated structure. It's a $300,000 project; $50,000 is associated 9
mostly with the utility hookup to that building. It's a new facility as well. We've also 10
been discussing ways to fund these aspects of it. We have a standalone CIP for restrooms 11
that we could consider using for that. We could also start to use perhaps park impact fees 12
because it is a new facility that doesn't exist down there. I think there's a lot of 13
opportunities to get the restroom without impacting our CIP funds for that. 14
Chair Reckdahl: Finally, the last thing is parking. Parking is so tight there on weekends. 15
When I look at the tennis courts, can we put parking under the tennis courts? Is that 16
feasible or is that just too expensive? 17
Mr. Jensen: Any time you—I think it's five times the amount to go down than it is to go 18
up. It definitely does have some cost associated with it. That's something that we could 19
look at in the future doing there. 20
Chair Reckdahl: We won't replace the tennis courts for like 15 years. 21
Mr. Jensen: It's an opportunity that could be explored. Parking is difficult there. I think 22
it would have to give and supply a good amount of parking. Adding another 20, 40, 60 23
spaces when the park is used for large events is not going to have much impact on the 24
parking that is existing there. It will mostly flow out into the neighborhood as it does 25 now. It's not addressed in the Long Range Plan now but may be something that can be 26 discussed further in the future. 27
Ms. O'Kane: I just wanted to add that the goal is, instead of encouraging more cars to 28
come, encouraging people to take public transportation, to walk or bike. People will start 29
using less cars in the future. I'd prefer, from my standpoint, to encourage people to get 30
away from taking cars to the park. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: I'll support that viewpoint. 32
Commissioner McDougall: I like that as well. That goes back to my safe routes to the 33
park idea, the same as Safe Routes to School and stuff. I think that'd be really important. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
Chair Reckdahl: If you can get people to do that, that's great. My concern is right now 1
the neighbors are really impacted. Is there some way of squeezing out more parking? 2
Does anyone else have follow-ups? What's the status going forward? We have the 3
CEQA underway. 4
Mr. Jensen: The CEQA is underway. The slides here are similar or the same to the slides 5
that we looked at for the Parks Master Plan. These few slides go through the reason why 6 we go through environment and have CEQA done for the project. The environmental 7
review Initial Study did look at both projects, like I said, the Junior Museum and Zoo and 8
Rinconada. If you want to cut down to the chase, there was not a lot of mitigation that is 9
required, found in the Initial Study. Your standard things that we look at normally, 10
nesting birds at the time of construction need to be reviewed, dust needs to be mitigated. 11
If any historical things are found during the digging, the digging stops. You have to have 12
an archaeologist come in and take a look at those things. All of those standard 13
mitigations that go along with construction projects are the mitigations that are 14
recommended by the environmental study. Because the park and the Junior Museum and 15
Zoo are both existing entities, there's nothing major that is planned to change or to add to 16
the park that would have a substantial impact is why the Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
was the process that we went in. If you'd like me to go further of why we have CEQA 18
and how it came to be—the bottom line is that no major impacts from that study were 19
cited. The mitigations are our typical, standard mitigations that we would have for any 20
development project in the park. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Hopefully, we'll have Junior Museum breaking ground the following 22
summer. 23
Mr. Jensen: That is the plan. 24
Chair Reckdahl: The Phase 1 would be the following summer after that. 25
Mr. Jensen: It'll be coordinated with that. I imagine that probably is going to be about a 26 year timeframe as they build the building. They are going to stage in a portion of the 27 existing parking lot. They have to get themselves to a point where they can unstage 28
themselves to start working on the parking lot and that end of the park. We're probably 29
talking about the next year. 30
Commissioner McDougall: Keith, I didn't hear summer. I heard June. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Don. Thank you very much. This looks like a fun project. 32
I hope I'm around for the whole thing. 33
Mr. Jensen: I know it has been a while since it's been back. You didn't get a chance to be 34
involved in the original rounds of coming to you and community meetings. I am happy 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
that we're almost there and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and the first phase of 1
the development of the park being scheduled. That's good. Thank you very much. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Thanks, Peter. Good job. 3
4. Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study 4
Chair Reckdahl: Next, we will move on to Buckeye Creek. 5
[The Commission took a break.] 6
Vice Chair Moss: I think we're ready. 7
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. My name's Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks, and 8
Golf. I'd like to introduce my colleague, Curt Dunn—he's the Supervising Ranger up at 9
Foothills Park—and my consultant, Jonathan Buck with ENGEO. We are here tonight to 10
share with you the draft report for the Buckeye Creek hydrology study and to collect your 11
feedback. I'm going to provide you with a brief overview of what we've done since our 12
last meeting, March 28th. We'll focus mainly on the recommended action, which we're 13
calling the preferred alternative, as well as the other options that the City can consider 14
and the cost projections. Lastly, I'll go over the next steps. After the March 28th 15
Commission meeting, staff and the consultant further developed the creek improvement 16
concepts and shared them at a community meeting on June 12th. Although there were 17
only four participants at the public meeting, there was unanimous support for the 18
recommendations to solve the creek's erosion problem. Acknowledging the fact that we 19
got such little turnout, we decided to make poster-size display boards of our proposals 20
and post them at the park. We did it in three areas, Wildhorse Valley/Las Trampas, and 21
the 7.7 acres and inside the Interpretive Center. Rangers would talk to people, and they 22
could also just leave notes as they come up to this. We got about ten notes on the 23
feedback, which were all generally positive. I'll just go over a couple of the ideas, so you 24
have an idea of what some of the park visitors are thinking. When I say that, a lot of the 25 people we've been speaking to about this project have been environmentalists, and they're 26 very focused on creek and habitat improvements. We wanted to make sure we're 27 reaching out to other constituents of Foothills Park as well. This was an endeavor to do 28
so. Some of the comments reflect that. Some good suggestions saying, "Please consider 29
adding benches and campsites along the new creek sections if possible." I assume they 30
mean up by the Wildhorse Valley section. Others commented that they loved the idea 31
and would love to see a beautiful, healthy creek. They're all for making the place look 32
better, and we should do whatever it takes to do it. Some people said, "I think you would 33
be better off spending your money to fix those closed trails before you improve the 34
creek." Just as a side note, that's something we are working on now. It would be 35
different dollars, so they're not competing. Another person wrote, "Creek restoration is a 36
fantastic idea. I think it'll be much more diverse and interesting and allow full enjoyment 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
of the creek." A last one I'll mention was a little bit different. It said, "After shifting the 1
channel, wait to do any planting until the creek has run its course. Let nature dictate what 2
comes next." Using that feedback, the feedback from all our community meetings, the 3
stakeholders, the Commission, our ad hoc, and our park visitors, the consultant developed 4
our preferred alternative design. While there are other options that we should definitely 5
look at and consider—I'll go over them today, and they were in the report as well—the 6 focus of the draft report is that preferred alternative. I'm going to break down the three 7
core sections of this preferred alternative in order of priority. The first is the Wildhorse 8
Valley section. I'll ask my partner, Curt, to use the mouse to highlight different areas. 9
This is an area where we create a new section of creek in what is currently that grass 10
meadow in Wildhorse Valley. It would meander through this area. It actually is most 11
likely the historic floodplain. It's really putting the creek back where it was originally 12
intended to be, kind of where it wants to be. Right now, it's being choked off in what's 13
really a glorified drainage ditch. It's deeply channelized. We've talked ad nauseum about 14
the challenges the creek has and how it's been constrained and pushed off to the side. 15
This would create approximately 2,600 linear feet of new creek channel and about 5.5 16
acres of new floodplain. I want to clarify. This would result in two creek channels on 17
each side of the Wildhorse Valley. There's the existing one that would remain and then 18
this new one on the other side. They'll merge together—Curt will point this out on the 19
map—in Wildhorse Valley just above Orchard Glen picnic area, if that makes sense. The 20
second portion … 21
Chair Reckdahl: Right now, it goes under the road. There's a bridge that goes under that 22
road. It would use that same bridge? 23
Mr. Anderson: Yes. The existing channel will remain in that portion. That's correct. 24
The second section I want to tell you about, also part of the preferred alternative, is in the 25 lower reach. This is in the Las Trampas Valley. In this area, it would create 26 approximately 3 acres of floodplain by removing the soil material and that existing grass 27 field. This is the manicured, mowed grass area across from the Interpretive Center. 28
Much of that is fill material and, again, that was most likely from all indications historic 29
floodplain where that grass is and where we would recommend taking about half of that 30
grass area. It would even meander and become this new floodplain and closer to the 31
historic alignment. I should point out we had had some questions I just want to clarify. 32
There is an existing channel there. Again, it's deeply channelized. To add a little clarity 33
on what would happen, as we excavate the soil out towards the center of the turf, that 34
deep, channelized area would be filled with soil from our project. It would just have a 35
nice easy grade up towards the center of the turf. The last section of our preferred 36
alternative is the 7.7-acre area. Much like the Las Trampas Valley section, this would be 37
widening the section of the creek. It would take about two-thirds of the flat area adjacent 38
to the creek, and it would bubble out. There would still be enough room for a pathway on 39
the exterior of that portion if we chose or you could even put a pathway inside that 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
floodplain because it's not going to be full of water most often. It'd just have to be with 1
the understanding that whatever trail or amenity was in that floodplain area would be 2
surrounded by native plants and vegetation and the kind of trail that would need a little 3
more maintenance or it'd be a simple, more meandering style of trail if we chose to do 4
that. That improvement on the 7.7-acre area would result in a 1.2-acre floodplain. The 5
next one is just a graphic some of you might have seen at the public meeting. If not, it 6 just gives a little more clarity on what these restoration principles would look like in 7
terms of how we'd be slowing down water. I'll turn to Jonathan towards the end if you 8
have specific questions about how that works and where that would be in the creek 9
channel on Buckeye. The preferred alternative would retrofit existing grade-control 10
structures too. We've got these grade-control structures. You might remember they are 11
rock gabions; that's the metal-enclosed rock areas that are in a number of areas along the 12
creek but mostly in the Wildhorse Valley section. Also, wooden gabions are wooden 13
grade-control structures. They were put in, in the '70s and '80s to slow down this water 14
and help address the erosion problem. They are at the end of their useful life, so that's 15
important to note. I'll get back to that in a moment when we talk about alternative 16
choices instead of the preferred. That would be a part of the preferred one, that we'd have 17
to do that. The cost of this preferred alternative including design, permitting, 18
environmental review, and construction is approximately $9.7 million. It would take 19
approximately 5 years to complete all those portions that I just mentioned. The draft 20
report does include that detailed, itemized cost estimate for the preferred alternative. It 21
recommends that we do the entire project and fund it at once due to the severe condition 22
of most of the portions of the channel and the complex permitting process associated with 23
creek restoration. Let's look at the alternative options. This is in the Staff Report and in 24
the body of the draft report. I just wanted to go over these because these are important 25 when we're talking about a $9.7 million project. One option the City could choose is to 26 do nothing, which is what we've done for the last 40 years or so since the last grade 27 control structures were put in. I just want to explain what that means. The idea is it 28
wouldn't cost us anything, but that's not quite true. Those grade control structures, I said 29
they're at the end of their useful life. In about 5-10 years, they're going to fail. They'll 30
fall apart; additional portions of the creek will collapse. The pedestrian bridge that goes 31
across to Los Trancos Trail—this is in front of the Interpretive Center—will collapse. 32
There's not a lot of support on either end right now. If we have additional erosion, it's not 33
long before that fails. Five to 10 years, I think, is a realistic expectation for that. When 34
that happens, we're talking about vastly increased erosion, vast amounts of sediment sent 35
downstream, big impacts to the environment, and necessitating some structure to protect 36
most critical but not solely the utility corridor in Wildhorse Valley. We've talked before 37
about this utility corridor where we've got water lines, sewer, electric, fiber, phone all 38
hugging the very edge of this creek edge all through that section. If the grade-control 39
structures fail, then you're putting that infrastructure at risk. We'd have to come in and do 40
something. It's really not a no option; it's really a deferred option with expedited and 41
increased costs if we were to wait 5 years and do it after the fact. There's also the risk 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
that, when we come to time to do this no-action thing and they fail, the regulatory 1
agencies say, "We're not going to let you only fix the grade-control structures. We're 2
going to require you to do more." That's a very real possibility that could happen. 3
Another alternative that I mention in the Staff Report is we could propose just to do the 4
grade-control structures and the pedestrian bridges now, if we wanted, as a minimum 5
project. Just knowing that this would not solve our erosion problem; it would not solve 6 our sedimentation deposition or flooding issues. Given the current state of that channel, 7
the retrofitted grade-control structures would need to be designed even more robust than 8
in the preferred alternative because they'd be standalone now with no other 9
improvements. They'd be more expensive and have to be significantly more substantial, 10
essentially being able to address those large sediment loads. They'd be more expensive. 11
This scenario would be difficult to permit. As I mentioned, it's possible the regulatory 12
agencies would say, "No, we're not going to let you fix the creek problem solely with 13
engineered rock solutions." The approximate cost for that grade-control structure and 14
pedestrian bridge with the permitting and design would be about 1.3 million if we went 15
with that minimum project. The third alternative I discuss in the Staff Report is we could 16
split these into separate, individual projects and perhaps phase them. There are different 17
combinations that are possible. Because the majority of the sediment is coming from the 18
upstream portion—this is the Wildhorse Valley portion—that would be the preferred 19
spot, the best bang for the buck in terms of addressing the most problems for the least 20
amount of money. If we were to do that, that would be the spot, the upper reach section 21
first. Of course, if you were to do that, you would also have to do the grade-control 22
structures throughout the reach of the creek. If you were to do all of that, it would be 23
about $3 million. That's just the upper reach and your grade-control structures 24
throughout the creek process. I'm going to ask Jonathan to explain in a little bit more 25 detail later on during your question portion why those costs change depending on if you 26 phased it, why we're recommending that you do it all in one shot. When you go back to 27 the regulatory agencies on a piecemeal basis, it could be far more expensive. The same 28
thing with scaling your construction too if you're bringing them out at one time versus 29
multiple times if we phase it. That's why we suggested that we fund it all at once and do 30
the project as one, contiguous project rather than a phased solution. However, as I 31
pointed out in the Staff Report, the funding is an issue. We don't have $9.7 million 32
allocated. In fact, we have no money allocated to this project. The Staff Report 33
discussed some options. One is a series of grants that ENGEO has identified, that would 34
be applicable, possibly fitting. There's no guarantee those are available. Another is 35
mitigation matching. Again, I'll have Jonathan explain the details of that. Essentially, it's 36
when there's another project somewhere in the Palo Alto area or even the Bay Area where 37
they're impacting creeks and they can't mitigate it themselves, they pay us because ours is 38
a net positive in terms of creating habitat this other project would take away. They'd pay 39
us for that. We would potentially make—this is a very crude estimate—somewhere 40
between 1 and 1 1/2 million if we were to sell and be successful with those mitigation 41
credits. There's still a big deficit if we were to go for this preferred alternative that I 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
mentioned. We'd have to figure that out. Also, I have not yet had a chance to discuss 1
this with the City Manager's Office, so that will be one of the next steps, to go over that 2
with our City Manager's Office and make sure they're comfortable with it, discuss the 3
financial impacts to the City per this recommendation. It could change a little bit pending 4
some feedback from upper management with the City Manager's input. The last thing I 5
just want to say is in terms of next steps—I should point out, perhaps you've been seeing 6 them. We had some sample photos of what those restoration sites would look before and 7
after to give you just a rough idea of some comparable sites and what we could expect to 8
see out at Buckeye Creek. The next steps would be I'm going to do a check-in with the 9
City Manager's Office. Depending on how this goes and how our conversation goes 10
tonight, in theory we'd come back next month with an action item for the Commission to 11
take an action and say, "Yes, we recommend that Council review this, adopt it, and direct 12
staff to pursue funding." Any comments from my colleagues on the presentation? 13
Anything we missed that's critical? 14
Male: No. I think you summarized it (inaudible). 15
Mr. Anderson: Anything from our ad hoc committee members that would like to chime 16
in? 17
Vice Chair Moss: Certainly, it would be great to do the whole project. I think what you 18
said about if we did nothing, we still have major maintenance costs. It's not just the 19
existing structures but also the channel has gotten much deeper, especially near the 20
Interpretive Center. You're going to have to probably double the depth of the current 21
structures, which will cost some significant amount. Probably, you're going to have to 22
fill in the gully with about 5 feet of something. I just want to make sure that the Council 23
knows that in your report. The other problem is that we can't wait 5 years to get the 24
money to do something. We really have to address that sooner rather than later. I'm also 25 wondering if we couldn't give you, after everybody has spoken here, an action today. 26 Why do we have to wait 'til next month to give you a recommendation. 27
Chair Reckdahl: It's not agendized. We didn't agendize it as an action item, so it can 28
only be a discussion this month. 29
Vice Chair Moss: My last comment is that you talk about paths down to the creek to get 30
people, kids to go down to the creek. Those paths, are they going to be concrete or 31
something that's going—you couldn't put gold dust because that will wash away. What 32
do you intend to do to make those more permanent? 33
Mr. Anderson: Currently, there's no trails designed to this, but it could be. It would 34
probably be more in keeping with the rest of Foothills trails. It'd be the natural dirt there, 35
compacted. To some degree, there's an element where you let the public figure out the 36
best route. It'd be a mix of us providing what we think is the least disturbance to the 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
habitat and where we haven't planted plants. A lot of these are going to be big, naked 1
floodplains at first, where we come in and plant a lot of stuff. We'll put in some access 2
points. I can tell you from 20 years of helping manage open space access to creeks—3
they're going to go whether you provide them a spot or not. People are going to go down 4
to the creeks, and I would much rather provide them a safe, open place where they're not 5
going to be trampling on sensitive plant species or impacting the wildlife. I envision a 6 clear, safe path that gets them where they want to go and then a monitoring process 7
where we truth our guess. Is this the right spot? Do people really want to go there? If 8
it's wrong, we correct it quickly and find the more appropriate spot assuming it's 9
environmentally friendly. 10
Vice Chair Moss: You may have to reinforce it a little bit or it might wash away. 11
Mr. Anderson: I think that's entirely possible. Especially on big rain events like we had 12
this last winter, that's entirely possible. It might be the kind of thing where it's not a very 13
expensive trail. It's just a very casual one that doesn't have to be robust, and we know it's 14
going to take a little brush work and a little compacting each year perhaps. 15
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I had. 16
Commissioner LaMere: Are we asking questions now or should we wait for the 17
presentation to talk a little bit more about the creek restoration? What's the … 18
Mr. Anderson: That concludes our presentation. I just wanted to see if the ad hoc had 19
any specific comments they wanted to make. If not, that concludes the staff presentation, 20
and we can just answer any questions the Commission has. 21
Commissioner LaMere: Just a quick question. With a restoration like this and the money 22
that we're spending, nature takes its course I suppose. This would be lasting, pending 23
what nature does to it. As far as it becoming channelized again or it becoming where 24
there's lots of required maintenance, what's the future looking like if you're spending $9 25 million? 26
Mr. Anderson: I'll let Jonathan address this one. 27
Jonathan Buck: That's a good question. The answer is that if we're going to spend $9 28
million, we're going to try to provide a project where future maintenance costs are I'm 29
going to say negligible. Keep in mind you have a mile of creek, and that's why it's so 30
expensive. In order for us to get permits from the federal and state agencies, we basically 31
have to show that we are restoring the creek channel back to something that is not going 32
to require I'm going to say regular maintenance. How's that? There's always some 33
periodic maintenance with all of the flood control channels that we have. The idea is that 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
somebody isn't going in there every year and scooping out sediment. Does that answer 1
your question? 2
Commissioner LaMere: Yeah. Thank you very much. 3
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. As a member of the ad hoc, I've contributed a lot 4
of comments to Daren already, and I'll be more brief. Just a few things I'd like to outline. 5
I'll start by saying I'm fully supportive of the preferred alternative. It's an awesome plan, 6 and it's great to see that we're garnering community support in modest numbers for now. 7
As I've popularized the plan, it's been very well received in my skewed circle. I do think 8
the funding issue is going to be a big question mark, and that's not a surprise to anyone in 9
the room. One question I have is do we have any idea of what percentage of the funding 10
will ultimately fall to the City to come up with, with respect to the alternative funding 11
sources you've outlined. 12
Mr. Anderson: I think we'll get guidance when I meet with the City Manager's Office 13
and our budget team and ask them that very question. They may give me guidance and 14
say, "Good luck with the grants. You're going to have to find enough grants to support X 15
percent of the project." I'll find out more when I speak to them, I think. 16
Commissioner Greenfield: That comes before you go to Council or after Council? 17
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. This would be before. I'm hoping to do this in the next 2 18
or 3 weeks. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: I think Council would certainly appreciate having a better 20
idea of what we're talking about here. 21
Mr. Anderson: I agree. 22
Commissioner McDougall: Do we have any friends in the City Manager's Office? 23
Mr. Anderson: We do. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: Excellent. A couple of comments. Daren, you were 25 explaining the two creek channel restoration process in Wildhorse Valley. I'd really love 26 to see that outlined much more clearly in the document. I know the area well. I'm an 27 interested party. When I first looked at the document, it was really hard to follow. 28
There's this new creek. There really are two creeks. Just spell it out. Say there's going to 29
be a new creek channel added. This will be a second creek. The west side will flow here. 30
The east side will flow there. Just really spell it out. That would be both in Section 4.1.2 31
and also in the upper reach section of 4.2.2. It will really help people looking at it to get 32
a clear understanding. Perhaps in some of the initial summary remarks as well, when 33
talking about the three sections, point out in the upper reach section that's happening 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 48
there. In Section 4.2 of the lower reach, you mention that the fill material would be some 1
of the area that's being used. I don't see that spelled out. That's a question mark. It's got 2
to be filled in; can we elucidate what we're planning to fill it in with as appropriate? In 3
the cost analysis of Section 6.1, I see we're adding three new footbridges in Wildhorse 4
Valley in the drawings, but I don't see these called out in the Table 8 cost estimates, the 5
three new pedestrian footbridges in Wildhorse Valley, the connections to the existing 6 trails. I'm not sure that those have been accounted for in the estimate. 7
Mr. Anderson: I confirmed with Jonathan they are. I'll make sure they're clear in the 8
revised estimate. 9
Commissioner Greenfield: Other than that, I can forward more comments to you offline. 10
Mr. Anderson: That'd be wonderful. Thank you. 11
Commissioner Greenfield: Great job, and let's keep this moving. 12
Commissioner McDougall: I'll only echo great job, especially in all these tables. I spent 13
a lot of time trying to sort those out. I would caution us not to talk about $9 million and 14
talk about $10 million, and then maybe come in at 9.7. I think that might be better. For 15
me, the only question is the ongoing frustration of the 7.7 acres. You know from the 16
conversations we had that I view that as 1 1/2 acres of problem. Basically that 1 1/2 17
acres is the floodplain that you're defining. Maybe if you look at it that way it's not a 18
problem because the other 5 acres is that hillside. We talked about could we create a path 19
or something through there that would provide initial access to that and allow us to move 20
on. That's my only comment. The rest of that is great. If Curt would stop showing 21
pictures of all these great, meandering streams that was just getting us all excited, then 22
we'd be a lot better off. 23
Chair Reckdahl: I too am quite happy with this except for the $10 million part. The 24
design is good. The question is not whether we're going to spend money. The question is 25 do we do it on our timetable or mother nature's timetable. A series of Band-Aids may 26 end up being just as expensive, and you'll end up with nothing with it. Our only choice is 27 to move forward because the erosion out there is real. If you go next to the—what used 28
to be a hillside is now becoming a cliff. We may lose bridges and lose access to some 29
really good hiking trails. I don't think we have any option. We have to find money 30
somewhere. Hopefully, you can find it through grants or some other ways of doing it. 31
Good luck. 32
Commissioner McDougall: One quick question. When you're talking about the cost of 33
doing nothing, is there a liability from residents or whatever is downstream from our 34
park? If we keep dumping silt, they'll end up flooded or respond. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 49
Mr. Anderson: There's no doubt that we would have a significant impact. If we waited 1
'til the grade-control structures failed, we would send enough sediment down there, in our 2
estimation, to severely negatively impact the neighbors and perhaps cause flooding. The 3
legal liability I'm not quite sure; we'd have to check with the City Attorney. 4
Commissioner McDougall: Maybe that risk should be mentioned in the document. 5
Chair Reckdahl: David. 6
Vice Chair Moss: I don't want to give anybody the idea that we don't want the full 7
solution and that the no solution is really not valid either. The option you gave of doing a 8
portion of it, the Wildhorse Canyon, first and maybe we only have enough money to do 9
that. Can you give a little bit more information about the impact that would have. Would 10
it solve 20 percent of our problem, 50 percent of our problem, or 80 percent of our 11
problem? I'm willing to bet you that the Council is going to ask that. Do you have any 12
rough idea? 13
Mr. Anderson: I asked Jonathan that exact question. I said, "If we just do Wildhorse 14
Valley and the grade-control structures, what does that get us?" I know people are going 15
to ask that very question, what percentage. The truth is it's difficult to answer especially 16
with that kind of detail. Anything more to say, Jonathan? 17
Mr. Buck: I would say it would solve somewhere between 50-65 percent of your 18
problem, something like that. It's probably more than half; let's put it like that. 19
Vice Chair Moss: That's the $3 million solution? 20
Mr. Buck: Right. 21
Vice Chair Moss: As opposed to 9.7. That's a huge difference in the price. We probably 22
will get some pushback from Council about that. 23
Chair Reckdahl: Does that 3 million include the grade structures, updating those? 24
Mr. Buck: I believe so. Keep in mind I don't know if that number includes the soft costs 25 associated with that solution. You'd have to add another 20 percent onto that number. At 26 least, I think that's—I'm not sure exactly what we have written in your Staff Report. 27
Vice Chair Moss: We have 3 million … 28
Mr. Buck: We need to clarify some of those numbers in terms of what the real costs are. 29
I think that's a construction cost. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 50
Commissioner McDougall: I would suggest that you clarify that. Any 80/20 rule just 1
doesn't sound right when you say we're going to spend a third of the money and get 60 2
percent of the—that just doesn't sound right. I'd expect it to be the other way around. I 3
think we should do some homework, as David suggested, on that. 4
Mr. Buck: Will do. 5
Chair Reckdahl: If you look at that big gulch over by the Interpretive Center, by the 6 footbridge, that looks pretty severe. I'd be surprised if just Wildhorse Valley would fix 7
that. 8
Mr. Anderson: It won't. Wildhorse Valley will not fix it at all. It'll just minimize some 9
of the sediment deposition further down. It won't solve the … 10
Chair Reckdahl: That gouging will still be the same. 11
Mr. Anderson: The gouging will still continue. 12
Commissioner McDougall: When you're answering David's question, you're answering 13
what percentage of the silt problem. If, in fact, the next thing you have to do is take that 14
bridge out just because it's unsafe, now it's not a financial cost, but you're going to reduce 15
the usability of the park. You're going to have to do that with more than that one bridge. 16
You're never going to open the 7 1/2 acres, which you've been told you have to do. 17
There's an incremental cost—there are usability costs not financial costs and not silt 18
costs. 19
Mr. Anderson: And potential issues with the permitting. As Jonathan had mentioned, it's 20
entirely possible the regulatory agencies don't accept a minimal project. They put us 21
through the wringer and require more. 22
Chair Reckdahl: What's our confidence that, if we do this preferred alternative, it gets 23
through regulatory? 24
Mr. Anderson: We sat down with the regulatory agencies and discussed it and got our 25 guidance. The preferred alternative is predicated on their feedback. We have a good 26 indication that it would receive approval. To that point, you never quite know for sure. 27 Things change; personnel change, and opinions change. We are talking about not a 6-28
month process, but permitting would likely be a year, I'm sure, at least. 29
Chair Reckdahl: Any more questions? Thank you. 30
Mr. Anderson: Thanks very much. 31
Chair Reckdahl: What's the next steps going forward? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 51
Mr. Anderson: The next step is I'll check in with the City Manager's Office. Pending the 1
outcome of that conversation, come back with an action item … 2
Chair Reckdahl: For next month? 3
Mr. Anderson: … for approval next month for the PRC. Then, it would go to Council as 4
soon as I can get it on their agenda, October or November most likely. 5
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 6
Mr. Anderson: Thanks. 7
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 8
Chair Reckdahl: Next, we move to Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. We have 9
the output. Does anyone want to talk to their action? 10
Vice Chair Moss: Before Daren leaves, AT&T property. I and Don are going to the 11
Friends of the Palo Alto Parks on September 9th, before our next meeting. One of the 12
things that they were very interested in was the AT&T property because maybe they can 13
help us buy it. You have been going through some iterations with other departments. 14
What's the latest? What do I tell them? 15
Mr. Anderson: I don't have any new news on that since we last communicated on it. 16
We're in the waiting game is what I heard from our Real Estate Division, who's been 17
corresponding with AT&T to find out when they're going to release, what their plans are 18
for dividing the property. The last I heard in my communications with Real Estate staff 19
was that we were still waiting for information. I don't have any new information, 20
unfortunately, for you tonight. 21
Vice Chair Moss: If you could get one more—I don't know—talk with them before 22
September 9th, I'd appreciate it. 23
Mr. Anderson: I can do that. 24
Vice Chair Moss: Thanks. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Back to ad hocs. Does anyone have anything they want to talk about 26 their ad hocs or was what's in the summary good enough? Well move on. 27
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 28
Chair Reckdahl: Comments and Announcements. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 52
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 MEETING 1
Chair Reckdahl: Tentative Agenda. Right now, on the handout we have five things, four 2
PIOs. I guess three PIOs and one CEQA. I think the park dedication we have to move to 3
October unless those PIOs slip. 4
Ms. O'Kane: It's possible that the Baylands PIO and the bike bridge PIO may have to 5
move. We have to get legal advice from our City Attorney's Office. The reason we 6 didn't have the JMZ PIO on today is because the CEQA recommendation needs to 7
happen at the same time. CEQA will not be done for Baylands Boardwalk and the bike 8
bridge. 9
Chair Reckdahl: We can't do a PIO without CEQA? 10
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. Those may slip 'til October. The way things have been going I'm 11
sure we'll probably get a few more things added to September. 12
Commissioner Greenfield: If it slipped, would you move anything from October? 13
Ms. O'Kane: We could. We could present either Youth and Teen Services—any of these 14
really could move to October. I think we'll be fine. 15
Chair Reckdahl: You can talk to the people who are presenting and see who's is far along 16
and can present easiest. Any of those from October we can move out. 17
Vice Chair Moss: (inaudible) 18
Chair Reckdahl: That's a good point. November 28th, do we want to start talking about 19
what alternate date for November? 20
Ms. O'Kane: November and December. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: November 28th … 22
Vice Chair Moss: It's after Thanksgiving. 23
Ms. O'Kane: That's the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: That should be fine. It's the Tuesday after Thanksgiving. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Let's leave that for now. 26
Commissioner Greenfield: December 26th might be more problematic. 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 53
Chair Reckdahl: We'll have to decide when we get closer whether we just bump the 1
November 28th one to early December and combine those two. Let's keep 2
November 28th for now. 3
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 4
Chair Reckdahl: Unless anyone has anything else, do I have a motion to adjourn? 5
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Greenfield and second by Commissioner 6 McDougall at 10:05 p.m. 7
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
DATE: 9/26/17
SUBJECT: PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR REBUILDING THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSUEM & ZOO.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for rebuilding the Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) in the City of Palo Alto.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends the approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) for rebuilding
of the Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). The plans successfully address prior comments from the
commission regarding the 14,017 square foot portion of the project within the park to be developed for zoo use. The plan develops an additional 5,250 square feet (SF) of park for zoo
use beyond the current zoo footprint. The configuration of the parking lot and the entry pathway
into the park, which is not on park property, will improve public safety access.
BACKGROUND
The Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed designs for the Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) at four prior meetings, in February 2015, July 2015, April 26, 2016 and June 27, 2017.
Staff and the design team heard comments from the PRC at those meetings and presented
significant revisions to program and design, which received a vote of support from the PRC on
April 26, 2016 and on June 27, 2017. On August 22, the PRC heard the update on the Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Long Range Plan and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, in preparation for staff’s return in September with the PIO. JMZ Mission Statement and Integration with Rinconada Park
The JMZ’s mission statement is “to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature through
hands-on inquiry-based activities and inspiring encounters with live animals.” This directly aligns with the City of Palo Alto’s Community Services Department’s mission statement “to engage individuals and families in creating a strong and healthy community through parks,
recreation, social services, arts and sciences.” The JMZ is a treasured, local museum, zoo, and
education center uniquely situated in Rinconada Park to serve Palo Alto families and children.
The JMZ is a valued amenity of the visitor experience at Rinconada Park. With 184,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ.
The JMZ works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that
stimulates children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The science of brain development is
providing concrete evidence that there is real power in play. Research tells us that play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. We also know that
2
play-based learning environments are more effective than classroom, memorization-based, learning environments for teaching our children.
The JMZ provides a strong start for learning in young children learning in many ways,
leveraging the unique assets that the JMZ offers to nurture the passion and skills for learning
through play, promote seamless linkages between formal and informal learning, and engage
children from low-income families so that they can also participate in the new learning landscape.
Rinconada Park has been and will continue to be the best place to grow the JMZ because the
location leverages the park, community center, scout facilities, children’s library, and art center
to integrate indoor and outdoor experiences, live animals, and collections to provide a strong
start for young children.
JMZ Programs and Project Goals The current JMZ building (built in 1941) and zoo (built in the 1969) are not adequately sized or
designed to accommodate the JMZ’s vibrant programs, current requirements to support living
and non-living collections, expanding educational programs, and current accessibility or seismic
code requirements. The goal of the proposed rebuild project is to provide the JMZ with adequate storage and support space to meet standards for zoo accreditation, museum accreditation, and
provide adequate storage and prep space for the on-site and off-site educational programs. In
addition, the goal is to improve circulation to allow universal access for children with disabilities
to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires considerably more space than allowed for
in the existing facility. The rebuild JMZ will better serve its current, local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate experience for children to explore science and nature.
DISCUSSION
The existing JMZ building is located in a complicated and constrained corner of the city-owned
parcel including Rinconada Park, the parking lot, the Girl Scout building and Lucie Stern Community Center. The project has a number of existing site constraints as well as goals from
the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan that our design team is striving to work within for the
JMZ rebuild project. The site is constrained by an existing utility corridor that runs under the
existing zoo, and the Rinconada Park boundary line; the existing zoo sits in the park and museum
outside of the park. There are a number of heritage and special specimen trees surrounding the existing facility.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan outlines a number of goals for the site surrounding the
JMZ including retaining parking stall count and clarifying circulation in the parking lot, creating
a strong park arrival experience from Middlefield and Lucie Stern, and integrating the park visitors experience with the Zoo through art installations, educational features, and possibly views into the zoo.
Previous Parks and Recreation Commission Presentations and Comments
At the February 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, we presented a design and footprint for the new JMZ, which responded to the site constraints, zoning regulations, and included the program space requirements outlined by the JMZ staff and Friends of the JMZ. This
design proposed to expand the zoo footprint as well as add a zoo support building in the park -
totaling 11,000 SF expansions into parkland. This design corresponded with the footprint for the
3
JMZ in the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. While the commissioners were in support of the JMZ mission and the goals of this project, there were concerns about the reduction of park open space with the proposed zoo footprint.
At the July 2015 PRC meeting, we presented three design alternates studying options for
reducing the footprint in the park: zoo program and square footage reduction, moving the zoo support building to the park arrival area, and increasing the building footprint along Middlefield Road. The comments received were that design alternate showing a 10% zoo program and
square footage reduction still posed too large of an expansion into the park and the other two
design alternates compromised parking and existing trees, which will be major issues with the
community. The charge from the commissioners was to preserve parkland by minimizing zoo expansion and relocating the zoo support building out of parkland, preserve heritage and mature specimen trees, and maintain the parking count per the long-range plan design.
At the April 2016 PRC meeting, we presented design solutions that worked to simultaneously
reduce the construction budget, long term operational costs, and find efficiencies in the program space requirements. The proposed design also addresses the previous PRC comments to minimize the zoo expansion in parkland, move the zoo support building out of the parkland,
preserve the heritage and specimen trees as well as the two large mature shade trees in the
parkland, and maintain parking stall count and clear vehicular circulation. In the zoo, we
optimized the size and quantity of animal exhibits while creating an exciting vertical, multilayer experience without large ramps (large space and cost requirements). The design solution received a vote of support from the Commission.
A topographic survey was conducted that identified all trees including three heritage trees and a
utility easement on the site. Property boundaries, park jurisdiction, zoning and code restrictions were also studied and mapped. The footprint was limited in each direction by the following factors: the property line along Walter Hays Elementary School, the park entrance and heritage
oak, the parking lot, and Middlefield Road.
At the June 2017 PRC Meeting, we re-presented a design and footprint for the JMZ to the 2017 PRC that included new commissioners. Commissioners comments included concerns about charging an entrance fee and asked City staff to explore annual passes with different price points,
city subsidy, access programs, fundraising and donations; lack of restrooms in the park; adequate
space for larger animals in the new design. Staff affirmed that we are very much working on the
issue regarding ticketed gate and access; that the restrooms were removed due to the desire to lessen the impact to the park but that we expect to add a public restroom either by the time we open or within two years pending funding; and that the new zoo is smaller but will be adequate.
At the August 2017 PRC, Peter Jensen presented Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Long Range Plan and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioners were generally very supportive. One comment was about the need for adequate parking for the new JMZ and another about the amphitheatre which we will revisit as we begin to work on the west
end of the park’s improvements.
4
Proposed Design - Inside the Park Boundary The proposed design addresses the previous PRC comments:
• Minimize the zoo expansion in parkland
• Move the zoo support building out of the parkland
• Preserve the heritage and specimen trees as well as the two large mature shade trees in the parkland
• Maintain increase parking stall count and clear vehicular circulation
Loose-in-the-Zoo: (18,600 sf) The proposed design, just like the design presented in April 2016, removes the zoo support
building from the park. This was a reduction of expansion into the park by 5,500 SF from the
February 2015 design. Only the exterior, open-air zoo is located in the park - consistent with the
existing zoo condition. The current plan develops 5,250 SF of park for zoo use that is additional
from existing.
The new JMZ will have facilitated, hands-on animal encounters within a fully netted Zoo with
loose animals. The zoo experience:
• Has animals chosen for their appeal to children and a child’s ability to form a bond/connection; Qualities for animals include active (e.g. meerkats), recognizable (e.g.
bunny), distinct personalities (e.g. Edward the tortoise), native/local (e.g. raccoon), child-
appeal (e.g. bats);
• Frames animals in context of their natural environment;
• Offers facilitated animal encounters with a knowledgeable and child-friendly animal care
staff;
• Encourages physical exploration that capitalizes on a child’s natural desire to play;
• Offers parallel play experiences and nature-based play environments;
• Fosters empathy for animals and nature;
• Inspires conservation as a long-term goal;
• Offers interpretive signage that encourages sensory-rich observation, inspires curiosity
and question-asking, and fosters parent-child interaction and learning;
• Is universally designed and accessible to people with varying disabilities;
• Is sustainably designed using eco-friendly materials and building processes.
In this plan, the animals will live within a lush landscape with habitats for the existing animals
and a few new ones including a meerkat colony. The zoo will be covered with a large protective
net held above the landscape by “the big tree,” where children will climb among the roots, feel leaf litter and duff. They will find animals living inside the root zone and beneath the tree.
A wall enclosure at the base of the loose-in-the zoo space (8’0” tall typical, 10’0” tall in limited
locations) will meet zoo enclosure requirements as well as serve as an educational exhibit for
visitors entering the park on the outside of the zoo. For the park visitor, the zoo wall will blend with the look of the park and will enrich their experience with recreation and education
interactives and a view into the zoo. Adjacent to the public area of the zoo will be a non-public
fenced area with exterior animal enclosures and zoo maintenance materials.
5
Outside of the Park The proposed design creates an inviting park arrival area outside of the park boundary, between the Girl Scout building and the new classroom/butterfly building, allowing the park experience to
expand beyond its boundary: new trees, benches, signage, public art, and science/nature themed
exhibits. The proposed design creates opportunities to activate and enrich both the zoo and park
visitors experience along the edge between the zoo and the park. The promenade connecting Middlefield to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park becomes a
journey of discovering natural phenomena through child-scaled experiences. A variety of
installations will activate the JMZ entrance such as a bridge over and rock maze through a bio-
retention swale, a tunnel with sunlight shining through a variety of colored and transparent planes, or kinetic wind sculptures. A stump maze will encircle the pecan tree along with a log fort rising from the ground to create the barrier between the stump maze and the zoo.
Through our process of study sessions with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and meetings
with City Departments, the site plan was revised to create an axis connecting Middlefield to the JMZ entrance plaza to Rinconada Park. This pedestrian and bicycle path connects with other major axis from Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and Girl Scout building
into Rinconada Park to improve the overall site circulation. During meetings with City staff, the
goals were clarified the for the parking lot, which include pedestrian and bicycle safety, clear
organization, maintaining the current parking count and no longer requiring the design to increase the parking count. The revised site plan reorients the parking lot to align with the city grid along Middlefield and the grid of the proposed JMZ building. The revised site plan results in
a larger outdoor plaza space to enhance the presence of the building in the surrounding site and
create a safer buffer between children and vehicular traffic. The simplified site plan now aligns
with the Middlefield grid to reinforce the courtyard design with a larger entrance plaza. Each of these site organization moves allows for a more civic entrance and presence for the JMZ.
The revised floor plan and massing reflect a traditional courtyard building with end gabled roofs,
echoing the character of the Lucie Stern Community Center. However, the JMZ building forms
will utilize clean contemporary lines and materials reflecting a building of its time and place in Palo Alto. In addition, the simple form of the building allows for playful interventions – sculptural skylight forms, colorful entrance awnings, and playful window patterns – along the
Middlefield and main entrance facades and roofs mass.
There will be an improved drop-off zone and paved entrance plaza in front of the museum. An existing large Pecan Tree will be protected and featured with a stump-garden play-area located under its canopy. Pathways connecting staff parking areas (with/in the larger parking lot) to the
education wing entrances.
Museum and Education Building: (15,033 sf) Located outside of the park, the single story structure includes an entrance lobby, exhibit galleries, visitor amenities (restrooms, stroller parking, etc.), support spaces (wood shop and
general storage), educational classroom, and collections storage. The existing dawn redwood tree
will be protected and enclosed within an educational courtyard providing an additional outdoor
exhibit space. Please refer to the attached project footprint and site plan for reference (Attachment B).
6
The design for this new facility is currently undergoing planning review with the City of Palo Alto.
The scope of the project’s demolition and construction will require the JMZ Staff, collections
and animals to move temporary to the Cubberley Community Center.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed 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 ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
This project is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. In January 2015, staff launched a joint environmental study for the Rinconada Park Long Range Master
Plan and the Junior Museum & Zoo Rebuild Project with the help of consultants David J Powers
& Associates. The CEQA review includes preparation of technical studies to analyze exiting
conditions and identify potential impacts, preparation of an Initial Study and the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Preparation of Technical Studies for the environmental review started in January of 2015 and to
date we have completed reports for Air Quality, Historic Evaluation, Arborist Assessment, Noise
Assessment, and Transportation Impact Report. Staff completed the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration required for this project. The Initial Study is currently being
circulated for public comment and the CEQA analysis is expected to be complete in September
2017.
Park Improvement Ordinance Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial development is approved, in land
held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall approve the development plan by ordinance.
One of the duties of the Parks and Recreation Commission is to review and recommend or not
recommend the ordinance to the Council.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Junior Museum & Zoo Park Improvement Ordinance
Attachment B: Junior Museum & Zoo Site Plan, Zoo Section, and Renderings
PREPARED BY
John Aikin
Community Services Senior Program
Manager
City of Palo Alto
Rhyena Halpern
Assistant Director, Community Services
Dept.
Director, Arts and Sciences Division
City of Palo Alto
NOT YET APPROVED
ORDINANCE NO.______
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR THE
JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN
RINCONADA PARK.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.055 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction reconstruction or
development is commenced or approved, upon or respect to any land head by the City for park
purposes, the Council shall firs cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan
therefore.
(b) Rinconada Park is dedicated to park purposes.
(c) The City Intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within Rinconada Park,
as show in Exhibit “A” including:
1) Selective demolition of the zoo,
2) Construction of new zoo habitats, exhibits, enclosures, and facilities
3) Construction of perimeter walls and fences
4) Installation of poles, cables and netting,
5) Construction of landscaping and irrigation.
(d) The Improvements at Rinconada Park will include the approximately 13,000 square foot area of
the existing zoo plus and an additional 3,500 square foot area of the park to the east of the
existing zoo.
(e) The project improvements will avoid protected trees and other sensitive resources. In addition,
existing park uses will be restored following the completion of project construction.
(f) The project described above and more specifically described in the Plan attached hereto as
Exhibit “X” is consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(g) The council desires to approve the project described above and as more specifically described in
the Plan.
SECTION 2. The Council herby approves the Plan for the construction of a new zoo and related
facilities at Rinconada Park. It herby adopts the attached Plan.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the project to construct a new zoo and related facilities at
Rinconada Park is subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
ATTACHMENT A
INTRODUCED:
PASSES:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
AVSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
______________________________________ _______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
_____________________________________ _______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_______________________________
Director of Community Services
________________________________
Director of Administrative Services
Site Plan
Attachment B: Junior Museum & Zoo Site Plan, Zoo Section, and Renderings
Page 1
Rendered Section Through Zoo
Page 2
Jurassic Garden Courtyard, Loose in the Zoo Aerial and Perspective from the Park
Page 3
JMZ Aerial Phase 1
Page 4
JMZ Entrance
Page 5
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: RHYENA HALPERN, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
SUBJECT: AT PLACES MEMO FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - Junior Museum & Zoo Parks Improvement
Ordinance
The incorrect amount of square footage was cited in the Junior Museum & Zoo Parks Improvement
Ordinance (PIO) included in the packet for Agenda Item No. 2. These changes are described below.
Corrected hard copies of the PIO will be provided at the meeting.
1.Parks Improvement Ordinance: Edits were made to “SECTION 1, d” and are shown in
underline and strikethrough.
•(d) The Improvements at Rinconada Park will include the approximately 13,000 square foot
area of the existing zoo plus and an additional 3,500 square foot area of the park to the east
of the existing zoo 8,800 square foot area of the existing zoo plus adding an additional 5,217
square foot area of the park to the northeast edge of the existing zoo.
1
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Megha Bansal, Public Works Department
Date: September 26, 2017
Subject: Park Improvement Ordinance for Baylands Boardwalk
Improvement Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommend
that the City Council approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) (Attachment
A) for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project (CIP: PE-14018).
BACKGROUND
The project includes replacement of the existing boardwalk at the Lucy Evans
Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center) with a new boardwalk
of the same length and on the same alignment as the existing boardwalk.
The existing boardwalk, approximately 850-foot long and four-foot wide timber
structure with two intermediate overlooks and one observation platform, was
constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated in 1980. Due to structural damage and
safety concerns, the boardwalk was closed in March 2014. After minor structural
repairs, a 200-foot segment of the boardwalk between the Interpretive Center
and first overlook was opened to the public. A Feasibility Study was conducted in
March 2016 to assess the boardwalk condition. The study determined the
boardwalk to be structurally unsound and recommended replacement of the
existing structure, meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements and providing a longer design life of 50 to 75 years. Staff
presented the findings of the Feasibility Study to the PRC on March 22, 2016,
and the PRC was in favor of boardwalk replacement (Staff Report:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51603).
In September 2016, Council approved a contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates to
provide design services for the new boardwalk (Staff Report ID#6669). The project
team presented the initial design concepts in a community meeting on May 3,
2017 to receive public input. Meeting materials and additional project
2
information are provided on City’s website:
(www.cityofpaloalto.org/baylandscenter).
On August 22, 2017, staff presented the preliminary design components and a
draft scope of work for the project to the PRC
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59204).
The PRC asked to find ways to expedite the project to begin construction in 2018.
Staff is coordinating with the regulatory agencies on permitting process and also
trying to expedite the environmental assessment process. The Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated on September 15,
2017 and an Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing is tentatively scheduled on
October 19, 2017. The project team will also assess the construction strategies
further to complete construction in one five month window, typically a non-
nesting season for Ridgway’s Rails. Based on the input from the regulatory
agencies, perch deterrent rollers will be attached to the top of the railings
including the slanted rails at the overlooks and observation platform. Staff is also
coordinating with the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to accommodate access to
their transmission line catwalk through the boardwalk.
DISCUSSION
The project includes replacement of the existing boardwalk with a new, ADA
compliant boardwalk of the same length and alignment. The alignment, height,
and width of the new boardwalk were determined with guidance/input from the
regulatory agencies. The new boardwalk structure (railings, decking, supports,
piles, etc.) will be constructed of various types of timber elements to match the
existing structure style and character, and is expected to have a life span of 50 to
75 years. The new boardwalk design will also accommodate access at the
interface of the PG&E catwalk where it crosses the existing boardwalk, roughly
at 400 feet from the Interpretive Center.
Additionally, the project requires the following regulatory permits and guidance
before construction:
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide
Permit
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401
Certification/ Waste Discharge Requirements
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
3
permit
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) consultation
The design includes the following scope of work (Attachment A):
1. Demolition and replacement of the existing boardwalk with a new
boardwalk of the same length (approximately 850 feet) and alignment. The
new boardwalk will be 5 feet wide and at the same deck elevation as the
recently renovated Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center.
2. One observation platform at the San Francisco Bay end and four
intermediate overlooks along the length of the boardwalk.
3. Redwood railing on both sides of the boardwalk. Overlooks and observation
platform will have slanted railing cap to mount interpretive signs (part of
future project).
4. Bird-safe intermittent viewing glass or wire mesh panels incorporated into
the railings at the overlooks and observation platform.
5. Raptor perch deterrent rollers attached to the top of railings.
6. New redwood decking.
7. New Alaskan Yellow Cedar piles/posts and supports.
8. Wood benches with back and arm rest on overlooks and observation
platform.
9. Wood finishes consists of Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain and metal
components painted with Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray (HC-108) in
accordance with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve.
Attachment B includes graphics and preliminary design drawings.
Environmental Constraints and Potential Construction Measures
The boardwalk is located in an environmentally sensitive area and is home to
protected endangered species such as harvest mouse, Ridgway’s Rail, and the
California black rail. An effective construction methodology and sequence will be
developed pending environmental assessment and review to comply with all
regulatory requirements and environmental constraints. The potential
construction measures include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
• Construction window will be restricted to September 1 through January 31,
generally a non-nesting season for Ridgway’s Rails.
4
• Existing boardwalk platform will be utilized as a staging platform to
construct the new boardwalk to minimize disturbance and avoid staging in
the marsh.
• Expedited construction methods such as panelized railing construction will
be explored and implemented if feasible, to insure adherence to the
construction window.
• Temporary marsh mats will be explored and implemented if feasible to
allow larger materials and equipment to access the boardwalk. Smaller
hand-held equipment will be carried via the deck of the Interpretive Center.
The marsh mats distribute weight and prevent excessive sediment
disturbance and mobilization.
• Construction personnel will be restricted to the existing Boardwalk and
marsh mats.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for design services for this project is included in Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) project (PE-14018) – Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and
programs.
SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS
Project schedule is as follows:
• 35% design: Complete
• IS/MND 30-day circulation: September 15, 2017 – October 16, 2017
• PRC review and recommendation for Park Improvement Ordinance:
September 2017
• ARB review: October 2017 (tentative)
• CEQA approval: November 2017 (tentative)
• Agency permits/review: October 2017- Summer 2018
• Complete design/bid project pending permits: Summer 2018
• Boardwalk construction (best case): September 2018 -January 2019*
• Boardwalk construction (worst case): September 2019 -January 2020*
*To avoid nesting birds in the Baylands, the construction window is limited to five
months from September 1 through January 31, pending permits.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared and is in public
circulation from September 15, 2017 to October 16, 2017. The IS/MND may be
viewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4076&TargetID=3
19 . The MND concludes that, with mitigation incorporated, the project will have
no significant environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance Approving and Adopting the Park Improvement
Ordinance (PIO) for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project
Attachment B: Graphics and Preliminary Design Drawings
NOT YET APPROVED
170711 jb Lee/PW Environmental 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting a Park Improvement Plan For the Baylands Boardwalk at Lucy
Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Located Within the Baylands
Nature Preserve
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of
Chapter 22.08 of Title 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial
building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or
with respect to any land held by the City for park purposes, the Council approve and adopt a
park improvement ordinance and a plan describing the proposed project;
(b) Baylands Boardwalk is a boardwalk within the Baylands Nature Preserve.
(c) Baylands Nature Preserve is dedicated to park purposes.
(d) The City intends to authorize certain improvements to the boardwalk at
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, as detailed in Exhibit “A” (the “Park
Improvement Plan” or the “Plan”), including:
(1) Demolition and replacement of the existing boardwalk with a new
boardwalk of the same length (approximately 850 feet) and
alignment. The new boardwalk will be 5 feet wide and at the same
deck elevation as the recently renovated Lucy Evans Baylands
Interpretive Center.
(2) One observation platform at the San Francisco Bay end and four
intermediate overlooks along the length of the boardwalk.
(3) Redwood railing on both sides of the boardwalk. Overlooks and
observation platform will have slanted railing cap to mount
interpretive signs (part of future project).
(4) Bird-safe intermittent viewing glass or wire mesh panels
incorporated into the railings at the overlooks and observation
platform.
(5) Raptor perch deterrent rollers attached to the top of railings.
(6) New redwood decking.
(7) New Alaskan Yellow Cedar piles/posts and supports.
(8) Wood benches with back and arm rest on overlooks and observation
platform.
(9) Wood finishes consists of Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain and metal
components painted with Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray (HC-
108) in accordance with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines
for Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve.
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
170711 jb Lee/PW Environmental 2
(e) The Project will be constructed in a manner to as to avoid sensitive natural
resources.
(f) The Project is consistent with park and recreation purposes.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for replacement and construction
of improvements of the boardwalk at Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and
hereby adopts the Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the
construction of the park improvements at the Baylands Boardwalk.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the environmental impacts of the Project to
replace and construct the boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center
have been analyzed in the Baylands Boardwalk Repair Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
(“MND”), which was prepared and circulated by the City of Palo Alto and adopted by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to adoption of this ordinance, all in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
NOT YET APPROVED
170711 jb Lee/PW Environmental 3
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | SITE PLAN
Exhibit A - Site Plan
1 | VICINITY MAP/PROJECT DATA 4 | STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS
2 | NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 5 | CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
3 | SITE PLAN 6 | TREE PROTECTION PLAN
Attachment B - Graphics and Preliminary Design Drawings
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 VICINITY MAP/PROJECT DATA 1.1
PROJECT DATA
Project Address
Situated in the Baylands public marshland, to the northwest of the existing
Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center (Nature Center) located at 2775
Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Project Owner
City of Palo Alto
Engineer:
Anthony Notaro -Biggs Cardosa Associates
Representative:
Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Dept., Sr. Project Manager
Zone: Land Use Designation:
PF (D) P; CL; MISP
Existing Improvement(s):
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 rehabilitated and
widened by the City in 1980. The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due
to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The driven timber posts and
supports have gradually decayed and broken over the years 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.
Total Site Area: 25,007 SF
Existing Deck Area: 3,655 SF
Proposed Deck Area: 4,815 SF
Area Added: 1,160 SF
Existing Deck Elev.: 9.9 feet (NAVD88)
Proposed Deck Elev.: 13.5 feet (NAVD88)
Green Design Elements
Potential Green Elements being considered:
The Boardwalk replacement project will avoid the use of pressure treated
Douglas fir (PTDF) timber due to concerns with potential chemical treatment
effects (most notably arsenic and copper) on the marsh environment
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is available for the Alaskan
Yellow Cedar timber elements, if desired by the City. FSC certification reduces
the pool of mills able to process the material to roughly 15% of the available
mills so there will be an associated lead time and costs increase. Cost increase
is estimated at 10% to 15% premium.
Assessor Parcel Map
Location Map
Comprehensive Plan
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.1
PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.2
PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT (Cont)
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.3
PHOTOGRAPHIC DISPLAY / NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT (Cont)
Location of Existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.1
T2
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.2
S1
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.3
S2
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.4
S3
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.5
S4
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.6
S10
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.7
S11
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.1
S5
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.2
S6
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.3
S7
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.4
S8
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.5
S9
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.6
COLORS AND MATERIALS
The following materials and colors are proposed for the
replacement Boardwalk:
MATERIALS
In accordance with City and public input, the
replacement Boardwalk will be constructed of timber
elements to match the style and character of the existing
Boardwalk structure.
ALASKAN YELLOW CEDAR
The timber structural elements (piles/posts, joists,
bracing) are proposed to be constructed of Alaskan
Yellow Cedar (AYC). AYC is highly durable and is in
relatively common use for timber structures in marine
environments:
AYC is notable for its durability and longevity.
AYC is naturally resistant to rot, decay, insect damage
and, in saltwater applications, to marine borers.
AYC is considerably harder than most commercially
available softwoods.
AYC resists splitting and slivering, and it is highly
resistant to wear.
AYC can be certified through the FSC (Forest
Stewardship Council) if desired by the City. FSC
certification reduces the pool of mills able to process the
order to roughly 15% of the available mills so there will
be an associated lead time and costs increase. Cost
increase is estimated at 10% to 15% premium.
REDWOOD
Heart Redwood timbers will be utilized for all timber
deck and railing elements. Production of redwood
lumber is limited to California, but the market is
nationwide. The wood is easy to work, generally straight
grained, and shrinks and swells comparatively little. It is
also exceptionally stable, with very little shrinkage or
seasonal movement. Redwood’s durability is entirely
natural. The same tannins and unique cell structure that
gives redwood its warm tones and exemplary strength
make it naturally resistant to insects, decay, water and
even fire. Redwood has proven durability in outdoor
projects such as decking, fencing and outdoor furniture.
The use of Redwood Decking would match the decking
of the adjacent, recently renovated, Nature Center.
METAL COMPONENTS
TIMBER CONNECTORS: All metal connectors for
mounting and connecting timber elements will be
stainless steel and painted prior to installation.
TIMBER FASTENERS: Coated deck screws and/ or
stainless steel screws will be used for all timber to timber
connections and to mount metal connectors.
RAPTOR DETERRENT ROLLERS: Raptor deterrent rollers
will be made of extruded aluminum with aluminum
mounting brackets with stainless steel fasteners.
COLORS
In accordance with the “Site Assessment and Design
Guidelines for Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve,” all
wood finishes will consist of Olympic 911 Natural Gray
Stain and all metal components will be painted with
Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray (HC-108).
Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray
Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.7
INTERMEDIATE OVERLOOKS AND OBSERVATION PLATFORM
The replacement Boardwalk will include an Observation Platform at the San Francisco Bay end of the Boardwalk to
provide a panoramic view of the bay. The replacement Boardwalk will include four Intermediate Overlooks along its
length. The existing Boardwalk has 2 overlooks. The overlooks will be spaced along the Boardwalk, and will serve to
further improve access, allowing clearance for multi-mode users in wheelchairs to turn around and pedestrians to pass
by. Both the Observation Platform and the Intermediate Overlooks will accommodate a 30 inch by 48 inch clear area
for wheelchair users and a bench with arm rests.
Bench Concept #1 Bench Concept #2
The intermediate overlooks and observation platform will be designed to support exterior interactive exhibits to
engage visitors in salt marsh phenomena. Interactive exhibits and signage will be provided under a separate contract.
The Boardwalk Replacement Project will include sloped timber sign rails at the Intermediate Overlooks and Observation
Platform to serve as a platform for attaching the interpretive signage in the future.
Interpretive Signage Samples
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS 4.8
RAILINGS AND DECKING
A redwood timber railing, 3.5 feet minimum in height, will be erected on each side of the boardwalk. The railing will
take their style and character from the timber railings of the Nature Center. The railings will be customized to meet the
structural requirements of the long straight Boardwalk. The railing will be designed to be constructed in panels to
minimize on site construction and to speed erection of the railing within the limited work windows provided by the
project (See “Project Constraints”).
Intermittent viewing panels will be provided at the intermediate overlooks and observation platform to enhance
visibility for wheelchair users and small children. In consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in order
to minimize the potential for birds to strike the panels, each panel will be no more than 18 inches in width and will
contain either glass with bird-safe design patterns or wire mesh.
The boardwalk’s railings will be topped by raptor deterrent rollers
such as those shown in the adjacent photo, which will function to
minimize the potential for predation of endangered species that are
present at this location (e.g., salt marsh harvest mouse and the
Ridgway’s rail) by preventing raptors from perching on the railings
to scan for prey. Such rollers are in place at other locations in the
area, including the boardwalk at Alviso County Park.
Existing Bird Perch Deterrent Rollers on
the Boardwalk at Alviso County Park.
Redwood is also proposed to be used for the deck of the boardwalk, which is the material used for the railings and deck
of the recently renovated Nature Center. Interpretive signage on the railings will be installed as part of a future project.
Existing Glass Viewing Panel at Nature Center Wire Mesh Viewing Panel Option
Existing Railing at Nature Center
Proposed Railing at Boardwalk
Glass Frit Pattern Option Glass Etching Pattern Option
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 5.1
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Task 1: Site Preparation:
1.1 Install temporary marsh
mats to provide
equipment and material
access to the near end of
the Boardwalk.
1.2 Remove existing railing,
reinforce the existing
Boardwalk and modify the
deck width as required to
accommodate
construction operations
Task 2: Post/ Pile Installation:
2.1 Vibrate/push lower
segment of timber post/
pile to ground line
2.2 Splice upper segment of
timber post/ pile to
partially installed lower
segment of timber post/
pile
2.3 Vibrate/push spliced
timber post/ pile to
specified tip elevation and
cutoff top of post/ pile to
cutoff elevation
Task 3: Sub/Superstructure
Installation
3.1 Install timber bent cap
3.2 Install timber cross bracing
3.3 Install timber rim joists and
blocking
3.4 Install timber decking
3.5 Remove existing
Boardwalk to mudline
when no longer required
for construction operations
Task 4: Timber Railing Installation
4.1 Install timber railing on
completed superstructure
4.2 Remove marsh mats
4.3 Complete site clean-up
BAYLANDS BOARDWALK | ARB SUBMITTAL – AUGUST 16, 2017 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 6.1
See Attached
otlA olaP fo ytiC
!nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT
!thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM
c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno
hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devorppa nA
eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT(
1-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS
otlA olaP fo ytiC
)dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA
.egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI
ta dedaolnwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A
Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2
Use addtional “T” sheets as needed
TNEMETATS ERUSOLCSID EERT OTLAOLAP FO YTIC
eunevA notlimaH 052 ,noisiviD gninnalP
10349AC,otlAolaP
1442-923 )056(
gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth
cilbup dna etavirp no detacol seert niatrec fo noitcetorp dna erusolcsid seriuqer ,040.01.8 retpahC ,edoC lapicinuM otlA olaP
timrep gnidliub llaynapmocca tsum tnemetats erusolcsid detelpmoc A.snalp etis devorppa no nwohs ebyeht taht dna ,ytreporp
.ytivitca tnempoleved rehto ro ,snoitacilppa timrep gnidarg ro noitilomed lla ,krowroiretxe edulcni taht snoitacilppa
:SSERDDA YTREPORP ______________________________________________________________________
detalugeR ereht erA 1 ONSEY?ytreporp eht ot tnecajda ro no seert )4noitceS ot deecorp ,on fI(
].elbacilppa erehw kcehc ro/dna elcric esaelP .tnacilppaeht yb detelpmoc eb TSUM 4 -1 snoitceS[
.ylppa taht esoht kcehC ?seert eht era erehW .1 )seert retemaid ”4 revo gniwohs dettimbus eb tsum snalP(
ytreporp eht nO
etis tcejorp eht gnignahrevo ytreporp tnecajda nO
)seerT teertS( enil ytreporp fo ’03 nihtiwtnemesae yaw-fo-thgir ro pirts retnalp ytiC eht nI *
*seert teertS 1
erusolcne decnef a yb noitcetorp laiceps eriuqer edivorp tsumuoy ,timrep yna gniviecer ot roirP .snoitcurtsnidehcattaeht rep,
t deriuqer fo noitcepsni rof 3595-394 ta snoitarepO skroW cilbuPgnillacyb mrofnoitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS dezirohtua na III ro II ,I epy
.)506# liateD dehcatta ees( gnicnef
detcetorP yna ereht erA .2
1
detangiseD ro
1
?seerT SEY )elbacilppa erehwkcehC(ON
)s( eerT detcetorP
)s( eerTdetangiseD
ytreporp eht gnignahrevo ro nO
?seert eseht fo )retemaid knurt eht semit 01 suidar(?enilpird eht nihtiwgnidarg ro ytivitca ereht sI .3 ONSEY
a ,seY fI tropeRnoitavreserP eerT MTTees( weiver ffats rof dettimbus dna tsirobra deifitrec ASI na yb deraperp eb tsum
2
.)52.6 noitceS ,
.stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS rep ,”!nalP eht fo traPsti ,noitcetorP eerT:,1-T teehS ot troper siht hcattA
stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS eht erA .4 **?detelpmoc ON SEY
yponacdnaretemaid knurt derusaem eht wohs tsum snalP )1(:gniwollof eht eriuqer tnempoleved gnirudseertdetalugeRfo noitcetorP**
- 506# liateD dna1-TteehS rep ,enilpird eht ottuo aeraerusolcnedecnef a ,enil dehsad dlob a sa ,etoned tsum snalP )2( ;enilpird
mth.smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth MTT osla eeS(
2
)decnef eb otaera rof 51.2 noitceS ,
.erusolcsid siht fo snoitidnoc eht ot eerga ,dengisrednueht ,I ro eslaf gnidivorp yltnegilgen roylgniwonk taht dnatsrednu I
noitceSedoC lapicinuM otlA olaP eht fo noitaloiv a setutitsnoctnemeriuqer erusolcsid siht ot esnopser ni noitamrofni gnidaelsim
.noitca lagel livic ro/dna lanimirc ot dael nac hcihw,040.01.8
____________ :etaD______________________________ :tnirP __________________________ :erutangiS
)tnegA ro renwO .porP(
:ESU FFATS ROF
gnicneF evitcetorP
eb tsum 6-5 snoitceS ffats yb detelpmoc .)timrep gnidliub ro gnidarg ,noitilomed( timrep tnempoleved yna fo ecnaussi eht rof
seerT detcetorP.5 taht gniyfirev dehcatta si tnemetats nettirw A .ecalp ni si gnicnef eert deificeps ehT .
ecalp ni yltcerroc si gnicnef evitcetorp .seert detangised ro/dna detcetorp dnuora ONSEY
ereh kcehc ,seertdetcetorp on era ereht fi A/N()
seerT teertS.6 .dehcatta si mrof noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS skroW cilbuP dengis A .ONSEY
ereh kcehc ,seert teerts on era ereht fi A/N(.)
_____________________________
1
5.11 era hcihw skaO yellaV ro skaO eviL tsaoC – seert detcetorP )b ;ytreporp cilbup no seert – seert teertS )a –seerT detalugeR tsaoC ,regral ro retemaid ni ”
Cyb detangised seert era seert egatireH dna ;edarg larutan evoba ”45 derusaem nehw ,regral roretemaid ni ”81 era hcihw sdoowdeR )c dna ;licnuoC yti
.nalp epacsdnal devorppa na fo trap era hcihw ,seert ytreporp laitnediser-non ro laicremmoc –seerT detangiseD
2
ta elbaliava ,mrof siht no stnemeriuqer lla rof snoitcurtsni sniatnoc )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT otlA olaP
lmth.launam-lacinhcet_eert/ytinummoc-gninnalp/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth
tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT/ofnI noitcetorPeerT/tsirobrA/vidalP/nalP:S 60/80desiveR
J XIDNEPPA
snoitacificepS dna sgniwarD dradnatS 4002 otlA olaP fo ytiC
60/80desiveR 13 noitceS ,EWP ,noitcetorP fo noitacifireV eerT teertS
P
S
-
OTLA OLA
SNOITCURTSNI NOITCETORP EERT TEERT
--13 NOITCES-
lareneG1-13
snoitcnufyramirpeerhtsah noitcetorp eerT.a raelc erutcurts gnihcnarbdna yponac egailof eht peekot )1,
dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor evreserp ot )2 ;seitivitcadna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatnoc morf
si ecnabrutsidlios onhcihwni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht yfitnedi ot )3dna etats detcapmoc-non
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu,detcirtser era seitivitcadna dettimrep
)ZPT(enoZ noitcetorP eerT ehT.b semit-net fo suidar a htiw eert ehtfoesab eht dnuora aera detcirtser a si
.gnicnef ybdesolcne ,retaerg si revehcihw ;teefnet roknurt s'eert eht fo retemaid eht
stnemucoD ecnerefeR 2-13
506 liateD.a .woleb debircsed snoitautis fo noitartsullI –
smroF )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT.b ( /seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth )
.1 ( senoZ noitcirtseR gnihcnerT )C(02.2noitceS ,MTT )
.2 ( locotorP gnitropeR tsirobrA 03.6noitceS ,MTT )
.3 (stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS 53.6 noitceS ,MTT )
.4 ( tnemetatS erusolcsiD eerT JxidneppA ,MTT )
mroF )VTS( noitacifireV eerT teertS.c ( smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth )
noitucexE 3-13
:noitcetorP eerT I epyT.a eht tuohguorht detcetorpebot )s(eert eht fo ZPT eritne eht esolcne llahs ecnef ehT
,saera gnikrap emos nI .tcejorpnoitcurtsnoceht fo efil ton lliwtaht etercnoc rognivap nodetacol si gnicnef fi
ybdevorppa fi ,esab etercnoc level edarg etairporppa na yb detroppus eb yamstsopeht neht ,dehsilomedeb
.snoitarepO skroW cilbuP
:noitcetorP eerT II epyT.b fo edis dray dna pirts gnitnalpeht ylno ,pirts gnitnalp a nihtiwdetautis seert roF
dnaklawedis eht peekot redro nignicnef evitcetorpknil niahcderiuqer eht htiw desolcne eb llahs ZPT eht
.esu cilbup rof nepo teerts
:noitcetorP eerT III epyT.c ylnodesu eb oT a nidetautis seerT .snoitarepOskroWcilbuP folavorppa htiw
ni-2htiw depparw ebllahs,tip retnalp klawedis ro lleweert ot dnuorg eht morfgnicnef citsalp egnarofosehc
gidot dewolla eb ton llahs stals( yleruces dnuob stals nedoowkciht hcni-2htiwdialrevodna hcnarb tsrif eht
yna gnigamad diova ot desu eb llahs noituac ,gnicnef citsalpeht fonoitallatsni gniruD.)krab eht otni
.tsirobrA ytiCeht ybdetcerid sa gnicnef citsalperiuqer osla yam sbmil rojaM .sehcnarb
.decnef eb otaera dna epyt ,eziS.d niahc hgihtoof )'6( xis htiwdetcetorp eb llahsdevreserpebot seert llA
ot dnuorg eht otni nevird ,stsop nori dezinavlagretemaid hcni-owt nodetnuomeb ot era secneF.secnefknil
sselnu,gnihcnarbretuoeht ot dnetxe llahs gnicneF.gnicaps toof-01 naht erom on ta teef-2 tsael ta fohtped a
.mroFVTSeht no devorppa yllacificeps
sngis ’gninraW‘.e toof-02taecnef hcae no deyalpsid yltnenimorp dna foorp rehtaew ebllahsngisgninraw A .
:srettel llat hcni flah ni etats ylraelc dna sehcni-11xsehcni-5.8 muminim ebllahs ngisehT .slavretni
ot gnidrocca enif aot tcejbus si dna devomerebton llahs ecnef sihT - enoZ noitcetorP eerT - GNINRAW“
”.011.01.8 noitceS CMAP
noitaruD.f itilomederofebdetcere ebllahs gnicnef eerT .niniamer dnasnigeb noitcurtsnocro gnidarg ;no
lios rokroW.ZPT eht ni dewolla yllacificeps krow rof tpecxe ,tcejorp ehtfo noitcepsni lanif litnu ecalp
dnuora krowfo esac eht ni( tsirobrA ytiC rotsirobra tcejorp ehtyb lavorppa seriuqer ZPT ehtni ecnabrutsid
.skroW cilbuP morf timreP kroWteertS a eriuqer yaw fo thgircilbup eht nihtiw snoitavacxE.)seerT teertS
noitcurtsnoc gniruD.g
.1 .dnikyna fo tcapmi morfdetcetorpeb llahs etis tcejorpeht gnahrevotaht seert 'srobhgien llA
.2 seert denwo ylcilbup yna fo ytlanepsulp tnemecalper ro riapereht rof elbisnopser eb llahs tnacilppa ehT
otlAolaP ehtfo 070.40.8 noitceS ottnausrup ,noitcurtsnocfo esruocehtgnirud degamad erataht
.edoC lapicinuM
.3 :deniaterebot seert lla ot ylppa serusaem noitavreserp eertgniwollofehT
.a .ZPT eht nihtiw dettimrepeb llahs tnempiuqe ro selcihev ,liospot ,lairetam fo egarots oN
.b .deretla eb ton llahs aera yponac eert eht dnuora dna rednudnuorgehT
.c .lavivrus erusne ot yrassecen sa deniatniam dnadetarea ,detagirri ebllahsdeniater ebot seerT
NOITCES FO DNE
otlA olaP fo ytiC
tnemtrapeD eerT
snoitarepO skroW cilbuP
30349 AC ,otlA olaP 05201 xoB OP
3595-694/056 9829-258/056 :XAF
gro.otlAolaPfoytiC@noitcetorpeert
fo noitacifireV
noitcetorP eerT teertS
eerT dengis htiw gnola mrof siht XAF ro liaM .mrof siht fo noitrop reppu etelpmoC :snoitcurtsnI tnacilppA
.tnacilppa yfiton dna tcepsni lliw ffatS eerT skroWcilbuP .tpeD skroW cilbuP ot tnemetatS erusolcsiD
:ETAD NOITACILPPA
TEERTS FO NOITACOL/SSERDDA
:DETCETORP EB OT SEERT
:EMAN S’TNACILPPA
:SSERDDA S’TNACILPPA
ENOHPELET S’TNACILPPA
:SREBMUN XAF &
ffatSeerT ytiC yb tuo dellif eb ot noitcessihT
evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .1
yletauqeda era )se(sserdda
noitcetorp fo epyt ehT .detcetorp
:si desu woleb 2# ot og ,ON fI *
:yb detcepsnI
:noitcepsnI fo etaD
SEY *ON
evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .2
era sserdda TON
tcetorPeerT.tS/SD/eerT/SPO/DWP:S 6071/5
yletauqeda
gniwollof ehT .detcetorp
:deriuqer era snoitacifidom
deriuqer ehtwoh etacidnI
detacinummoc erewsnoitacifidom
.tnacilppa eht ot
noitcepsnI tneuqesbuS
dnuof erewsserdda evoba ta seert teertS
:detcetorp yletauqeda eb ot .esac fo noitisopsid eht woleb ”setoN“ ni etacidni ,ON fI *
:yb detcespnI
:noitcepsnI fo etaD
SEY *ON
:setoN ,seiceps yb seert teerts ytiC tsiL
noitcetorp eert fo epyt dna noitidnoc ,etis
erewserutcip fi eton oslA .dellatsni
.yrassecen fi teehs fo kcab esU .nekat
.ecnaussi timrep gnidliub ro noitilomed rof tnacilppA ot teehs devorppa nruteR
itcetorPeerTotlAolaPfoytitCadetacolerasnoitcurtsnInosu.ac.otla-olap.ytic.www//:pttlhmth.launam-lacinhcet/seert/
---GNINRAW---
enoZnoitcetorPeerT
tuohtiwdevomerebtonllahsgnicnefsihT
)3595-694-056(lavorppatsirobrAytiC
sinoissimreptuohtiwlavomeR
*yadrepenif005$aottcejbus
011.01.8noitceSedoClapicinuMotlAolaP*
:hcraeS decnavdA cipoTyBesworB
emoH tnemnorivnEytinummoC&gninnalP
emoH
ytiC-seerTdenwo
yletavirP-seerTdenwo
eerTehttuobA
ecnanidrO
01.8eltiT
seerTegatireH
smroF
launaMlacinhceTeerT
sQAF
sUtcatnoC
secruoseR
launaMlacinhceTeerT
oT esahcrup launaMlacinhceTeerTeht
noitidEtsriF1002,enuJ
:noitcesybweiV
stnetnoCfoelbaT )BK78,FDP(
esopruPdnatnetnI )BM50.1,FDP(
noitcudortnI -launaMfoesU )BM50.1,FDP(
0.1noitceS -snoitinifeD )BK69,FDP(
0.2noitceS -noitcurtsnoCgniruDseerTfonoitcetorP )BK952,FDP(
0.3noitceS -seerTfognitnalP&tnemecalpeR,lavomeR )BK711,FDP(
0.4noitceS -seerTsuodrazaH )BK501,FDP(
0.5noitceS -senilediuGecnanetniaMeerT )BK011,FDP(
0.6noitceS -stropeReerT )BK48,FDP(
:snoitcesLLAweiV
launaMlacinhceTeerT -lluF )BM48.1,FDP(
SECIDNEPPA
tnemeganaM&noitavreserPeerT,01.8retpahCedoClapicinuMotlAolaP.A
snoitalugeR
ytiCeerT:B -ASU
mroFnoitaulavEdrazaHASI:C
)ecruosecnerefeR(seicepSdetceleSrofsnrettaPeruliaFtnerehnIfotsiL:D
senilediuGgninurPeerTASI:E )BM58.1,FDP(
1.331ZISNA,sdradnatSytefaSeraCeerT:F -)ecruosecnerefeR(4991
003AISNA,sdradnatSecnamrofrePgninurP:G -)ecruosecnerefeR(5991 :H
505&405margaiD,sliateDgnitnalPeerT
tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT:I
snoitcurtsnInoitcetorPeerTdradnatSotlAolaP:J
1-T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Da
t
a
Type II Tree Protection
Type I Tree Protection
Type III Tree Protection
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater).
Restricted activity area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.15(E).
Restricted trenching area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work
within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public Works Operations. Call 650-496-5953.
TPZ
either 10 x Tree Diameter
or 10-feet,
whichever is greater
Any proposed trench
in TPZ requires approval
See TTM 2.20 C-D
for instructions
6-foot high
chain link fence,
typical
(to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations)
Tree fencing is required and shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins.
Any inadvertant sidewalk or
curb replacement or trenching
requires approval
Rev By Date
City of Palo Alto Standard Dwg
No.
Approved by:
Dave Dockter
Date
PE No.
2006
Scale: NTS 605
Tree Protection
During Construction
1RWH 6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV
3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG
DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679
IRUPSURYLGHG
1RWH 2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFH
RIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW
ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\
DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW
2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing
overlaid with
2-inch Thick Wooden Slats
Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/)
Warning
Warning
Warning
8.5x11-inch Warning Signs
one each side
Fencing must provide public passage
while protecting all other land in TPZ.
For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31
Fence distance
to outer branches o
r
T
P
Z
12/14/92
Restricted use for
trees in sidewalk cutout
tree wells only
For all Ordinance Protected and Designated
trees, as detailed in the site specific
tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the
applicant’s project arborist as diagramed on the plans.
Yard
Sidewalk
Parkway Strip
Street
D.D.01 08/04/04
02 D.D.08/10/06
0 DWH
Warning
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MANDATORY
PAMC 8.10 PROTECTED TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE PROJECT SITE ARBORIST IS PERFORMING
REQUIRED TREE INSPECTION AND SITE MONITORING. PROVIDE WRITTEN MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY
REPORTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE REVIEW STAFF BEGINNING 14 DAYS AFTER
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
BUILDING PERMIT DATE: ______________________ _______
DATE OF 1ST TREE ACTIVITY REPORT: ___ _____________
CITY STAFF: ___________________________ ___________
REPORTING DETAILS OF THE MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO SHEET T-1 FORMAT,
VERIFY THAT ALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE IMPLIMENTED AND WILL INCLUDE ALL CONTRACTOR
ACTIVITY, SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED, WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ROOT ZONE. NON-COMPLIANCE
IS SUBJECT TO VIOLATION OF PAMC 8.10.080. REFERENCE: PALO ALTO TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL,
SECTION 2.00 AND ADDENDUM 11.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460
2775 EMBARCADERO WAY
THERE ARE NO TREES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS
otlA olaP fo ytiC
!nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT
!thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM
c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno
hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devoppa nA
eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT(
2-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS
otlA olaP fo ytiC
2-T )dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA
.egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI
nloaded atwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Da
t
a
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460
Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2
Use addtional “T” sheets as needed
1
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Megha Bansal Department: Public Works
Date: September 26, 2017
Subject: Park Improvement Ordinance for design of the Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommend
that the City Council approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) (Attachment
A) for the design of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Capital
Improvement Project (CIP; PE-11011).
BACKGROUND
The project includes construction of a new, year-round, grade-separated, shared
bicycle and pedestrian crossing over Highway 101 and Adobe Creek that will
replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass. Adobe Creek Reach
Trail is also included in the project that will connect two trailheads on the west
side of Highway 101 and provide safer access to the bridge. The project will
improve connectivity between the residential and commercial areas on the west
of Highway 101 and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, the regional San
Francisco Bay Trail (Baytrail) network, and businesses on the east of Highway
101.This facility may be used for both commuting and recreational purposes.
In November 2016, staff presented the 15% (conceptual) design of the baseline
bridge with optional enhancements for Council consideration and input. Council
directed staff to proceed with the 12-foot wide Baseline Bowstring steel truss
design and alignment to meet the total project budget of $14 million (Staff Report
ID# 7209). Staff presented the design concepts to the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee in January 2017 and the PRC in March 2017
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57160), followed by
preliminary reviews by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and
Transportation Commission in May 2017.
2
On July 25, 2017, staff presented the preliminary design components and a draft
scope of work for the project to the PRC
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58775). Meeting
minutes can be accessed from this link:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59200
While the project team responded to most questions from the PRC during the
meeting, some comments were further reviewed and are addressed as follows:
Commissioner Comments Staff Response
The bike racks shown on drawings were
aesthetically pleasing but did not
appear functional.
The bike racks model and type has been
revised to match the bike racks used on
other City projects.
It would be helpful to have a table to
indicate various ingress/egress points
to the western approach.
A Circulation Plan is included in the
drawing set indicating sidewalks, bike
lanes, and shared use paths. Project
Plans also include a signage plan
showing different types of signage and
their locations, including informational,
educational, and wayfinding signs.
It would be good to define a use case
(commute and recreation) for the
facility.
Based on our discussion with various
user groups, we think that the structure
would be used primarily for commuting
purposes during peak commute hours
and weekdays, and recreational
purposes during the weekends and
non-peak commute hours.
For more information, please refer to the project website: cityofpaloalto.org/101
DISCUSSION
The Project consists of a principal span steel truss bridge over Highway 101 and
East and West Bayshore Roads, concrete approach structures, various access
points including three trailheads and a pedestrian access pathway/ramp, Adobe
Creek Reach Trail, an overlook on the east approach structure, landscaping and
habitat restoration, lighting, amenities, and signage. The pathway width will be
12-foot clear along the entire length of the structure. The structure will meet the
3
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Attachment A includes a Park
Improvement Ordinance. Attachment B includes graphics and preliminary design
drawings.
The design consultant incorporated the PRC, public, and staff’s recommendations
and developed the design including the following scope of work (Attachment A):
1. Construction of three new self-weathering steel trusses spanning Highway
101, and East and West Bayshore Roads, with safety railing.
2. Construction of cast-in-place concrete approach structures on east and
west sides, with safety railing.
3. Construction of a new 140-foot long, self-weathering prefabricated steel
truss over the Adobe and Barron Creeks confluence along West Bayshore
Road.
4. Incorporation of a new pedestrian access ramp into the Western
Approach Structure.
5. Construction of an overlook on the East Approach Structure.
6. Construction of three new trailheads/trail connections at West Bayshore
Road, East Meadow Drive and East Bayshore Road.
7. Installation of pole, rail and handrail light-emitting diode (LED) lighting
along the structure:
a) 15 Pole mounted lights containing 12-foot tall pole with field
adjustable modules on the western approach structure.
b) Integrated rail lights throughout the pathway including 74 higher
mounting height fixtures at the principal span and 141 lower mounting
height fixtures at other locations.
c) 15 rail mounted step lights, ten in-ground step lights at the curb, and a
linear LED light under the bench.
8. Removal and replacement of 28 trees with native trees in accordance with
the City’s Tree Technical Manual. Installation of vegetated swales.
9. Installation of enhanced amenities including bike racks and bike repair
station, benches, trash receptacle, and drinking water fountains.
10. Incorporation of signage including wayfinding, informational and
educational signs.
11. Asphalt concrete, compacted gravel, and fencing on Adobe Creek Reach
Trail.
4
12. Street lights replacement, widened sidewalk and mid-block access to
trailheads.
13. No lighting on the Adobe Creek Reach and Bay Trails.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this project is included in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project
(PE-11011) - Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project.
The current project funding is as follows:
Funding Source Funding Amount
Santa Clara County Recreation Fund $4.0 million
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 2* $4.35 million
General Fund $4.65 million
Google Contribution** $1.0 million
Total: $14.0 million
*Approval of the OBAG Cycle 2 funds is anticipated in 2017.
**A contribution of $1 million from Google is planned to fund additional project
contingency to offset any increases in project costs.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and
programs.
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling.
Goal T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open
space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-
model transit stations.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of
the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles,
transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
This project requires an environmental assessment and the Commission to
recommend a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for Council approval. Project
schedule is as follows:
5
Phase 1: Preliminary Design
•15% and 35% design – Complete
•Commission PIO review and recommendation to Council –
September 2017
•Public review meetings – Fall 2017
•Complete environmental assessment – Winter 2017
•Complete 65% design – Winter 2017
Phase 2: Final Design and Construction Documents
•Council to authorize Phase 2 and Phase 3 services – Fall 2017
•OBAG Cycle 2 access to construction funding – October 2018
•Complete 100% design and bid documents – Fall 2018
Phase 3: Construction Phase
•Begin construction – early 2019
•Complete construction – early Spring 2020
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared and is in public
circulation from September 1, 2017 to October 2, 2017. The IS/MND may be
viewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3935&TargetID=3
19 . The MND concludes that, with mitigation incorporated, the project will have
no significant environmental impacts.
Because the project may involve federal funding, the project has also been
evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City
anticipates that a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA will apply to the project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance Approving and Adopting the Park Improvement
Ordinance (PIO) for the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
Attachment B: Graphics and Preliminary Design Drawings
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Approving and
Adopting Plans For the Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a)Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction,
reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land
held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance
approve and adopt a plan therefor.
(b)The Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Project (explained below) is
partially within the Baylands, which is dedicated parkland. See Municipal Code section
22.08.020.
(c)The City intends to approve and adopt the plan to construct the Highway
101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge, as detailed in Exhibit “A” and as generally listed below:
1.Construction of three new self-weathering steel trusses spanning Highway 101, and
East and West Bayshore Roads, with safety railing.
2.Construction of cast-in-place concrete approach structures on east and west sides,
with safety railing.
3.Construction of a new 140-foot long, self-weathering prefabricated steel truss over the
Adobe and Barron Creeks confluence along West Bayshore Road.
4.Incorporation of a new pedestrian access ramp into the Western Approach Structure.
5.Construction of an overlook on the East Approach Structure.
6.Construction of three new trailheads/trail connections at West Bayshore Road, East
Meadow Drive and East Bayshore Road.
7.Installation of pole, rail and handrail light-emitting diode (LED) lighting along the
structure:
a)15 Pole mounted lights containing 12-foot tall pole with field adjustable modules
on the western approach structure.
b)Integrated rail lights throughout the pathway including 74 higher mounting height
fixtures at the principal span and 141 lower mounting height fixtures at other
locations.
c)15 rail mounted step lights, ten in-ground step lights at the curb, and a linear LED
light under the bench.
8.Removal and replacement of 28 trees with native trees in accordance with the City’s
Tree Technical Manual. Installation of vegetated swales.
9.Installation of enhanced amenities including bike racks and bike repair station,
benches, trash receptacle, and drinking water fountains.
10.Incorporation of signage including wayfinding, informational and educational signs.
11.Asphalt concrete, compacted gravel, and fencing on Adobe Creek Reach Trail.
ATTACHMENT A
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
12.Street lights replacement, widened sidewalk and mid-block access to trailheads.
13.No lighting on the Adobe Creek Reach and Bay Trails.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for construction of a new year-
round, grade-separated, shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing over Highway 101 and Adobe
Creek and hereby adopts the Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for
the construction of Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project prior to
adoption of this ordinance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project
would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN – ABOVE-GRADE FACILITIES
Exhibit A - Site Plan
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE
1 | PROJECT DATA 6 | LANDSCAPE PLANS
2 | NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 7 | PARKING LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION
3 | SITE PLAN 8 | LIGHTING
4 | STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS 9 | STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS
5 | STRUCTURE SECTIONS 10 | TREE PROTECTION PLAN
Attachment B - Graphics and Design Drawings
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 PROJECT DATA 1.1
LOCATION MAP PROJECT DATA
Location:
Approximately 0.3 miles north of San Antonio Road
Lot Dimensions & Area:
#008-05-005 (44,645,693 sf)
#127-10-076 (89,941 sf)
#127-10-100 (130,572 sf)
#127-56-006 (36,258 sf)
#127-56-007 (122,639 sf)
Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning:
North: Research Office, Caltrans right-of-way, and Publicly Owned Conservation land uses (ROLM and
PF[D] Zone Districts)
West: Research Office land use and some multi-family residential land uses (ROLM Zone District)
East: Publicly Owned Conservation Land (Palo Alto Baylands) (PF[D] Zone District)
South: Office/manufacturing Uses (GM Zone) on the east side of Highway 101, Caltrans and City street
right-of-way and Research office and Research office/City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering offices on
the west side of 101 (ROLM (D)(AD) Zone District)
Special Setback
There is a special setback requirement of 24 feet along West Bayshore Road.
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 2.1
Baylands
Project
Location
Business Park
3600 W
Bayshore
US101
3570 Fabian
Echelon
Condominiums
Business Park
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.1
SITE PLAN – ABOVE-GRADE FACILITIES
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.2
SITE PLAN – SIGNAGE AND AMENITIES
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.3
SITE PLAN – UTILITY PLAN (1 OF 2)
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 SITE PLAN 3.4
SITE PLAN – UTILITY PLAN (2 OF 2)
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS 4.1
DEVELOPED STRUCTURE ELEVATION (1 OF 2)
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS 4.2
DEVELOPED STRUCTURE ELEVATION (2 OF 2)
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS 4.3
ARCHITECTURAL GUARDRAIL ELEVATION AND DETAILS
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS 4.4
ACCESS RAMP WALL ELEVATION
RENDERED ELEVATIONS
CREEK WALL ELEVATION
PRINCIPAL SPAN ELEVATION
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SECTIONS 5.1
A B C2
1
A B C
STRUCTURE SECTIONS
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SECTIONS 5.2
RENDERED SECTIONS
BENT SCHEMATICS
TYPICAL RAMP BENT (Bent 4 Shown, others similar)
AT BENTS 5 TO 8
PRINCIPAL SPAN
ACCESS RAMP
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.1
LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER RETENTION
Landscaping is limited to restoration of areas disturbed by project. Primary
areas for restoration include:
The portion of the Baylands under and adjacent to the Eastern Approach
1. Structure which will be restored with native grasses and planting as well
as some hardscape and planting at the east plaza where the East
Approach Structure joins the San Francisco Bay Trail. Trail head
amenities in the form of trash and recycling receptacles as well as an
optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station.
2. Disturbed areas of the Google Parking Lot under and adjacent to the
Western Approach Structure will be landscape to provide screening to
the structure and will include accommodation of a retention area,
replacement of existing landscaping trees affected by construction and
reconfiguration of the existing Google Parking lot resulting in no net
loss of parking.
3. The west plaza at the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Head will include
hardscaping at the plaza and existing aggregate base along the SCVWD
maintenance road compatible with the regular SCVWD maintenance
operations and materials, as well as proposed trail head amenities
including trash and recycling receptacles and an optional drinking
fountain and bottle filling station.
4. Storm water collection into retention systems will include native
planting and drainage swales leading into retention basins to filter
storm-water. These systems will be located in landscaping areas in the
Baylands.
Arbutus ‘Marina’
Marina Strawberry Tree
Salix Lasiolepis
Arroyo Willow
Platanus Acerifolia
London Planetree
Myrica Californica
Pacific Wax Myrtle
Populus Fremontii
Fremont’s Cottonwood
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.2
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.3
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.4
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.5
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.6
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.7
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.8
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.9
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.10
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.11
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.12
DRAINAGE PLAN
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LANDSCAPE PLANS 6.13
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 PARKING LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION 7.1
CIRCULATION
Shared Use Path (Pedestrian + Bike)
Sidewalks (Pedestrian)
Bike Lanes (Bike)
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 PARKING LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION 7.2
GOOGLE PARKING LOT - IMPROVEMENTS
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 PARKING LAYOUT AND CIRCULATION 7.3
GOOGLE PARKING LOT - DEMOLITION
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.1
STRUCTURE LIGHTING
Lighting design will be provided for the Overcrossing that contributes to the project goals of providing connectivity
while addressing environmental concerns. The Overcrossing paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support
pedestrian and bicycling activates, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from higher illuminated urban areas on
the western side of Highway 101 to the lower lighting of the Baylands to the east. Photometric levels will conform to
standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society.
The Western Approach Structure will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to the surrounding
environment. Pole mounted luminaires will provide uniform illumination along the pathway and at landscaping areas
leading to the Overcrossing. At the Principal Span Structure, lighting will be integrated into the guardrail where
possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Direct view of any light source is to be shielded from adjacent
vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. Lighting at the Eastern Approach Structure and
Eastern Approach Overlook will be integrated into the urban infrastructure components, such as railings and benches,
in order to reduce visual interferences of the Baylands.
Careful consideration will be given to providing appropriate illumination at environmentally sensitive areas such as
areas adjacent to Adobe and Barron Creek and the Baylands. Lighting on the Eastern Approach Structure will be
minimal in order to reduce potential glare and distraction for wildlife with the Baylands. Step lights will be utilized,
meeting photometric requirements, to provide low levels of functional lighting along the pathway. Warm color
lighting techniques will be used to reduce lighting effects to migratory birds and other wildlife.
The lighting system will be designed to be mindful of the surrounding environment. Lighting poles with full-cutoff
capability will be used in order to reduce light emitted above the 90° plane, limiting contribution to light pollution.
Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with limited activity. Light levels dim down on a
set time schedule synced with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their presence, allowing the
lighting to change in response to pedestrian and bicycle activity.
RAIL LIGHT REVISED POLE LIGHT
AERIAL VIEW
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.2
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.3
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.4
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.5
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.6
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.7
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.8
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.9
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.10
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.11
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.12
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.13
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.14
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.15
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.16
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.17
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.18
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.19
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.20
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.21
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.22
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.23
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 LIGHTING 8.24
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing (Overcrossing) is located in the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County, between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101, and will replace the
existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass of Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor. The grade-separated crossing will provide year-round connectivity from residential and commercial areas west of Highway 101 to the Palo
Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands), East Bayshore Business Park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The project will include a new bridge structure over Highway 101 and West and East Bayshore
Roads, a trail connection along Adobe Creek to East Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along West Bayshore Road, and landscaping and habitat restoration within the Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. The project lies
primarily within City and Caltrans rights-of-way, although the south/west project area includes Santa Clara Valley Water District property and private property owned by Google.
The proposed Overcrossing will consist of multiple structure types in order to maximize the benefits of the different structure types for the various constraints present in the project. The Overcrossing structure is divided into the following major
project elements ( signifies the major structural components and the elements of connection and congregation)
MAJOR PROJECT ELEMENTS
PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURES
WEST APPROACH STRUCTURE
EAST APPROACH STRUCTURE
ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE
WESTERN ACCESS RAMP
BAYLANDS OVERLOOK
BAYTRAIL CONNECTION
ADOBE CREEK TRAIL
E
F
G
D
C
B
A
B
C
D
H
A E
F
G
H
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.2
PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURES
The Principal Span Structure is set to a straight alignment that is essentially perpendicular to the Highway 101 and
Bayshore Road alignments. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans spanning across West Bayshore
Road, Highway 101, and East Bayshore Road. At this location, Highway 101 is a 12-lane highway with a 162-foot wide
right-of-way (See Figure below). East Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with a 20.5-foot wide traveled way
and two 6-foot shoulders. West Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with an approximately 20.5-foot wide
traveled way and a 5.5-foot shoulder and 6-foot bicycle lane.
The span over Highway 101 will consist of a 165-foot long, simply-supported prefabricated steel bowstring truss. The
bowstring truss is able to achieve the long clear span while keeping the profile depth from the top of deck to bridge
soffit to a minimum. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over West Bayshore Road will consist of a 60’-0” long
prefabricated steel Pratt truss. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over East Bayshore Road will consist of a 70-0”
long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway.
Bents under the Principal Structure spans will consist of 2-foot thick non-skewed concrete pier walls on cast-in-drilled-
hole (CIDH) pile foundations. In order to reduce traffic control requirements within Highway 101, the pier walls
adjacent to Highway 101 (Bents 6 and 7) will be founded on a concrete pile cap supported by CIDH piles located
within the medians between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The concrete pier walls supporting the
other ends of the steel Pratt trusses (Bents 5 and 8) will be founded on a concrete pile cap which is supported by CIDH
piles. Pier walls at Bents 5 and 8 will support both the steel trusses of the Principal Span Structure and the end of the
West and East Approach concrete slab spans.
Safety railings will be provided the full length of the Principal Span Structure. The railings will consist of 8-foot tall
galvanized welded wire safety fencing.
MATERIALS
MAIN TRUSS – Self Weathering Steel ASTM A588/A606-4
DECKING – Cast-in-place (CIP) Concrete on Metal Decking
PANEL RAILINGS – Galvanized Metal Frame
FENCING – 77% Open Weaved Wire Mesh (1” min)
A
TRUSS ELEVATION
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.3
TRUSS LAYOUT
A B C2
1
A B C
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.4
TRANSITION
TRANSITION
1
2
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.5
BASE ARCHITECTURE + TRUSS FENCE SCHEMATIC
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.6
FENCING SCHEMATICS
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.7
WEST/EAST APPROACH STRUCTURES
The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately
115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West
Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure
over Highway 101. The alignment closely abuts the adjacent Barron Creek to
enable retention of parking spaces with in the Google parking lot and to
provide the maximum elevation gain between the adjoining Principal Span
Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge crossing.
The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximate 168-
degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the
Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to conform at the
San Francisco Bay Trail.
The West/East Approach Structures consist of a four/seven span, 2’-6” deep
rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The
span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-
depth ratio of approximately 0.050. The columns will have textural banding. The
abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported
by a large diameter CIDH pile. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear
width pathway.
Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the
West Approach Structure. The railings consist of 4-foot to 8-foot tall effective
safety fencing.
MATERIALS
SUPERSTRUCTURE SLAB – CIP Concrete Reinforced Slab
TEXTURAL BANDING – Fractured Fin Surface
PANEL RAILINGS – Galvanized Metal Frame
FENCING – 74% Open Weaved Wire Mesh
BENTS – CIP Concrete with Form-lined Textural Banding
B C
BENT SCHEMATICS
RAMP CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL RAMP BENT (Bent 4 Shown, others similar) AT BENTS 5 TO 8
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.8
ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE
The Adobe Creek Bridge consists of a 140-foot long prefabricated steel Pratt
truss, spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks, adjacent to
the existing Adobe Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 37C-0060) along West Bayshore
Road. The bridge will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway allowing for
travel in both direction. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top
chord of the 4 foot high safety railing for the structure. The abutments will
consist of concrete seat type abutments supported by large diameter CIDH
piles. It will maintain the same character and style as the existing bridge
crossing Adobe Creek adjacent to E Bayshore Road.
EXISTING ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE at E BAYSHORE RD
MATERIALS
MAIN TRUSS – Self Weathering Prefabricated Steel Truss
DECKING – CIP Concrete on Metal Decking; Color: Standard Concrete Grey
PANEL RAILINGS – Self-weathering Integrated Metal Rails
ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE SCHEMATICS D
TRUSS CROSS SECTIONS
TRUSS ELEVATION
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.9
ACCESS RAMP/CREEK RETAINING WALLS
A pedestrian access ramp has been incorporated into the Western Approach
Structure between the Google property (3600 West Bayshore Road) and Adobe
Creek Bridge to provide continuous access for pedestrians along West
Bayshore and access to the Overcrossing. For northbound pedestrians along
West Bayshore Road the access structure can reduce the length of travel by
roughly 500 feet. This access structure also provides equal access to mobility
impaired trail users and provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing bike
lane along West Bayshore road to be made continuous across the existing
Adobe Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative
access which can be used as an ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes
the trail access area for their channel sedimentation maintenance.
RAMP WALL – Retaining Wall #1
The access ramp wall will be supported by a Caltrans Standard Type 5 Retaining
Wall. The tallest section will support the “Y” landing from the access ramp to
the Adobe Creek Bridge abutment. The 8-foot clear ramp will be ADA
compliant with a 7.5% max slope and 5-foot landings for every 30” vertical rise.
The walls will have the theme banding and textured surfaces to deter graffiti.
CREEK WALLS – Retaining Wall #3 & #4
The creek walls will also be Caltrans Standard Type 5 walls against the channel.
Retaining wall #3 will extend from the POC abutment to the Adobe Creek
Bridge abutment and support the ramp fill and the “Y” landing. Retaining wall
#4 is located on the other side of the Adobe Creek Bridge and extends from
the Bridge Abutment to the exiting landing of the undercrossing entrance to
support the widened sidewalk.
MATERIALS
CONCRETE WALLS – CIP Concrete with Form-lined Textural Banding;
Color: Standard Concrete Grey
TEXTURAL BANDING – Fractured Fin Surface
RAMP RAILINGS – Metal Post with Welded Wire Mesh Fence
CREEK RAILINGS – Same as approach ramps
E
ACCESS RAMP WALL ELEVATION
ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
SOUTH VIEW NORTH VIEW
CREEK WALL ELEVATION
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.10
BAYLANDS OVERLOOK
In order to provide the trail users an opportunity to pause, rest and view the
adjacent Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle through traffic. The
architecture of the overlook will extend from the main bridge structure
elements. The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area
more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in
texture and color. Benches will be located along the overlook to allow users to
rest and/or view the surrounding vistas of the Baylands. The decking and the
bench elements could potentially be constructed from the existing timber
decking being removed from the adjacent Baylands Boardwalk project that can
be recycled, refinished and repurposed as part of the Overcrossing Project.
It is envisioned that the art elements will be primarily located on the overlook
in the form of benches, railings and art panels. The City has hired Mary Lucking
Studio to develop the art work. The artwork will be coordinated with the
design team and may be incorporated as part of the design contract drawings
Informational and educational signage will also be located on the overlook to
further enhance the experience for the users.
F
OVERLOOK CONCEPTUAL BASE PLAN
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.11
BAYTRAIL CONNECTION
The intersection was reconfigured to a roundabout configuration. The inner
circle and edge of mountable apron will have a radius of 7-feet and the outer
path radius will be 15-feet. The path will possibly be used in combination with
signage and pavement markings to slow bicyclists. The circle path will also be
colorized to differentiate the roundabout and to serve as a visual cue for both
bicyclists and pedestrians.
MATERIALS
CONCRETE PAVING CIRCLE – Colored concrete paving. Color will be a reddish
color TBD.
CONCRETE APPROACH PAVING – Concrete paving. Paving layout to match
spacing on bridge edge.: 9” band and 96”control joint spacing between bands.
ROUNDABOUT APRON HARDSCAPE – 3”mountable apron curb surrounding a
cobble stone center finish. See Mountable Apron Detail.
G
ROUNDABOUT MOUNTABLE APRON
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.12
ADOBE CREEK TRAIL/TRAILHEADS”
The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail involves designating a 10-foot wide
section along the approximately 800 linear feet segment of the existing Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road on the east side of
Adobe Creek, between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, as the
Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a more
direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West
Bayshore Road for pedestrians and bicyclists. The trail will utilize the existing
SCVWD maintenance road along Adobe Creek (maintaining the existing
aggregate base surfacing) and will include installation of safety railing along
the top of bank of Adobe Creek (subject to acceptance by the SCVWD). The
project will include trail heads at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive.
Trail heads will consist of simple concrete connections to the adjoining
streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and
street signage. Resurfacing of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail was not originally
included in this project. However, potential trail resurfacing as part of a future
project will be environmentally cleared as part of this project.
MEADOW WAY TRAILHEAD
Based on the coordination with Transportation, the project modified the
Meadow Way Trailhead at Adobe Creek trail to incorporate a raised crosswalk
and bulb outs that are also being done as a part of a separate bike safety
project by the City in the area. Signage will be coordinated with staff
WEST BAYSHORE TRAILHEAD
Based on the coordination with Transportation and the SCVWD, the trailhead at
the Adobe Creek trail will be a large open concrete area paved area. The open
area will be used as a staging area for the SCVWD when they perform their
maintenance operations. They would also like gates on either side to store
equipment during those periods. Minor amenities will be located at this
trailhead subject to SCVWD approval.
H
MEADOW WAY RAISED CROSS WALK
30’
WEST BAYSHORE BLVD PLAN
Revisions:
30’ Curb Cut at sidewalk
Eliminate Water Fountain
Eliminate Trash and Recycling Receptacles
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.13
AMENITIES
As part of the council direction, enhanced amenities were
approved to be incorporated as part of the overall project,
including hydration station, benches, upgraded trash
receptacles and bicycle racks.
ENHANCED AMENITIES LIST
BAYTRAIL TRAILHEAD
HYDRATION STATION – Elkay EZ-H2O LK4420-BF1; bottle
filling station, water fountain, pet fountain, Color TBD
TRASH/RECYCLE RECEPTACLES – Du Mor #148
BIKE REPAIR STAND – DERO FIXIT with Air Kit, Galvanized,
Color TBD
ADOBE CREEK TRAILHEAD
BIKE REPAIR STAND – DERO FIXIT with Air Kit, Galvanized,
Color TBD
OVERLOOK
BIKE RACKS – FORMS+SURFACES Bike Garden Racks, Color
TBD
BENCHES – Artist-designed benches with back and
armrests
BIKE RACK – Emerson Bike Rack
BIKE REPAIR STAND – Dero Fixit TRASH RECEPTACLES – DuMor Model 148-32SH-FTO
HYDRATION STATION – Elkay EZH2O
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.14
SIGNAGE
Signage is limited to 5 areas:
Baytrail Connection
Adobe Creek Trailhead @ Meadow
Adobe Creek Trailhead @ Bayshore
The “Y” Landing
The Overlook
WAYFINDING SIGNS
Destination Wayfinding
Roundabout Wayfinding
Green background with white reflective border and text.
INFORMATIONAL SIGNS
Pedestrian Crossing Warning Sign
Dismount Warning Sign
Share Use Path/Etiquette Signs
White background with Black border and text.
EDUCATIONAL SIGNS
24”x36 Panels (by others)
“You are here”/Trail Map
Sample signage shown. Final colors, types,
messages, etc. will be refined during final
design phase.
DESTINATION WAYFINDING
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
TOPPING OPTIONS
INFORMATIONAL EXAMPLES – TRAIL ETIQUETTE
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.15
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.16
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.17
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.18
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.19
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.20
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 STRUCTURE SCHEMATICS 9.21
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL | August 30, 2017 TREE PROTECTION PLAN 10.1
See Attached
otlA olaP fo ytiC
!nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT
!thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM
c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno
hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devorppa nA
eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT(
1-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS
otlA olaP fo ytiC
)dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA
.egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI
ta dedaolnwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A
Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2
Use addtional “T” sheets as needed
TNEMETATS ERUSOLCSID EERT OTLAOLAP FO YTIC
eunevA notlimaH 052 ,noisiviD gninnalP 10349AC,otlAolaP
1442-923 )056(
gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth
cilbup dna etavirp no detacol seert niatrec fo noitcetorp dna erusolcsid seriuqer ,040.01.8 retpahC ,edoC lapicinuM otlA olaP
timrep gnidliub llaynapmocca tsum tnemetats erusolcsid detelpmoc A.snalp etis devorppa no nwohs ebyeht taht dna ,ytreporp
.ytivitca tnempoleved rehto ro ,snoitacilppa timrep gnidarg ro noitilomed lla ,krowroiretxe edulcni taht snoitacilppa
:SSERDDA YTREPORP ______________________________________________________________________
detalugeR ereht erA 1 ONSEY?ytreporp eht ot tnecajda ro no seert )4noitceS ot deecorp ,on fI(
].elbacilppa erehw kcehc ro/dna elcric esaelP .tnacilppaeht yb detelpmoc eb TSUM 4 -1 snoitceS[
.ylppa taht esoht kcehC ?seert eht era erehW .1 )seert retemaid ”4 revo gniwohs dettimbus eb tsum snalP(
ytreporp eht nO
etis tcejorp eht gnignahrevo ytreporp tnecajda nO
)seerT teertS( enil ytreporp fo ’03 nihtiwtnemesae yaw-fo-thgir ro pirts retnalp ytiC eht nI *
*seert teertS 1 erusolcne decnef a yb noitcetorp laiceps eriuqer edivorp tsumuoy ,timrep yna gniviecer ot roirP .snoitcurtsnidehcattaeht rep,
t deriuqer fo noitcepsni rof 3595-394 ta snoitarepO skroW cilbuPgnillacyb mrofnoitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS dezirohtua na III ro II ,I epy
.)506# liateD dehcatta ees( gnicnef
detcetorP yna ereht erA .2 1 detangiseD ro 1 ?seerT SEY )elbacilppa erehwkcehC(ON
)s( eerT detcetorP
)s( eerTdetangiseD ytreporp eht gnignahrevo ro nO
?seert eseht fo )retemaid knurt eht semit 01 suidar(?enilpird eht nihtiwgnidarg ro ytivitca ereht sI .3 ONSEY
a ,seY fI tropeRnoitavreserP eerT MTTees( weiver ffats rof dettimbus dna tsirobra deifitrec ASI na yb deraperp eb tsum 2 .)52.6 noitceS ,
.stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS rep ,”!nalP eht fo traPsti ,noitcetorP eerT:,1-T teehS ot troper siht hcattA
stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS eht erA .4 **?detelpmoc ON SEY
yponacdnaretemaid knurt derusaem eht wohs tsum snalP )1(:gniwollof eht eriuqer tnempoleved gnirudseertdetalugeRfo noitcetorP**
- 506# liateD dna1-TteehS rep ,enilpird eht ottuo aeraerusolcnedecnef a ,enil dehsad dlob a sa ,etoned tsum snalP )2( ;enilpird
mth.smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth MTT osla eeS(2 )decnef eb otaera rof 51.2 noitceS ,
.erusolcsid siht fo snoitidnoc eht ot eerga ,dengisrednueht ,I ro eslaf gnidivorp yltnegilgen roylgniwonk taht dnatsrednu I
noitceSedoC lapicinuM otlA olaP eht fo noitaloiv a setutitsnoctnemeriuqer erusolcsid siht ot esnopser ni noitamrofni gnidaelsim
.noitca lagel livic ro/dna lanimirc ot dael nac hcihw,040.01.8
____________ :etaD______________________________ :tnirP __________________________ :erutangiS
)tnegA ro renwO .porP(
:ESU FFATS ROF
gnicneF evitcetorP eb tsum 6-5 snoitceS ffats yb detelpmoc .)timrep gnidliub ro gnidarg ,noitilomed( timrep tnempoleved yna fo ecnaussi eht rof
seerT detcetorP.5 taht gniyfirev dehcatta si tnemetats nettirw A .ecalp ni si gnicnef eert deificeps ehT .
ecalp ni yltcerroc si gnicnef evitcetorp .seert detangised ro/dna detcetorp dnuora ONSEY
ereh kcehc ,seertdetcetorp on era ereht fi A/N()
seerT teertS.6 .dehcatta si mrof noitacifireV noitcetorP eerT teertS skroW cilbuP dengis A .ONSEY
ereh kcehc ,seert teerts on era ereht fi A/N(.)
_____________________________1 5.11 era hcihw skaO yellaV ro skaO eviL tsaoC – seert detcetorP )b ;ytreporp cilbup no seert – seert teertS )a –seerT detalugeR tsaoC ,regral ro retemaid ni ”Cyb detangised seert era seert egatireH dna ;edarg larutan evoba ”45 derusaem nehw ,regral roretemaid ni ”81 era hcihw sdoowdeR )c dna ;licnuoC yti.nalp epacsdnal devorppa na fo trap era hcihw ,seert ytreporp laitnediser-non ro laicremmoc –seerT detangiseD2 ta elbaliava ,mrof siht no stnemeriuqer lla rof snoitcurtsni sniatnoc )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT otlA olaP
lmth.launam-lacinhcet_eert/ytinummoc-gninnalp/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth
tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT/ofnI noitcetorPeerT/tsirobrA/vidalP/nalP:S 60/80desiveR
J XIDNEPPA
snoitacificepS dna sgniwarD dradnatS 4002 otlA olaP fo ytiC
60/80desiveR 13 noitceS ,EWP ,noitcetorP fo noitacifireV eerT teertS
P
S
-
OTLA OLA
SNOITCURTSNI NOITCETORP EERT TEERT
--13 NOITCES-
lareneG1-13
snoitcnufyramirpeerhtsah noitcetorp eerT.a raelc erutcurts gnihcnarbdna yponac egailof eht peekot )1,dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor evreserp ot )2 ;seitivitcadna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatnoc morf si ecnabrutsidlios onhcihwni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht yfitnedi ot )3dna etats detcapmoc-non
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu,detcirtser era seitivitcadna dettimrep
)ZPT(enoZ noitcetorP eerT ehT.b semit-net fo suidar a htiw eert ehtfoesab eht dnuora aera detcirtser a si
.gnicnef ybdesolcne ,retaerg si revehcihw ;teefnet roknurt s'eert eht fo retemaid eht
stnemucoD ecnerefeR 2-13 506 liateD.a .woleb debircsed snoitautis fo noitartsullI –
smroF )MTT( launaM lacinhceTeerT.b ( /seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth )
.1 ( senoZ noitcirtseR gnihcnerT )C(02.2noitceS ,MTT )
.2 ( locotorP gnitropeR tsirobrA 03.6noitceS ,MTT )
.3 (stnemeriuqeR nalP etiS 53.6 noitceS ,MTT )
.4 ( tnemetatS erusolcsiD eerT JxidneppA ,MTT ) mroF )VTS( noitacifireV eerT teertS.c ( smrof/seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www//:ptth )
noitucexE 3-13
:noitcetorP eerT I epyT.a eht tuohguorht detcetorpebot )s(eert eht fo ZPT eritne eht esolcne llahs ecnef ehT
,saera gnikrap emos nI .tcejorpnoitcurtsnoceht fo efil ton lliwtaht etercnoc rognivap nodetacol si gnicnef fi
ybdevorppa fi ,esab etercnoc level edarg etairporppa na yb detroppus eb yamstsopeht neht ,dehsilomedeb .snoitarepO skroW cilbuP
:noitcetorP eerT II epyT.b fo edis dray dna pirts gnitnalpeht ylno ,pirts gnitnalp a nihtiwdetautis seert roF
dnaklawedis eht peekot redro nignicnef evitcetorpknil niahcderiuqer eht htiw desolcne eb llahs ZPT eht
.esu cilbup rof nepo teerts
:noitcetorP eerT III epyT.c ylnodesu eb oT a nidetautis seerT .snoitarepOskroWcilbuP folavorppa htiw
ni-2htiw depparw ebllahs,tip retnalp klawedis ro lleweert ot dnuorg eht morfgnicnef citsalp egnarofosehc gidot dewolla eb ton llahs stals( yleruces dnuob stals nedoowkciht hcni-2htiwdialrevodna hcnarb tsrif eht yna gnigamad diova ot desu eb llahs noituac ,gnicnef citsalpeht fonoitallatsni gniruD.)krab eht otni
.tsirobrA ytiCeht ybdetcerid sa gnicnef citsalperiuqer osla yam sbmil rojaM .sehcnarb
.decnef eb otaera dna epyt ,eziS.d niahc hgihtoof )'6( xis htiwdetcetorp eb llahsdevreserpebot seert llA
ot dnuorg eht otni nevird ,stsop nori dezinavlagretemaid hcni-owt nodetnuomeb ot era secneF.secnefknil
sselnu,gnihcnarbretuoeht ot dnetxe llahs gnicneF.gnicaps toof-01 naht erom on ta teef-2 tsael ta fohtped a
.mroFVTSeht no devorppa yllacificeps sngis ’gninraW‘.e toof-02taecnef hcae no deyalpsid yltnenimorp dna foorp rehtaew ebllahsngisgninraw A .
:srettel llat hcni flah ni etats ylraelc dna sehcni-11xsehcni-5.8 muminim ebllahs ngisehT .slavretni
ot gnidrocca enif aot tcejbus si dna devomerebton llahs ecnef sihT - enoZ noitcetorP eerT - GNINRAW“
”.011.01.8 noitceS CMAP
noitaruD.f itilomederofebdetcere ebllahs gnicnef eerT .niniamer dnasnigeb noitcurtsnocro gnidarg ;no
lios rokroW.ZPT eht ni dewolla yllacificeps krow rof tpecxe ,tcejorp ehtfo noitcepsni lanif litnu ecalp dnuora krowfo esac eht ni( tsirobrA ytiC rotsirobra tcejorp ehtyb lavorppa seriuqer ZPT ehtni ecnabrutsid .skroW cilbuP morf timreP kroWteertS a eriuqer yaw fo thgircilbup eht nihtiw snoitavacxE.)seerT teertS
noitcurtsnoc gniruD.g
.1 .dnikyna fo tcapmi morfdetcetorpeb llahs etis tcejorpeht gnahrevotaht seert 'srobhgien llA.2 seert denwo ylcilbup yna fo ytlanepsulp tnemecalper ro riapereht rof elbisnopser eb llahs tnacilppa ehT otlAolaP ehtfo 070.40.8 noitceS ottnausrup ,noitcurtsnocfo esruocehtgnirud degamad erataht
.edoC lapicinuM
.3 :deniaterebot seert lla ot ylppa serusaem noitavreserp eertgniwollofehT
.a .ZPT eht nihtiw dettimrepeb llahs tnempiuqe ro selcihev ,liospot ,lairetam fo egarots oN
.b .deretla eb ton llahs aera yponac eert eht dnuora dna rednudnuorgehT.c .lavivrus erusne ot yrassecen sa deniatniam dnadetarea ,detagirri ebllahsdeniater ebot seerT
NOITCES FO DNE
otlA olaP fo ytiC
tnemtrapeD eerT
snoitarepO skroW cilbuP 30349 AC ,otlA olaP 05201 xoB OP 3595-694/056 9829-258/056 :XAF
gro.otlAolaPfoytiC@noitcetorpeert
fo noitacifireV
noitcetorP eerT teertS
eerT dengis htiw gnola mrof siht XAF ro liaM .mrof siht fo noitrop reppu etelpmoC :snoitcurtsnI tnacilppA .tnacilppa yfiton dna tcepsni lliw ffatS eerT skroWcilbuP .tpeD skroW cilbuP ot tnemetatS erusolcsiD
:ETAD NOITACILPPA
TEERTS FO NOITACOL/SSERDDA :DETCETORP EB OT SEERT
:EMAN S’TNACILPPA
:SSERDDA S’TNACILPPA
ENOHPELET S’TNACILPPA :SREBMUN XAF &
ffatSeerT ytiC yb tuo dellif eb ot noitcessihT
evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .1
yletauqeda era )se(sserdda
noitcetorp fo epyt ehT .detcetorp
:si desu woleb 2# ot og ,ON fI *
:yb detcepsnI
:noitcepsnI fo etaD
SEY *ON
evoba eht ta seerT teertS ehT .2 era sserdda TON
tcetorPeerT.tS/SD/eerT/SPO/DWP:S 6071/5
yletauqeda gniwollof ehT .detcetorp
:deriuqer era snoitacifidom
deriuqer ehtwoh etacidnI
detacinummoc erewsnoitacifidom
.tnacilppa eht ot
noitcepsnI tneuqesbuS
dnuof erewsserdda evoba ta seert teertS :detcetorp yletauqeda eb ot .esac fo noitisopsid eht woleb ”setoN“ ni etacidni ,ON fI *
:yb detcespnI
:noitcepsnI fo etaD
SEY *ON
:setoN ,seiceps yb seert teerts ytiC tsiL
noitcetorp eert fo epyt dna noitidnoc ,etis
erewserutcip fi eton oslA .dellatsni
.yrassecen fi teehs fo kcab esU .nekat
.ecnaussi timrep gnidliub ro noitilomed rof tnacilppA ot teehs devorppa nruteR
itcetorPeerTotlAolaPfoytitCadetacolerasnoitcurtsnInosu.ac.otla-olap.ytic.www//:pttlhmth.launam-lacinhcet/seert/
---GNINRAW---
enoZnoitcetorPeerT
tuohtiwdevomerebtonllahsgnicnefsihT
)3595-694-056(lavorppatsirobrAytiC
sinoissimreptuohtiwlavomeR
*yadrepenif005$aottcejbus
011.01.8noitceSedoClapicinuMotlAolaP*
:hcraeS decnavdA cipoTyBesworB
emoH tnemnorivnEytinummoC&gninnalP
emoH
ytiC-seerTdenwo
yletavirP-seerTdenwo
eerTehttuobAecnanidrO
01.8eltiT
seerTegatireH
smroF
launaMlacinhceTeerT
sQAF
sUtcatnoC
secruoseR
launaMlacinhceTeerT
oT esahcrup launaMlacinhceTeerTeht
noitidEtsriF1002,enuJ
:noitcesybweiV
stnetnoCfoelbaT )BK78,FDP(esopruPdnatnetnI )BM50.1,FDP(noitcudortnI -launaMfoesU )BM50.1,FDP(
0.1noitceS -snoitinifeD )BK69,FDP(0.2noitceS -noitcurtsnoCgniruDseerTfonoitcetorP )BK952,FDP(
0.3noitceS -seerTfognitnalP&tnemecalpeR,lavomeR )BK711,FDP(0.4noitceS -seerTsuodrazaH )BK501,FDP(0.5noitceS -senilediuGecnanetniaMeerT )BK011,FDP(
0.6noitceS -stropeReerT )BK48,FDP(
:snoitcesLLAweiV
launaMlacinhceTeerT-lluF )BM48.1,FDP(
SECIDNEPPA
tnemeganaM&noitavreserPeerT,01.8retpahCedoClapicinuMotlAolaP.A snoitalugeRytiCeerT:B -ASU
mroFnoitaulavEdrazaHASI:C )ecruosecnerefeR(seicepSdetceleSrofsnrettaPeruliaFtnerehnIfotsiL:D
senilediuGgninurPeerTASI:E )BM58.1,FDP(1.331ZISNA,sdradnatSytefaSeraCeerT:F -)ecruosecnerefeR(4991003AISNA,sdradnatSecnamrofrePgninurP:G -)ecruosecnerefeR(5991 :H
505&405margaiD,sliateDgnitnalPeerT tnemetatSerusolcsiDeerT:I
snoitcurtsnInoitcetorPeerTdradnatSotlAolaP:J
1-T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Da
t
a
Type II Tree Protection
Type I Tree Protection
Type III Tree Protection
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shown in gray (radius of TPZ equals 10-times the diameter of the tree or 10-feet, whichever is greater). Restricted activity area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.15(E).
Restricted trenching area -- see Tree Technical Manual Sec 2.20(C-D), any proposed trench or form work
within TPZ of a protected tree requires approval from Public Works Operations. Call 650-496-5953.
TPZeither 10 x Tree Diameter
or 10-feet, whichever is greater
Any proposed trench
in TPZ requires approvalSee TTM 2.20 C-D
for instructions
6-foot high
chain link fence,typical
(to be used only with approval of Public Works Operations)
Tree fencing is required and shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins.
Any inadvertant sidewalk or
curb replacement or trenching requires approval
Rev By Date
City of Palo Alto Standard DwgNo.
Approved by:
Dave Dockter
Date
PE No.
2006
Scale: NTS 605
Tree Protection
During Construction
1RWH 6WUHHW7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHV
3XEOLF:RUNV2SHUDWLRQVLQVSHFWLRQDQGVLJQHG
DSSURYDORQWKH6WUHHW7UHH9HULILFDWLRQ 679 IRUPSURYLGHG
1RWH 2UGLQDQFH3URWHFWHG 'HVLJQDWHG7UHHV,VVXDQFHRIDSHUPLWUHTXLUHVDSSOLFDQWಬVSURMHFWDUERULVW
ZULWWHQYHULILFDWLRQ7\SH,LVLQVWDOOHGFRUUHFWO\
DFFRUGLQJWRWKHSODQVDQG7UHH3UHVHUYDWLRQ5HSRUW
2-inches of Orange Plastic Fencing
overlaid with2-inch Thick Wooden Slats
Detailed specifications are found in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) (www.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/)
Warning
Warning
Warning
8.5x11-inch Warning Signs one each side
Fencing must provide public passage
while protecting all other land in TPZ.
For written specifications associated with illustrations below, see Public Works Specifications Section 31
Fence distance
to outer branches or TPZ
12/14/92
Restricted use fortrees in sidewalk cutout tree wells only
For all Ordinance Protected and Designated trees, as detailed in the site specific
tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by the applicant’s project arborist as diagramed on the plans.
Yard
Sidewalk
Parkway Strip
Street
D.D.01 08/04/04
02 D.D.08/10/06
0 DWH
Warning
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TREE PROTECTION INSPECTIONS MANDATORY
PAMC 8.10 PROTECTED TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE PROJECT SITE ARBORIST IS PERFORMING REQUIRED TREE INSPECTION AND SITE MONITORING. PROVIDE WRITTEN MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LANDSCAPE REVIEW STAFF BEGINNING 14 DAYS AFTER
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE.
BUILDING PERMIT DATE: ______________________ _______
DATE OF 1ST TREE ACTIVITY REPORT: ___ _____________
CITY STAFF: ___________________________ ___________
REPORTING DETAILS OF THE MONTHLY TREE ACTIVITY REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO SHEET T-1 FORMAT, VERIFY THAT ALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE IMPLIMENTED AND WILL INCLUDE ALL CONTRACTOR ACTIVITY, SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED, WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ROOT ZONE. NON-COMPLIANCE
IS SUBJECT TO VIOLATION OF PAMC 8.10.080. REFERENCE: PALO ALTO TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL,
SECTION 2.00 AND ADDENDUM 11.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460
0.3 MILES NORTH OF SAN ANTONIO ROAD
otlA olaP fo ytiC
!nalP eht fo traP s’tI - noitcetorP eerT
!thgir boj eht od sbus dna swerc ruoy erus ekaM
c morf raelc erutcurts gnihcnarb dna yponac egailof eht gnipeek yb meht tcetorp ot laitnesse era seert dnuora serusolcne decneF ,seitivitca dna slairetam ,tnempiuqe yb tcatno
hw ni )ZPT( enoZ noitcetorP eerT eht gniyfitnedi dna ,etats detcapmoc-non dna tcatni na ni snoitidnoc lios dna stoor gnivreserp ,detcirtser era seitivitca dna dettimrep si ecnabrutsid lios on hci
.devorppa esiwrehto sselnu .eert detaluger a fo ZPT eht nihtiw srucco ytivitca tcejorp nehw teehs siht ot dedda eb tsum troper noitcetorp eert devoppa nA
eht weiver ,tnempoleved gnirud noitcetorp dna seert detaluger s'otlA olaP no noitamrofni deliated roF launaM lacinhceT eerT ytiC ./seert/gro.otlaolapfoytic.www ta dnuof )MTT(
2-TteehS noitcurtsnI noitcetorP eerT laicepS
otlA olaP fo ytiC
2-T )dedeen sa gnidda( teehs siht no dedivorp ecaps eht ot dedda eb llahs stroper detaler-eert rehto llA
.egaP dnegeL ro xednI teehS tcejorP no )s(teehs siht edulcnI
nloaded atwod eb nac 1-T fo ypoc A
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Da
t
a
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6460
Apply Tree Protection Report on sheet(s) T-2
Use addtional “T” sheets as needed
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
SUBJECT: ALLOWING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE 7.7 ACRES OF PARK LAND AT
FOOTHILLS PARK
BACKGROUND
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the
City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land.
Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) to facilitate the development of
ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A
Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input
on the issue.
In October 2014, four Ranger-led tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total
of 9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held
at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best
use the newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger-led tour occurring prior to the
meeting. Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting.
On February 24, 2015, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council direct staff to
conduct a hydrology study of Buckeye Creek, and to keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the
hydrology study is completed. The Commission commented that the hydrology study should be
completed before making any recommendations on how to use the land, because the
recommendations on how to best address the hydrology issues may alter the City’s decision on how
best to use the land.
On August 31, 2015, Council approved the Commission and staff recommendation to:
1. Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study before making any specific
recommendations for possible future use of the newly dedicated park land.
2. Direct staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize a
recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre parcel after the hydrology study
is complete.
3. Direct staff to evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra
Nursery lease, which includes a provision allowing for termination of the lease with a 90-
day notification.
2
DISCUSSION
Staff and the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study and
the 7.7 acre parcel recommend that the Commission discuss allowing public access to the 7.7
acre parcel. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that allowing public access to the 7.7 acre
parcel be added as a recommendation at the October Commission meeting. Prior to allowing
public access, the appropriate fencing should be added to secure the plant nursery, culvert, and
neighbor property line.
The Ad Hoc Committee also recommends opening the site to the public before adding any park
amenities. The Oak Grove Picnic Area is a short walk away from the 7.7 acre parcel, and has
seating, a drinking fountain, and a park restroom.
Staff will bring the final draft of the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study report to the October
Commission meeting seeking a recommendation to Council to adopt the preferred alternative
recommended in the report. If the Commission supports the recommendation, the final draft
report will be brought in November to Council.
When Council dedicated the 7.7 acre parcel as park land, several council members expressed an
interest in opening it to the public as soon as possible. Council also expressed the value of having
the parcel open to the public so that the public could spend time in the area and be able to
provide meaningful input on how the land should be used.
The Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study’s preferred alternative provides a recommendation for the
long term use for approximately 1.2 acres of the 7.7 acre parcel. Widening the Buckeye Creek in
the 7.7 acres would create a 1.2 acre floodplain. Staff will work with the community and the
Commission to help determine the appropriate use for the remaining portions of the 7.7 acre
parcel that aren’t used for floodplain. The flat area of the 7.7 acre parcel is approximately 2.1
acres, and includes the current .53 acre Grassroots Ecology nursery. The remaining 5.6 acres of
the parcel are hillsides, evacuation easement, and mandated setback area from Buckeye Creek.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Staff is working on price quotes for the fencing.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: August 31, 2015, City Council Staff Report Possible Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area
at Foothills Park (ID # 5911)
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager,
Community Services Department
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5911)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/31/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park
Title: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Regarding Possible
Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area at Foothills Park
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the following
course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at Foothills Park:
1.Complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study before making any specific
recommendations for possible future use of the newly dedicated park land.
2.Direct staff to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize a
recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre parcel after the hydrology study
is complete.
3.Direct staff to evaluate the impacts of the recommendation to Council on the Acterra
Nursery lease, which includes a provision allowing for termination of the lease with a
90-day notification.
Background
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family to be used for
conservation, including park and recreation purposes. The Lee family retained an estate on the
property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to
a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On March 24, 2014, Council, on an 8 - 0 vote (Scharff absent), directed staff
(Attachment B – Minutes March 24, 2014 Regular Council Meeting, Item 10) to:
1) Return to Council with a Park Dedication Ordinance for this City-owned land adjacent
to Foothills Park (Attachment C – Park Dedication Ordinance);
2) Outline the major options for the best uses of this land and estimated costs of such
uses;
3) Present to the Parks and Recreation Commission alternatives for public uses along
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto Page 2
with natural landscape restoration for their review and for public input;
4) Establish a timeline for permanently opening the land to the public; and
5) Draft a letter of appreciation acknowledging the contribution of the Lee family to the
City of Palo Alto (Attachment D).
On August 18, 2014, items one and five were completed with Council passing an ordinance
dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land and by sending a letter of appreciation
acknowledging the contribution of the Lee family to the City of Palo Alto. Since Fall 2014, Staff
and Parks and Recreation Commission have worked closely to facilitate the development of
ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park per Council
direction. A Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help with the
process of collecting public input on the issue.
In October 2014, four Ranger-led tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A
total of 9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public outreach
meeting was held at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on
ideas for how to best use the newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger-led tour
prior to the meeting. Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the
public outreach meeting. At the meeting, and at each of the tours, the history and the
challenges and restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were discussed. (Attachment A -
public’s comments and suggestions.)
Three major themes were expressed from the public on the tours and the public meeting:
Theme 1: Recreational Activities
Concepts ranged from adding a campground, picnic area, structure for special events, and an
off-leash dog area.
Theme 2: Restoration
The public suggestions regarding possible restoration strategies varied greatly. Concepts ranged
from simple restoration involving planting native grasses and some trees, to significant
restoration involving de-channelizing Buckeye Creek to restoring the original meandering creek
flow and removing the overburden soil to restore the area to one contiguous valley.
Theme 3: Sustain the Acterra Nursery
There were numerous comments supporting the Acterra Nursery on the site. There were also
some suggestions about providing space for an additional environmental partner.
Challenges for Developing the 7.7 Acre Parcel
There are a number of challenges related to developing the 7.7 acre parcel:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Buckeye Creek
Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and passes
through the 7.7 acre parcel. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting
resulting in creek erosion. These eroded sediments wash down the creek and deposit in the 7.7
acre parcel during the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three
times every year to prevent flooding. The adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills
Park was flooded in 1983. The City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the
shop, to protect it from the creek overflowing. The shop area occasionally floods during
extreme high rain events (once every few years) as a result of poor drainage away from the
shop and road.
The amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7 acre parcel and needs to be removed
varies greatly from year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from
the culverts. On years with average rainfall it can vary between 30 and 100 yards of sediment.
On extremely rainy years there can be as much as 500 to 600 yards of sediment removed. Some
of the sediment has been used to fill in the slopes of the 7.7 acre parcel, some on the valley
floor, and some was taken off site.
The removal is especially important before the creek flows through culverts at the west end of
the site. This is the last opportunity to clear the sedimentation before heading into the large
culverts downstream. The sediments vary from fine to large sands and gravels. Nearly all of the
fine, nutrient rich silts wash downstream and do not drop out in this area.
The private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment
removal process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless
an agreement between the City and the private resident is obtained.
Buckeye Creek Culverts
Buckeye Creek has been channelized in many sections in Foothills Park, including at the (west)
end of the 7.7 acre parcel. Buckeye Creek flows into a series of culverts and then flows under
private property for several hundred feet. The culverts start as a single seven-foot diameter
opening and then reduce down into multiple three-foot culverts. The first large culvert is
approximately seven feet below the valley floor of the parcel. Access to the culvert is currently
not secured, and it would be dangerous if someone ventured down into it or was washed into it
during a rain event. The culvert would need to be secured with fencing and a gate (to allow
access for heavy equipment to clear the culvert of sediment) before the site is opened to the
public.
Some stakeholders have suggested that Buckeye Creek could support steelhead habitat.
Buckeye Creek flows into Los Trancos Creek, which has been documented to have steelhead.
Since a significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised, it has an increased
slope resulting in a high stream velocity. This accelerates erosion and prevents the formation of
City of Palo Alto Page 4
pools and riffles needed for good fish habitat. It is uncertain if there is enough water flow in the
creek to support steelhead.
Current Soil Conditions
When the 7.7 acre parcel was owned by the Lee family, the land was used as a place to store
the overburden (spoils and rock) from the adjacent quarry. The north hillside (on the right side
as you enter the property from Foothills Park) is comprised of highly compacted overburden
from the quarry. The approximately 2.1 acre valley floor (flat area without trees) of the 7.7 acre
parcel has approximately 5 feet of overburden. The compacted and poor soils do not drain well
and make it challenging to grow trees and other vegetation.
The former lessee of the 7.7 acres parcel struggled to sustain and grow trees on the site. The
lessee used extensive amounts of compost to establish redwood trees along the hillside and
edges of the parcel. The trees are stunted in growth, but they have survived.
Staff investigated the option of selling the 5 feet of overburden soil, and the sediments that
deposit in the creek culverts. We shared soil samples from the 7.7 acres parcel with the landfill
staff and were informed that the soil is too rocky to use as landscaping fill. The landfill staff
estimated it would cost the City $20 to $25 per ton to remove from the site.
No Utilities on Site
There are no electrical, water, or sewer lines on the 7.7 acre parcel. Any infrastructure that
requires these amenities would need to factor in the added expense to provide the necessary
utilities.
Hydrology Study
The Fiscal Year 2016 Capital Budget includes funding in the amount of $150,000 for a hydrology
study of Buckeye Creek to analyze and recommend solutions to the historic channelization and
resulting down-cutting and erosion problems. Staff is working to initiate the study quickly so
that it can be completed as soon as possible.
The current schedule for the hydrology study is as follows:
Develop RFP– August 2015
Issue Notice to Proceed- November 2015
Draft report – February 2016
Parks and Recreation Commission/Community meetings to introduce project–April/May
Hydrology study recommendation to Parks and Recreation Commission – June/August 2016
Hydrology study recommendation to Council – September/October 2016
Easements and Other Restrictions
City of Palo Alto Page 5
There is an emergency ingress and egress easement that runs through the parcel to Los Trancos
Road. This easement must be maintained for emergency response and evacuation of Foothills
Park.
Development is limited next to Buckeye Creek. Environmental regulations preclude any
permanent structures or parking lots within 50 feet of Buckeye Creek. (The 50 feet is measured
from the bank of the creek.)
The 7.7 acres is bordered on three sides by a private residence. There is only one public entry
and exit point to the 7.7 acres. It is through Foothills Park, and passes through the Foothills Park
Maintenance Facility and staff parking area.
The flat area of the parcel (approximately 2.1 acres) is the only viable usable space within the
total 7.7 acres for constructing any type of structure. This includes the current .53 Acterra acre
nursery parcel. The remaining portion of the parcel is hillsides, exclusive easements and setback
from Buckeye Creek. The approximate size of this flat area was ascertained through
measurements taken from the City’s GIS system.
The Parks Master Plan
The Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan) is currently being
developed, and will have information that will provide valuable insight to any possible functions
that may be currently underserved in our park and recreation system.
Discussion
On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the
newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park. Several Commissioners noted
that because of the timing of the hydrology study and the Parks Master Plan, we should not
expect the Parks Master Plan to identify specific direction on how to develop the 7.7 acre
parcel. The Commissioners also noted the Parks Master will provide information about what
gaps and needs throughout the City’s park system that will be helpful in forming a decision
about the future uses of the 7.7 acre parcel.
There was consensus among the Commissioners on three issues regarding the 7.7 acre parcel:
1. The Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any
recommendations on how to use the land. The recommendations on how to best
address the hydrology challenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the
land.
2. The Acterra Nursery lease should be renewed on a short-term basis so that the City has
the flexibility to act on whatever options and recommendations develop from the
hydrology study.
3. The site should remain closed until after the hydrology study is complete. Investing in
City of Palo Alto Page 6
fencing and supervision to open the site to the public before the hydrology study is not
prudent.
The Commission noted that there is no need for additional Ad Hoc Committee meetings on this
topic, and that staff should return promptly to the Commission with a recommendation.
Attachment E includes the January 27, 2015 Commission staff report and minutes from the
meeting.
On February 25, 2015, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that Council approve
of the following course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at
Foothills Park:
1. Fund and implement a Capital Improvement Project to conduct a hydrology study of Buckeye
Creek.
2. Keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed.
3. Renew the Acterra Nursery lease for one year so that the lease expiration will coincide with
the approximate timeframe to complete the hydrology study. The lease should include the
option for renewal on a yearly basis for four additional years pending mutual agreement and
City approval.
Staff agrees with the Parks and Recreation Commission that the hydrology study should be
completed before long-term plans for the 7.7 acre parcel are developed. Investing significant
funds to construct any facilities on the site might limit some of the possible recommendations
and solutions that will be proposed by the hydrology plan. Once the hydrology study is
completed (tentatively scheduled for June-August 2016), staff will return to the Parks and
Recreation Commission with the results and recommendations from the study, and work with
the Commission to draft a recommendation for Council regarding the use of the 7.7 acre site.
Staff informed the Commission that their recommendation would be shared with Council as the
preferred option, and that the subsequent Council staff report will also discuss alternative
options for Council’s consideration. Attachments F and G includes the February 24, 2015
Commission minutes from the meeting and staff report.
Because the Acterra Nursery Lease was set to expire in August 2015, their lease was renewed
on April 30, 2015 for an additional five years. The lease renewal includes an option for either
party to terminate the lease with a 90-day notification. Staff discussed the issues with Acterra
regarding the possible implications of the results of the hydrology study and their lease.
Alternative Option
Direct staff to:
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1. Install the necessary fencing and gates to ensure that the 7.7 acre site, including the
Acterra Nursery, is safe and secure.
2. Install a simple loop trail and two park benches.
3. Open the site to the public.
The approximate cost of fencing is $30,000 (this does not include fencing to secure the private
residence adjacent to the parcel. The private resident would be expected to provide their own
fencing). The approximate cost for a basic 1,800 feet loop trail and two benches is $21,000.
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission do not recommend this option, primarily
because the Buckeye Creek hydrology study will inform the City’s decision on how best to use
the land. The recommendations that come from the study could involve relocating the Acterra
Nursery, re-alignment of Buckeye Creek within the 7.7 acres, possible trail configuration
alternatives, and fencing alignment among other park design considerations. Staff and the
Parks and Recreation Commission recommend the City not invest in new fencing, park
amenities, or design work for the area until after the hydrology study is complete.
Commissioners also noted that opening the undeveloped site, in advance of the Buckeye Creek
hydrology study would not be the best use of resources, as Foothills Park has 15 miles of
existing trails, multiple first-come first-serve picnic areas, Boronda Lake, and multiple habitat
types that are readily available for visitors to explore and enjoy.
Staff perspective is aligned with the Commission, adding that best management practices for
opening new park land involves designing and preparing the area prior to opening it up to the
public, whereby recreation uses, public access and areas for conservation and habitat
restoration are thoughtfully and intentionally defined. Byxbee Park Hills and the Pearson
Arastradero Preserve provide two examples of Palo Alto open space areas that remained closed
to public use for a period of time until the areas were designed and constructed.
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission greatly appreciate the value of dedicating the
7.7 acre parcel as park land; this action protects the land for park, playground, recreation or
conservation purposes. Staff is committed to working expeditiously on the Buckeye Creek
hydrology study, and to work further with Parks and Recreation Commission and public
thereafter, on a well-informed thoughtful recommendation for use of the 7.7 acres for Council
consideration.
Timeline
Buck-eye Creek Hydrology Study Summer 2015- Spring 2016
Return to the Parks and Recreation
Commission with results from the Hydrology
Study to determine, with further public input,
possible next steps for the 7.7 ares site
Fiscal year 2017
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Resource Impact
The FY2016 Capital Budget includes $149,000 for PG-15000, Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study.
There are no further resource impacts for the staff recommendation.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment13.a: Attachment A - Public Comments for Foothills 7.7 Acres (PDF)
Attachment13.b: Attachment B - March 24, 2014 Council Minutes (PDF)
Attachment13.c: Attachment C - Park Dedication Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment13.d: Attachment D - Letter from Mayor to Lee Family (PDF)
Attachment13.e: Attachment E - January 27, 2014 Commission Minutes (PDF)
Attachment13.f: Attachment F - February 24, 2015 Commission Minutes (PDF)
Attachment13.g: Attachment G - February 24, 2015 Parks and Recreation
Commission Staff Report (PDF)