HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-23 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Special Meeting January 23, 2018 AGENDA City Hall Community Meeting Room
250 Hamilton 7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT
V. BUSINESS 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 19, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting – PRC Chair Reckdahl – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Election of Chair for 2018 – Chair Reckdahl – Action (10 min)
3. Election of Vice Chair for 2018 – New Chair – Action (10 min) 4. Update on Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study and Recommendation to Council – Daren
Anderson – Action (30 min) ATTACHMENT
5. Recommendation to Council to open the 7.7 acres – Daren Anderson – Action (30 min)
ATTACHMENT
6. Cubberley Turf Field Temporary Lighting Plan – Adam Howard – Action (20 minutes)
ATTACHMENT 7. Baylands Boardwalk Improvements - Megha Bansal - Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
• Boardwalk Project Update
• Interpretive Signage 8. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion (15 min)
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUCEMENTS
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2018 MEETING
• Confirm date for Retreat and set Agenda
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
December 19, 2017 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, Don McDougall, 13
David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Anne Cribbs 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Peter Jensen, Kristen O'Kane 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Kristen O'Kane 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: Next is Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions. We do have 20
one deletion. 21
Kristen O'Kane: We do. Elizabeth Ames was to be here tonight to present on the 22
Baylands Boardwalk, and she is sick. The other staff member who's familiar with the 23
project is in India. We are going to have to postpone that item until January. 24
Chair Reckdahl: Why don't you just Skype her in? 25
Ms. O'Kane: No. 26
Chair Reckdahl: We'll bump that to January. 27
Ms. O'Kane: That's correct. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Item Number 5 will be deleted. Postponed, yes. 29
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1
Chair Reckdahl: Next is Oral Communications. We have no speaker cards, so we'll 2
move on to the Department Report. 3
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 4
Ms. O'Kane: I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Daren Anderson, who will give an 5
update on a few of our projects. 6
Daren Anderson: Today is technical difficulty day. Sorry about that. Daren Anderson 7
with Open Space, Parks, and Golf. Let me start by giving you a couple of updates about 8
the urban parks. One is that we're working on a shade structure to add to the Magical 9
Bridge Playground. We've been doing some design work with the group that originally 10
funded and helped build the playground. They were eager to help support. We're 11
partnering on this process. The design right now is finished, and we're ready to go out to 12
bid. 13
Chair Reckdahl: This is an additional or a replacement? 14
Mr. Anderson: This is a new shade structure for that existing playground. 15
Chair Reckdahl: We're not replacing a structure? 16
Mr. Anderson: Nope, this is a new shade structure. 17
Chair Reckdahl: New stuff. 18
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, new stuff. It'll be hopefully a theme that we can replicate in other 19
parks where we're deficient on shade. I also wanted to give you an update on the golf 20
course. The construction of the golf course is substantially complete. However, there 21
still are a number of things remaining to be completed before we're able to open. It's 22
really getting it polished and ready for presentation as opposed to getting the grass 23
installed and the elements there. That's the part we're at right now. Some of those items 24
include the course signage, having the course rated. We still have a little work to do on 25 hole 13. That's the area that was last occupied by PG&E. Up until a few weeks ago, they 26 were still on the course doing some of their line work. As they pulled out, they allowed 27 us the space to get back in and do the tees for hole 13 that hadn't been added. We're still 28
fine tuning that. While it's in right now—the sod is in. It still needs prep work before it's 29
game-ready. The other thing I want to share is that we're in negotiations right now for a 30
golf course management company that would assume the golf professional services 31
hopefully in February. In order to maximize our one-time opportunity to make a splash, 32
to make a really grand opening that sets our reputation as one of the premier municipal 33
courses in our area, we want to make sure everything's right. That means not rushing 34
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
these last couple of months to get play on there before it's really ready and give ourselves 1
a bad name. That was a lot of the advice we heard from all the applicants we interviewed 2
to be a management company for the golf course. We're currently in negotiations with 3
one. I can't go into details now given that it's in the negotiating phase. The advice we've 4
gotten from them—we've walked the course with them several times. They're giving us 5
good feedback. One of the key takeaways is just make sure you get it right. Make sure, 6 when they come in there, they've got the complete experience dialed in. What that might 7
look like—these are still tentative dates—is in the month of March we do this marketing 8
outreach play just to stakeholders and writers for golf journals and articles like that. We 9
bring them out; we show them the course; we let them play. In April, we open up to the 10
public once we've gotten those reviews out there. We've polished through some of the 11
challenges on the course that these people, as they play through it, will say, "You really 12
need to fix these elements." That's the tentative game play. I'm hoping to have more 13
information soon, especially once we get to move forward with getting into a contract 14
with that new golf operator. 15
Chair Reckdahl: We won't know whether they'll remodel the restaurant area until after 16
the RFP is settled? 17
Mr. Anderson: That's true. In all our negotiations with the different firms, them taking 18
on the onus of remodeling is probably unlikely in the first 5-year cycle of the golf course. 19
There are no numbers yet to predicate what they can expect on how the course will 20
perform, which makes it very difficult to get into a long-term lease. There's risk on both 21
sides of preemptively getting into a lease that locks either the City or a company in for 20 22
years, which they would need before making a capital investment like that. Somebody 23
comes out a big winner or loser sometimes in those scenarios was what we learned in this 24
process. What we'll do is put an opener into whatever contract we end up into, to say let's 25 explore the lease option at some point during this contract, in the 2-3, maybe 4-year mark 26 or put the opener in the contract and we discuss long-term lease options for things just 27 like you say, capital investment in the pro shop, perhaps the café. 28
Chair Reckdahl: This would start in April, this new contract, or does this … 29
Mr. Anderson: Potentially earlier. April we're thinking we'd have the course open by 30
that date. 31
Commissioner McCauley: Daren, may I ask what's the length of the contract you're 32
trying to negotiate now? 33
Mr. Anderson: Still to be determined. One of the common things we're looking at and a 34
starting point is a 5-year with opportunities to renew based on mutual agreement. I also 35
wanted to give you an update on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. We're 36
moving along. We've had our community meeting; this was December 5th. This is not 37
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
just the stakeholders. There are about 25 stakeholders that are comprised of longtime 1
Baylands users, some Staff that have long experience there, and other people that just 2
love the Baylands. This last meeting was open to the broader community. We 3
announced it on our social media and all throughout the preserve. The focus of that last 4
meeting was really to focus on Byxbee and ITT. While we're looking at everything in the 5
Baylands, we really wanted to focus on those two, so we came forward with a couple of 6 design ideas. It's hard to get into the nuances without showing you maps and photos and 7
everything else. What I'm going to promise to do is bring this back to the full 8
Commission for a full discussion on the Baylands Plan, where you'll be able to get into 9
the details and see everything we've been working on so far as well as the feedback. I 10
just wanted to share a brief update that we had this community meeting, got a lot of good 11
feedback. A lot of it centered, as I mentioned, on those two key features of Byxbee and 12
the ITT area. In preparation for that public meeting, on November 13th I led a tour of the 13
ITT property. We talked over some key concepts. Three big ones are public access 14
throughout that whole area of the ITT property. As it connects to Byxbee and the whole 15
region and the new ped bridge that will come in on East Bayshore Road, what would the 16
trail system best look like there? What kind of connectivity do we want and not want? 17
As a lot of the stakeholders pointed out, there are impacts from sometimes having too 18
much connectivity, too much trails that bifurcate habitat areas and cause issues. Those 19
were some of the things that came out concerning connectivity and trails. We also talked 20
about—there's a freshwater wetland inside. It's called the Emily Renzel Wetlands. It 21
gets 1 million gallons a day of treated water. Effluent comes through that freshwater; 22
effluent goes out into the saltmarsh, into the flood basin. That has some challenges. It's 23
old and needs to be repaired in many ways, including the levee that holds it up is leaking. 24
It's also constricted. It is shaped like a kidney bean. In the narrow center section, it's 25 constrained with vegetation and not flowing properly. Again, this will make more sense 26 when I come back with maps and photos and everything. The point was we asked the 27 participants in this tour, "Would you be interested in expanding this freshwater wetland 28
and creating more freshwater wetland?" There's a cost, of course. You would lose some 29
upland refuge area that's used for other things. We discussed that a little bit. The third 30
big topic was what to do with the buildings out there. There was somewhat of a 31
consensus that the majority of the group—again this resonated with the community 32
meeting on the 5th—was not in favor of saving those buildings. They'd like them 33
removed. They think the impacts of having those buildings would be you need to have 34
parking. It's not necessarily an appropriate area to have parking, out there in the middle 35
of this wetland area. Others thought maybe the building could have use, perhaps moved 36
to a different area. There was even someone from the airport who said there might be 37
interest to take elements of the building and move it over to the airport to use for another 38
facet. Lots of discussion to come on that. It'll be certainly something the Commission's 39
asked to weigh in on in-depth. Good news. We're on the agenda for the dog park Park 40
Improvement Ordinance to go on Council consent January 29th. I'll give you an update 41
once that one hopefully is approved. That concludes my portion of the report. Thanks 42
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
Peter. These were taken by a professional photographer several weeks ago. The 1
course—these shots make it look amazing. These will be part of our marketing campaign 2
for sure, probably make it onto the scorecards and some other advertising elements. 3
We're really happy with the way it came out. In this shot, you can see some of the native 4
areas on the left. When I mentioned some things still need to be dialed in and improved 5
before opening, that's one of the areas where we've got a lot of bare spots that we prefer 6 to have vegetated. We really struggled with that. It didn't go as planned. As I was 7
talking it over with the potential new contractor, they were saying, "This is really an area 8
you've got to have dialed in before you have play. As people hit into those areas, 9
tracking mud back and forth, you can't have it." We're still working on a game plan to 10
resolve that. You can see some of our bunkers here next to some native areas. The 11
greens are really top notch. One of the most important parts of a golf course is the 12
greens, without a doubt. Across the board, everyone who interviewed with us said those 13
facilities, the pro shop and the café, are not up to standard, but the greens are fantastic, 14
top notch. It was great to hear that we got that part right, which is the most critical part of 15
a golf course. Thanks very much, Adam. 16
Chair Reckdahl: Are the greens undulating or are they just sloped? 17
Mr. Anderson: There are a couple with some slight tiers and a little bit of slope to make 18
it a little challenging. There's something for the more experienced golfer as well. 19
Commissioner LaMere: Daren, just a very quick question. As far as pricing is going to 20
go for the course, is that set by the City or is that going to be set by the vendor who's 21
running the course? 22
Mr. Anderson: Good question. It's set by the City. We're doing a lot of conferring with 23
them. We've got $11.9 million in debt to pay off, so it's critical we get that pricing right. 24
There's a lot of back and forth right now as well with the golf course advisory committee. 25 We reached out to that board and got their feedback. They had some very strong feelings 26 about what the pricing should be. Marrying those two, how do we pay off the debt, how 27 do make sure we're profitable while still catering to the Palo Alto resident, catering to our 28
seniors, making sure we're economically viable is not easy. We're going to try and get 29
that right, try to keep working. The contractor we're looking at has a lot of experience. 30
They're very adept at that. They're good consultants working with us to figure it out. 31
Vice Chair Moss: Question. Are you going to have a big party or open house or 32
something like that in April when you let the public in or are you just going to leak it in? 33
Mr. Anderson: No, we're not going for the slow leak. It would be a grand opening and 34
really make an affair of it. 35
Chair Reckdahl: Do you have anything to add or is that … 36
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: That's it for our Department Report. 1
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Now, we move on to business. 2
V. BUSINESS: 3
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 28, 2017 Parks and 4
Recreation Commission meeting. 5
Approval of the draft November 28, 2017 Minutes was moved by Commissioner 6 Greenfield and seconded by Vice Chair Moss. Passed 6-0, Cribbs absent 7
2. Amendment of Dog Rules Revision and Approval. 8
Chair Reckdahl: The next item is amendment of dog rules. This is actually an action 9
item, so we'll be voting on the items. If there are any deficiencies, we should correct 10
them before the voting. Daren. 11
Mr. Anderson: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf. Thank you. We're here 12
tonight to seek your recommendation to Council to amend the City's Parks and Open 13
Space Regulations R-132 to update the City dog park rules. At last month's meeting, I 14
explained that we were updating these rules in anticipation of getting ready to open up 15
Peers dog park or at least start construction on it. We wanted to be prepared with 16
updating these rules, which haven't been updated in many, many years, including making 17
Peers Park one of the places you can bring your dog off-leash. We discussed some of the 18
proposed changes to the rules at the last Commission meeting. The Commission was 19
generally supportive of it. There was a public comment, a concern that we might have 20
been off base a little bit with our weight limit. At this dog park at Peers, we'll have a 21
large dog or open dog area, and a small dog section. There was a comment that maybe 22
we were off base a little on that. Part of the ad hoc met with the Superintendent of 23
Animal Services and my staff, and we talked through some of the rules again just to make 24
sure what he thought. The Superintendent shared some good information with me. The 25 key was that Palo Alto actually has a very large population of toy dogs. They're in that 26 less than 20-pound range. He really thought it would be wise to lower the weight limit on 27 that smaller dog section to 25 pounds or less. We checked with both the ad hoc 28
committee and the original stakeholders who helped us draft these proposed rule changes. 29
They all concurred that that made good sense. There was one other change. In the 30
original draft rules I shared with you, there was a proposed rule about reporting dog bites 31
to Animal Services. We discussed that a little bit with the Superintendent. There was 32
some back and forth on whether that is beneficial or whether we make it a little bit 33
broader by just listing the animal control number at the bottom of the rules sign if 34
anything important comes up. Ultimately, we settled on making it the Palo Alto 35
communications line. It's a little bit broader; they can get directly to an animal control 36
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
officer if they need to. If it ends up being a call for something else, which is often the 1
case, they can go to the appropriate group. I think we got that one right especially with 2
the assistance of the ad hoc and the Superintendent of Animal Services. Once again, I did 3
share that with our two stakeholders who have been really instrumental in helping. They 4
both bought into those changes. Anything from the ad hoc to share on that one, 5
Commissioner McCauley? 6
Commissioner McCauley: (inaudible) 7
Mr. Anderson: Thanks very much. That concludes my presentation on the proposed 8
changes. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We have no public comment on this. Do you want to go 10
through any comments? 11
Commissioner McCauley: Just what I said. Thanks again, Daren, for making sure this 12
gets tied out. Hopefully with the opening of the new dog park at Peers Park, we'll have 13
these new rules in place as well. 14
Chair Reckdahl: These rules have to be approved by Council or just us? 15
Mr. Anderson: They have to be approved by Council. 16
Chair Reckdahl: If we wanted to change that weight limit a year from now, we would 17
have to amend it and then send it back to Council, and Council would have to (crosstalk). 18
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. It's not uncommon to make tweaks to the Municipal Code 19
or definitely the Park Rules and Regulations. 20
Vice Chair Moss: I was on the Island of Kauai, and we discovered they have fantastic 21
dog parks, fantastic ones. Little dogs separated from big dogs. Fantastic. They have dog 22
park rules. Some of the rules that they have and that are not on our list you might want to 23
consider now or in the future. One is no spike, prong, or pinch collars, but dogs must 24
wear a collar. Puppies under 4 months, dogs in heat, and dogs with parasites, open 25 wounds, or in ill health are not allowed. Closely monitor unneutered males. The last one 26 that we don't have, if your dog gets into a fight, exchange contact information and leave 27 the park. You are responsible for any injury caused by your dog. The last one that we 28
don't have is bring children at your own risk. Children under 10 must be accompanied by 29
an adult. Do any of those resonate as ones that we would need? 30
Mr. Anderson: Good questions. We've got a few of those. We've got the children. 31
We've got one about aggressive dogs, which covers a lot of that. When I did my first 32
iteration, I had tried to pull as many as I can as a starter conversation. There was 33
definitely a feeling amongst the ad hoc and our stakeholders that it might be a little 34
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
overkill and that we didn't need quite so many. A more pithy list might be beneficial. 1
We've culled out ones like the old one that had a requirement for a muzzle on dogs. We 2
thought aggressive dogs covers that and more in a simpler, better way. A lot of those we 3
culled out through the process. That said, if the Commission felt we should entertain 4
tweaking it to include some of that, we certainly could. Our stakeholder group thought 5
we got it right. I originally had many of those and more on my first iteration. 6
Commissioner McCauley: Just to affirm what Daren just said. He did, I think, have 7
probably everything you just mentioned. The thought was to try and, as he said, 8
streamline the list as much as possible. The one that stood out to me that perhaps we 9
didn't talk about before was the prong collars. I wonder whether it wouldn't make sense 10
perhaps to add just to the sentence that provides dogs must be licensed, vaccinated, 11
wearing a collar with ID and license tag, no prong collars or something like that after 12
that. The reason being that, I think, some people who actually have their dogs in those 13
prong collars don't realize that, when dogs are playing with each other, another dog can 14
be injured by one of those prong collars. I think everything else we had discussed. 15
Daren, if we did have a discussion about the prong collar, then please remind me. 16
Chair Reckdahl: What's the feeling on Commission about prong collars? Do you want to 17
include that in the list? 18
Commissioner McDougall: I agree with what Ryan said. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: What would the proposed wording be then? 20
Commissioner McCauley: At that second bullet, we could either just change the period 21
into a semi-colon and say "no prong collars" or you could have a new sentence that says 22
"no prong collars" or "remove any prong collars from dogs before entering the exercise 23
area." Something along those lines. 24
Commissioner McDougall: Or must have a collar except prong collars. 25
Commissioner McCauley: I think any of those would be fine. 26
Chair Reckdahl: My preference would be "no prong collars" after that. Are people 27 happy with that? 28
Commissioner McCauley: Yeah. Let us know … 29
Commissioner Greenfield: "Prong collars are not allowed." 30
Chair Reckdahl: I'm happy with that. 31
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
Commissioner Greenfield: As an additional sentence on the second bullet item or as a 1
separate bullet item? 2
Chair Reckdahl: I would do it right after the collar, just like he said. A new sentence, 3
and say "prong collars not allowed." 4
Commissioner McCauley: I would perhaps say "prong collars should be removed." 5
Many times people walk their dogs with those prong collars because it helps them to 6 control the dog. It makes it clear that once you get into that exercise area, that's when 7
you're supposed to make sure that your dog is free of that prong collar. 8
Commissioner Greenfield: We're saying the dog must wear a collar with an ID and 9
license tag. We need to maybe keep it together. You're saying no prong collar, but you 10
still have to have a collar on. That's what we're trying to convey. 11
Commissioner McCauley: That's a fair point too. I think most everyone who uses one of 12
those prong collars doesn't actually have the ID on the prong collar, but it's possible that 13
some one could. It's a fair point. 14
Chair Reckdahl: A prong collar is not allowed in the dog park or a prong collar is not 15
allowed. What do you need for clarification? 16
Commissioner McCauley: It's fine to say even more simply "no prong collars." 17
Chair Reckdahl: Are you happy with "no prong collars"? 18
Commissioner Greenfield: Sure. Maybe we want to put that before we state that a dog 19
must be wearing a collar. 20
Commissioner McCauley: That's fair enough. Frankly, where it says wearing a collar, 21
you'd probably have a parenthetical, which is "no prong collars." 22
Commissioner Greenfield: "Prong collars not allowed" in parenthesis would be cleanest. 23
Let's get through this. 24
Chair Reckdahl: You want to make a motion to amend that? 25
Commissioner McCauley: I'm happy to. If there's any other discussion? 26
Commissioner McDougall: I have two questions. Likewise, I was impressed by David's 27 notes and list. Do we cover the open wounds in what we say? 28
Commissioner McCauley: I'm sorry. Say that again? 29
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
Commissioner McDougall: Do we cover the open wound issue? What Commissioner 1
Moss read out was if the dog has an open wound, it shouldn't be there. I don't know if we 2
cover that, and I don't know how serious dog people consider that. 3
Commissioner McCauley: We don't cover that presently. Again, Daren please correct 4
me if I get this incorrect or if my memory fades on me. It was more particular to the 5
conversation about female dogs that are not spayed. Essentially, most dog owners are 6 pretty thoughtful, and they're looking out for their own dog certainly. I think it would be 7
a fairly rare circumstance that a dog with an open wound would actually be brought to a 8
park because they might be the most vulnerable animal in that setting. The feedback 9
from the stakeholders was that it didn't seem like a particularly significant issue that 10
needed to be called out specifically. Is that right? 11
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 12
Commissioner McDougall: I'm okay with that. I had the question but not a strong 13
opinion. My other comment maybe seems silly. Somehow moving it from 25 to 35 14
pounds—Daren made the point that we have an awful lot of toy dogs. I don't know what 15
toy dogs are, but it seems to me that they're less than 25 pounds. Twenty-five and 35 16
seem arbitrary numbers. This may not sound correct. If you said 22 1/2 or something, it 17
would cause people to think more about what really is the weight as opposed to is this a 18
big dog or a little dog. I don't know how much it matters. Daren's comment that there is 19
a lot of toy dogs makes me concerned. What does the ad hoc think about that? 20
Commissioner McCauley: Not to speak for Anne, I kind of agree with you it's somewhat 21
arbitrary. What's really driving this is would a dog that is 35 pounds interacting with a 22
dog that's 5 pounds potentially cause more significant injury or would there be a more 23
significant risk of injury to the small dog. Whereas, a dog that's 25 pounds and a dog 24
that's 5 pounds, you're getting closer to the same weight. When dogs are rolling over or 25 playing or whatever else, there's less significant risk of injury. That's all that's really 26 driving it. You're right 25 is a round number. Could it be 24? Sure. 27
Commissioner McDougall: I was looking for a number that made people think more 28
about it than arbitrary. If you think a 25-pound dog isn't going to kill a 5-pound dog, 29
fine. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Were you poking at that you thought 25 was too big or you just thought 31
… 32
Commissioner McDougall: I actually think 25 is too big. I'm worried that we're still on 33
the high side. I don't know how small these toy dogs are, but they're less than 10 pounds, 34
I think, in a lot of cases. I don't know. We could leave it the way it is and just simply 35
make a note or comment that it needs to be watched and aware of. It's already been 36
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
commented that we could change this again later if we had to. It might be a laborious 1
process to change it, but we should just be aware. 2
Chair Reckdahl: The good news is that we have experience with dog parks. The bad 3
news is we don't have any small dog parks. This is a learning opportunity. My 4
preference would be … 5
Commissioner McCauley: Just the flip side—I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off, 6 Keith. The flip side is by having the limit at 25 pounds, it means that a 26-pound dog 7
now has to be in the large dog area playing with up to 100 or 150-pound dogs. There are 8
some really large dogs out there. That's the other side of the equation. In the first 9
instance, that's why we thought 35 might be the right limit, so that people in that 25-35-10
pound range had more flexibility. 11
Chair Reckdahl: If there's a 30-pound dog that's wimpy, they'll probably put it in the 12
small dog park, and it'll probably be happy. 13
Commissioner McCauley: I think that's absolutely right. There's a practicality. We're 14
not going to be out there with a scale. 15
AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED RULES: 16
Chair Reckdahl: My preference would be to go with 25 and see how it works. If we get 17
feedback that that's not working, we can adjust that. We still have to make the motion for 18
adding the parenthetical on the second bullet. After wearing a collar, we'll put "(prong 19
collars not allowed) with ID and license tag." You got that, Daren? 20
Mr. Anderson: Yep, got it. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Let's vote on that amendment. 22
Commissioner McDougall: I'll second Ryan's motion as such. 23
Chair Reckdahl: Let's vote on that amendment. All in favor. Opposed. That passes [6-24
0, Cribbs absent]. 25
Commissioner McDougall: I would invite Ryan to move that we … 26
MOTION: 27
Commissioner McCauley: I move the approval of this action item to amend Parks and 28
Open Space Regulation R-132 to update the City's dog park rules. 29
Commissioner McDougall: I would happily second Ryan's motion. 30
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: All in favor. Opposed. Unanimous [6-0, Cribbs absent]. Very good. 1
Thank you, Daren. 2
3. Cubberley Temporary Lighting Update. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Next is Cubberley temporary lighting update. Adam Howard is here. 4
I'm excited about the potential for this project. It could work out well. It also is a trial 5
project. If it goes up poorly, we just don't continue it. I view only the up side. 6
Adam Howard: Good evening, Commission. Adam Howard, Community Services 7
Manager with the City of Palo Alto. I'm joined here by Neal Aronson from the Palo Alto 8
Soccer Club, who is going to go over a proposal that we have on the table to put 9
temporary lights on the Cubberley turf field. Excuse me; I'm coming down with 10
something so I'll struggle through this a little bit. Just a little bit of background for you. 11
During Daylight Savings Time, when we have more dark hours, we have a shortage of lit 12
turf field, lit fields in general. We currently have three lit fields: one at El Camino 13
soccer fields and two at the Mayfield Sports Complex. Those fields Monday through 14
Friday are booked 4:00-10:00 solid. There is no additional openings for those fields. 15
The crunch becomes even more severe mostly the January through March time period 16
where it's darker sooner. At this point, I'm going to pass it over to Neal, who's going to 17
go over the proposal with you, and then we'll go over some of the details. 18
Neal Aronson: Good evening. Thank you for your time again. I appreciate the 19
opportunity. As you know, Palo Alto Soccer Club is a local, youth soccer, competitive 20
league. We've been in the City for 40 years, actually this is our 40th year anniversary. 21
We have about 1,000 members in the club, call it 1,500 parents, plus or minus, as 22
residents of Palo Alto. We're one of several clubs in the community including the 23
Stanford Soccer Club, PSV Union, the adult men's league, and AYSO, all of whom 24
struggle day in and day out with field issues in the City. We're excited to see if this is an 25 opportunity to provide a few more slots, as Adam mentioned, in some of the more critical 26 periods of the year when we have less light and less fields available. Per our last session 27 when I was here in October, we presented the idea of putting forth rented light structures. 28
They're a mobile trailer, battery powered, solar powered with a backup generator out on 29
the Cubberley turf field, ringing the field with four, potentially six, lights. I was hoping 30
for a light plan from the vendor today. It didn't come through, but I can provide that as 31
soon as we receive it. For a period of time, plus or minus 3-4 weeks depending on how 32
quickly we can get an approval from this body and any other bodies or Commissions or 33
Council that might need to approve the idea, for 3-plus hours probably 5:15 to 8:00, 8:30, 34
the idea is we'd shut it down about 8:15—shut down practice, I should say, give the 35
teams 15 minutes to get off the field, and then the lights would go off. You have a copy 36
of our proposal in front of you, I believe. It does have some of the specs of the towers 37
and the trailers. Happy to answer any questions as well. 38
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Are there copies in the back for the public? 1
Mr. Howard: Yes, there are. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 3
Mr. Aronson: They're fully self-contained with wireless connection to cellular 4
connection so they can be managed both by timer onboard as well as remote connection 5
if need be. The vendor that we're talking to has a 24-hour technical service. They can 6 come out and attend to the lights if they've been somehow triggered on. They can also be 7
removed if there's vandalism or something that happens. We've put together a very rough 8
map as to where the trailers would be located on the field. It's right on the border of the 9
track and the turf roughly. There may be some impediment to using the track if you're 10
running around jogging. We do plan to work with staff to put up cones or rubber 11
bumpers as necessary to make sure nobody runs into them and gets hurt. The vendor 12
does carry insurance for liability and personal injury and so forth. What else can I tell 13
you? Like I said, there is a lighting plan that will be forthcoming to show members of the 14
Commission and staff how much light they put out and where it will potentially reach. 15
We don't believe there will be a lot of light pollution getting into the neighborhood. The 16
lights are very well targeted. You can direct them exactly where you need to put them. 17
We are planning a public outreach effort, should this Commission give us the go ahead to 18
move this project forward. What you see up there is a rough outline. This is just my 19
work here. We're open to additional input on how extensive we should conduct an 20
outreach. This is a quick outline of the homes immediately adjacent to Cubberley on—I 21
believe that's the south side and then the west side. We would outreach with door-to-22
door visits to each one of those homes, share with them our idea. Interestingly enough, a 23
number of the homes are actually households that have kids in our club. We've already 24
spoken to a few of them, and everybody seems to be fairly supportive understanding that 25 we would, of course, have the lights off by 8:30. It's not an all-night party by any means. 26 The other idea is that we would conduct all of—we would instruct all of our teams to 27 drop off and pick up in the parking lot of Cubberley so that there is no additional traffic 28
on Nelson or Fern. We know that's a big concern of many of the residents, that it 29
becomes a parking lot at times. We would instruct our players and parents to use the 30
parking lot instead. What else can I—I think that's about all. 31
Mr. Howard: Just some important aspects of this plan that I want to make sure we talk 32
about a little bit. These units are safe. They have locked control boxes, so there won't be 33
an issue of somebody coming on the field and trying to turn on the lights at midnight or 34
something that. They can be controlled wirelessly, which is super important. He talked a 35
little bit about it, but there's a 24-hour service provided with these. If there was 36
something that happened, we could get somebody to come out quickly. Again, the 37
company and the Palo Alto Soccer Club will take on the liability of these lights being out 38
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
on the fields. Again, just touching on the fact that we'd be requesting all pick up/drop 1
offs to take place at the Cubberley parking lot. If you could talk about this a little bit, the 2
fact that these are solar. The information we've gotten is that they probably will never 3
kick on the generator. 4
Mr. Aronson: That's right. In our conversations with the vendor, we've learned that with 5
as little as 5 hours of direct sunlight—that's a bright, sunny day—they can power the 6 lights for 24 hours. We're talking about 3 hours. We don't expect the generator will kick 7
in at all during the entire trial period which, of course, eliminates all noise and emissions 8
from the diesel generator. We expect them to be nice and quiet and clean the entire time. 9
Chair Reckdahl: I have a question for Adam or maybe for Daren. Do you want to go to 10
the map slide, the slide with the map on it? We have a standard when we have a park 11
improvement that—is it a half mile or quarter mile from the park we notify people? 12
What is that standard? 13
Mr. Anderson: I believe it's 600 feet. 14
Mr. Howard: For the City's perspective, when we have a public meeting, it will also be 15
the Greenmeadow association. We'll probably cast a little bit larger net. 16
Chair Reckdahl: If you err, I want to err on making it too big. Sometimes people feel 17
like they're impacted, and they haven't been asked. 18
Mr. Howard: When the City does their public meeting, it will be a larger net than just 19
within those red lines. 20
Mr. Aronson: This is just what we suggested might be a door-to-door canvassing. If the 21
City requests us to expand that, we're open to doing that. We have a lot of potential 22
volunteers that we could ask to walk the streets. 23
Chair Reckdahl: We have no public comment on this. We can start with the 24
Commissioners. David, do you want to start? 25
Vice Chair Moss: I'm one of the near neighbors. I think I am two houses away from the 26 red line. We use the track every day. I want to make sure that—I didn't realize that you 27 were lighting the oval. I thought you were lighting the rest of the field over on the other 28
side of the big lawn. This is the first time I've heard it was going to be the oval. The 29
main question I have—I have three. One is when you put the lights and they extend onto 30
the track, people run the track. Those cones, you might want something more substantial 31
like a little fence or something like that all the way around that is going to be a foot in or 32
however far the footprint is, and not this little thing around it. It should be a solid line 33
around the track. If you have to put cones, I would put cones all the way around, and not 34
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
this little thing around the unit itself. That's my first suggestion. Second is that the lights 1
on the south side are—there are a lot of trees. In fact, there are trees on three sides. I'm 2
very happy to hear that the 5 hours of sunlight will power it for 20 hours. We only have 3
to power it for 3 hours. It'll be interesting to see if you even get no direct sunlight for 4
those ones on the south side, will it still power for 3 hours. If they could do a test—if 5
your vendor could do a test ahead of time and see, if you never get direct sunlight for 6 those two or three on the south side, will you still be able to use those lights. The third 7
thing is that if the lights—I was driving by Palo Alto High School. I saw the lights on for 8
the football field. They're much bigger, much brighter. They definitely do not go—they 9
point straight down onto the field. Of course, we want to see the lighting plan to make 10
sure that the lights go straight down onto the field and not into the backyards of those 11
houses. We're looking forward to seeing that lighting plan next time, at least for the 12
public meeting. I'm hoping that we never have to use the generators. I don't know what 13
68 decibels sounds like at 35 feet. Of course, if we never have to use the generators, that 14
would be great. I don't know how you can—you're going to get that question in the 15
public meeting. The last thing is thank you very much for addressing the drop off and 16
pick up so that people are not making a zoo out there on Nelson in the dark. It is a real 17
problem. That's all I had. 18
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. I think this is a very interesting and creative plan 19
to address a community resource issue. I think you've been very thorough, as thorough as 20
you can be in the preliminary presentation and trying to address the potential community 21
needs. In the proposal that you gave to us, you listed specific dates that you're looking to 22
run a trial. Given some of the uncertainty—I understand ideally you'd like to run the trial 23
for the month of February, basically 4 weeks in February. Given constraints and 24
approvals required, there are uncertainties. I'd suggest changing—not listing specific 25 dates that you want to run the trial for, but saying 3 weeks or go big and say 4 weeks 26 starting sometime in February, then you have a little bit more leeway there. I agree that 27 focusing on drop off and pick up in the Cubberley parking lot is important. I have heard 28
some comments from the neighborhood about how you would actually enforce that. You 29
may need to consider having someone monitoring that. It would be easy for some people 30
to cheat on it, so to speak, and that would risk the ire of the neighborhood who you're 31
trying to cooperate with. Otherwise, I think it's a great plan to put out to the 32
neighborhood. I think we need to be very thorough and proactive in reaching out to the 33
Greenmeadow community and perhaps doing the community meeting in their community 34
center on their turf, so to speak. Look forward to seeing if there's a way we can make all 35
parties happier. Thank you. 36
Commissioner McDougall: I'd just like to compliment Adam—compliment both of you 37
in terms of responding to what the ad hoc committee meeting had. The new document 38
addresses several of the comments we made. Several of the comments that 39
Commissioner Moss made have been considered and are part of the conversation, not 40
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
necessarily covered in here, particularly the parking. I know you're sensitive to that. 1
That's important. Whatever sport we're talking about, the lack of lit fields or lit courts or 2
whatever it may be in a community that seems to be incredibly active or is incredibly 3
active, anything we can do to address that. This is a trial, and it's a worthy trial. Thank 4
you for your efforts. 5
Commissioner McCauley: Let me add that I also think it's great that you're presenting 6 this trial. It's a really good thing to think creatively about how we can better utilize our 7
park spaces. This is a great way to think about doing that. Well done in that respect. I 8
have two questions. The first is—this is a 4-week trial. What happens after March of 9
next year? What's the long-term goal? 10
Mr. Howard: The reason we picked March 11th is the time change takes place. We have 11
the later hours. As we've discussed this, we really do see this as the long-term goal is 12
maybe allowing this short window to take place every year. Although lighting those 13
fields permanently will be great, the resources make that seem like a conversation that 14
doesn't necessarily need to take place right now. Really, the long-term goal is to allow 15
this to happen every year for a 1-month window. 16
Commissioner McCauley: What about other field users? Are they going to be presenting 17
the same sorts of—not necessarily just the Cubberley field. Are they going to be 18
presenting similar proposals for other areas? 19
Mr. Howard: The only reason I think staff or the ad hoc is willing to look at this specific 20
proposal is because it's turf. Really only turf fields could handle the increased play of 21
lights. A proposal to light grass is just not something we would consider because the 22
grass couldn't handle it. In terms of this specific proposal, at least some of the committee 23
feels that, because they're putting in all the foot work, financing all the lights, proposed 24
the idea, we will let them use this time specifically for Palo Alto Soccer Club. If it's 25 something that works, in the future time that we promote we'll broker it as if it were any 26 other field spot. 27
Commissioner McCauley: Really what is driving my question is that we're setting a 28
precedent potentially. I want to fully understand what that precedent means. The second 29
question I had is more a technical one. If you had more lighting units, would it actually 30
allow you to lower the height of each of the light booms so that you had shorter towers? 31
Have you considered that? It looks as though you've come to the conclusion that four 32
towers is the right number for this particular field. I'm interested to know whether or not 33
there are options in order to get these lights as low as possible. 34
Mr. Aronson: The towers are about 25 feet tall, which is obviously much smaller than 35
the lighting tower that you would see on a permanent structure. In conversations with the 36
vendor—they're probably the best one to answer this, but I'm going to take a swing at it. 37
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
My sense is if you added more, you potentially could reduce the height, but you do start 1
to run into issues with the lights being in the field of play. It could cause some problems 2
for the players who are out there practicing, ball's flying and gets blinded by the light. 3
The other issue that Adam alluded to is these are not cheap structures. We have to rent 4
them for the entire month. Even though we're only using them for what would be about 5
12 hours a week, we have to pay for the entire month. We've figured out a way to 6 amortize that almost down to the player, and it works with four, possibly six units. If we 7
were to have to put more units out there, it might make it uneconomical. We haven't 8
looked at that carefully. We want to try to keep this as low cost to our members as 9
possible. 10
Commissioner McCauley: I absolutely appreciate that. That's a very thoughtful 11
response. Here's what's driving the question in this respect. To the extent the proposal 12
can be somewhat adaptable, if there are objections about light leakage, for lack of a better 13
term, light pollution I guess, it could potentially be addressed by either repositioning the 14
units or having more units at lower heights or whatever else. I think that's what's 15
important, you can be adaptable within this proposal and respond to feedback once the 16
lights are actually out there. 17
Commissioner LaMere: I like the fact that we're pursuing this idea and appreciate the leg 18
work that the club has done to get this project going. I also have a concern—I haven't 19
been out to this Cubberley field. Looking at the plan, David's comment about where the 20
lights will be place. If they're not placed on the track, it looks to me that they would need 21
to be placed very close to the corners of the soccer field. Is that correct? I guess the 22
concern I would have is the liability. I don't know whose liability it would be. How 23
close to the field? The structure itself looks a little bit menacing in terms of if a player 24
were to run into it chasing a ball or somebody chasing a ball, padding or safety of the 25 player or safety of a runner with this structure. 26
Mr. Howard: That is actually why some of it has to overhang onto the track. We need it 27 to be 8 feet from the playing field. We are talking with them to provide a thick foam 28
bumper system, so there's no running into a corner, if you happen to do that. We are 29
considering Commissioner Moss'—where we block off the entire 2-foot inner circle of 30
the track to prevent people from getting right next to it. 31
Mr. Aronson: One other note I want to make is that we won't be playing games. This is 32
not for game play. Practices are a much more controlled environment. Coaches limit 33
where the players go, what they do, what the drill is, and so forth and so on. Even though 34
we're thinking to avoid the actual field lines and so forth, it's probably not out of the 35
question that we have some flexibility. If we needed to avoid the track, we could move 36
them in. We would then limit where the players and the teams would be practicing 37
specifically. Again, this is purely for practice. If you've ever had a chance to observe 38
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
one of our practices or probably really any competitive youth soccer practice, they're very 1
structured environments. The timing and place and movement of the players is pretty 2
regimented. There's not a lot of running after an errant ball, not looking where you're 3
going and potentially running into something. 4
Commissioner LaMere: My other concern would be the noise of the generators. I see 5
where and heard where you said you hope that these can run without the generators based 6 on the solar. Will we have someone who is—since we're doing a pilot project, are we 7
having someone who is gathering data or is there someone who's accountable for some of 8
these actions that we've talked about? I don't know who it was. Maybe Commissioner 9
Greenfield brought up the pick up for example. How are we monitoring and how are we 10
going to gather feedback based on this? If a generator does start up, are we going to note 11
that? A generator ran for 10 or 15 minutes, and that's going to impose this hardship or 12
that's going to be annoying to these people. If we're going to do this pilot project to be 13
able to gather information, is someone from the club or someone from our Staff—I don't 14
know—responsible for this? 15
[Commissioner McCauley left the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m.] 16
Mr. Howard: I think it's going to be a universal approach. Staff will need to send people 17
out to see how the situation is working. We're going to be very open to the community 18
members of a specific way they can provide feedback, certain contact information that 19
they can provide feedback to Staff. Obviously the club will be there day in and day out, 20
so they'll know how it's working. I think it'll be up to staff and community to make sure 21
it's running smoothly. 22
Mr. Aronson: As I understand it, with all things wireless and electronic these days, it 23
logs its own activity. The vendor will know how many hours or minutes the generator 24
ran and so forth and so on. 25
Commissioner LaMere: Great. Good luck. Excited to have this project go forward and 26 see how it turns out. 27
Vice Chair Moss: One more comment on what was just said. The corners, is there any 28
way instead of putting it on the track to put it over on the end zone? There's a whole lot 29
of space between the end zone and the track. Is that better? I don't know how heavy it is 30
and whether it would cause a dent in the turf if you put it on the grass itself as opposed to 31
being right on that corner. Just a thought. 32
Mr. Howard: We certainly will address keeping no divots, which will require them to put 33
out thin plywood sheets. They won't drive on the track or the field. They will be going 34
along these plywood planks. They will rest on the plywood planks to prevent damage to 35
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
turf or track. Neal, maybe you can address a little bit why it's not the best idea to have 1
them straight on or if it is okay. 2
Mr. Aronson: We're actually open to placements to minimize impact on the track and so 3
forth. The vendor thought it would be appropriate to put it on a corner. In further 4
discussions with them, they seem to be relatively okay. In the end, we want to get it out 5
there and see what it looks like and try to find the right spot, a little trial and error to 6 make sure we're minimizing impact and providing the best benefit. 7
Chair Reckdahl: I too am concerned about damaging the turf and damaging the track. 8
This is going to be trial and error. We're going to learn from this. I'm looking forward to 9
doing this and getting the trial under our belts and see what we learn. We are going to 10
learn a lot from this. This is the first time we've done this, both the solar power and also 11
just portable lights. I would say that we should get the community outreach sooner rather 12
than later. I would not want to wait too long because we want enough window so that, if 13
there are actions or mitigations we have to do, we want some time before the next 14
meeting. At the next meeting, we have to vote to get it on to the Council. We really do 15
have to be crisp about this. Greenmeadow community center is currently remodeling 16
right now. We would probably have to move it to either Cubberley or Mitchell Park, but 17
we've got a lot of options for that. I agree having the meeting there as opposed to the 18
north end of town makes a lot of sense. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: I just had some follow-ups. Adam, you mentioned the long-20
term goal would be to have these lights running for 1 month per year. My understanding 21
is that the goal might be broader than that. We have an issue during the Daylight Savings 22
months, and probably the most critical need months would be November, when the youth 23
teams are still playing, until the Thanksgiving holidays and also in February and March, 24
when they're ramping up for the spring season. Neal, do you have comments on that? 25
Mr. Aronson: I think that's right. If this works and the neighborhood is supportive or 26 perhaps not opposed, we would probably like to expand it for a couple months, to your 27 point, to November when we first lose the light and February just before the change. 28
Let's see how it goes. We're open to working with the community and the Commission to 29
see what can work best. At this point, any additional field resource is better than what 30
we've got now. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: To that end, while I understand there is not intention to play 32
games at night under the lights, the fields will still be used for game play during the day 33
when the lights will be there. We need to make sure the lights are sufficiently out of the 34
field of play. As David suggested, I think we should look to potentially move the lights 35
beyond the end lines a safe distance away. That will also simplify the issue of impact on 36
the running track. I don't really like the idea of having a coned-off area all the way 37
around the field. I don't think that's pragmatic on the dirt track, particularly during rainy 38
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
months. I think we want some bulb-outs around the center light structures. We certainly 1
want to keep things safe, but let's minimize what we do there. 2
Chair Reckdahl: One thing I would add with that is if we're not playing games there, 3
then we really don't have to have the classic lineup where you have to worry about the 4
lights getting in your eyes. You can move your practice drills to be oriented relative to 5
the lights as opposed to orienting the lights relative to the field. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: Definitely let's log the generator time. I'm assuming the 7
equipment should be able to do that. Let's plan on getting a report on that. That'll be 8
very useful feedback. That's all I've got. Thank you. 9
Commissioner McDougall: Just quickly, I want to reinforce let's not just collect the data. 10
Let's anticipate how we're going to present the data. Too often we think about how the 11
presentation is after the fact when we didn't collect the right data. Let's make sure we 12
know of that. Relative to the comment about coning off around the track, the ad hoc did 13
spend a lot of time with Adam, Neal, and Daren. It was an initial proposal to cone it off 14
all the way around. I do think in the end properly structured bulb-outs, not just cones, 15
was the conclusion that the ad hoc had. I think they're willing to consider that. The 16
whole idea of putting down plywood as Daren suggested to make sure we're not 17
damaging the field is really important. Sooner rather than later is important. As we do 18
the sooner, Jeff's suggestion of let's make sure we're being honest about the ambitions so 19
we're not saying it would just be 1 month a year. We should be admitting that maybe we 20
need to look at the full opportunity. I want to reinforce we've continued to say thank you, 21
Neal, for the effort you're putting into this. We should also make sure it's clear thank you 22
for the offer and the plan to actually pay for this. You're not asking the City to do this; 23
your organization is offering to not just do the work but fund it. Thank you for that. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: One more thing I'll throw out. This may be a benefit to the 25 night joggers who may enjoy running around the track that's lit up. We might actually 26 get some mileage out of that, so to speak. 27
Chair Reckdahl: I can see that. From a security standpoint, it's going to be a lot nicer 28
running around a lit track than a dark track. Thank you. We should get community 29
outreach as soon as we can so we can be crisp on the date and move on. Thank you. 30
4. Pickleball Update Informational Report 31
Chair Reckdahl: Next up is pickleball. That is Adam Howard. Do we have any public 32
comment on pickleball? No public comment. 33
Mr. Howard: Adam Howard, Community Services Manager with the City of Palo Alto. 34
We're here to give an update on the proposed project at Mitchell Park tennis courts. This 35
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
proposal is to possibly look at restriping tennis courts at Mitchell to designate to 1
pickleball. The reason we are looking into this is we've recognized pickleball is a 2
growing sport. We've definitely seen an increase in demand in Palo Alto specifically. 3
Currently, pickleball is using Mitchell courts 5, 6, and 7 on a first-come-first-serve basis 4
because it's been available. Pickleball's partnered with the City of Palo Alto to offer 5
some weekday classes through our Enjoy! catalog. The City is interested in helping 6 continue that growth and providing some space for them. This is just an overlay. The 7
courts on the left are 1-4, and the courts on the right are 5, 6, 7 which are closest to the 8
Magical Bridge Playground. This is an overlay of what we're considering to be an 9
additional tennis court built just outside of courts 1-4. It would be just to the right, 10
currently where the handball walls are placed. We would be considering placing an 11
additional tennis court there. 12
Chair Reckdahl: That would replace the handball court? 13
Mr. Howard: Right. On this image on the left side of the tennis court, we would replace 14
another wall, so there would be space for handball play as well, not as much but there 15
would be an additional space on the outside of that court where people could continue to 16
play handball. 17
Chair Reckdahl: Where on the outside? 18
Mr. Howard: On the left side of this court, that area will be cleared and flattened. There 19
would be a playing surface along the outside fence line. 20
Chair Reckdahl: You actually would have a court there, a handball court? 21
Mr. Howard: Right. Utilizing the tennis court fence. 22
Commissioner Greenfield: It would just be a wall, not a handball court. 23
Mr. Howard: Right, just a wall. 24
Chair Reckdahl: I was going to say that gets heavily used. People hit tennis balls against 25 that all the time. I would want to make sure we have a wall somewhere in the park that 26 they could use. 27
Mr. Howard: This is an overlay of courts 5, 6, and 7 with currently pictured 12 pickleball 28
courts that could fit into that space. Since I've passed the staff report, we've actually had 29
the opportunity to meet with stakeholder groups. The pickleball stakeholders basically 30
really enjoy the fact that we're considering designated space. They really appreciate the 31
availability to give input and would like to be a further part of the details of that design 32
and a willingness to fund some additional items that they think would make the space 33
perfect for pickleball. The drawback for this proposal is that there are currently two light 34
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
poles situated on the tennis courts that we cannot remove with the current funding 1
available. They're in an odd location; unfortunately, we can't take them off—we could 2
take them out, but we couldn't replace them, so there would be light issues. I met with 3
the tennis ad hoc committee, who is not as thrilled with the idea. The good news is I 4
really appreciate both of these groups enjoy that the other group is passionate about their 5
sport. There's no "we don't like tennis," "we don't like pickleball" going on in this 6 community, which is really great. They both respect each other. The tennis groups 7
obviously like that the current courts are flexible and can be used for both. There are 8
tennis courts painted with pickleball lines, so they do enjoy that. Some of the cons they 9
came up with were the parking issues at Mitchell Park with the increased play that 10
pickleball does bring and can bring. They have big concerns over losing lit tennis courts. 11
The additional tennis court that we are planning will be plumbed for lights but would not 12
be lit with the current funding that's available. Ultimately, they see it as two lost, lit 13
tennis courts, which is a concern for them. They brought up the concern of the handball 14
players. Staff hasn't seen a ton of handball play, but they feel like there is. They've given 15
me some times that they recommend us checking it out. I will commit to doing that. 16
They are just overall concerned with a drop in space for tennis and hurting what they 17
consider to be a strong tennis community here in Palo Alto. Just some next steps that 18
we're considering. Gaining further insight in the use of Mitchell courts 5, 6, and 7. I 19
think they really wanted to make sure that we understood the drop-in rate, which we don't 20
have permit numbers for that. They really think it's important that we understand how 21
many people are just using it first-come-first-serve when pickleball's not there. We feel 22
it's going to be important to meet with that stakeholder group again to see if we can 23
address some of their concerns. Beyond that, we would really get into the larger, general 24
public meetings where we could invite everyone, park users, handball users, all the tennis 25 community, all the pickleball community, anyone that's interested, to come and provide 26 further feedback. At that point, we would bring a more concrete plan back to Parks and 27 Rec. That's the feedback we have and where we are in the plan now. We thought it 28
would be appropriate to come back and give an update. 29
Commissioner LaMere: My only comment or question is in making a designated space 30
for pickleball with these courts, we would be putting in permanent nets. Is that correct? 31
Mr. Howard: That would be the idea. 32
Commissioner LaMere: We would then—these courts would be pickleball only. They 33
could not be used for any other purpose. 34
Mr. Howard: That's correct. 35
Commissioner LaMere: The last thing. I actually would agree with the tennis group to 36
get some accurate drop-in rates. If we're going to lose these courts permanently, to have 37
that would be some good information for us. 38
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
Mr. Howard: I definitely will do that. It'll have to be rough, visual evidence since we 1
don't have a firm system to do that. Staff will definitely provide some insight into that. 2
Vice Chair Moss: One suggestion is that if they want to do a video camera or something 3
for a couple of months to actually see who's using the field, you can get a temporary one 4
put up there and actually see who's using those courts. I am a little concerned about the 5
permanence of the nets and never, ever being able to go back to tennis. I get the feeling 6 that the tennis players should be sympathetic to the—as tennis players get older, a lot of 7
them become pickleball players. It's for their benefit as well. My only other question is 8
parking. I know that the church behind there has quite a large parking lot. If there was 9
some way that we could make a deal with them or with Abilities United to get more 10
parking, I hate to admit it but the parking lot at Mitchell is very, very full. It made a huge 11
increase with Magical Playground and the new Mitchell Park Library and the Community 12
Center. The parking has really ballooned. If you can find more parking, that would be 13
great. 14
Commissioner Greenfield: This Commission's been pushing the data angle many times 15
before. We really do need some numbers on the current drop-in usage for tennis and for 16
the handball courts. I do agree with David's idea to get a camera in place and figure out 17
how to do some recording and monitor it every hour or something to see what the usage 18
looks like. That may be helpful. We also need some hard data to the extent it's available 19
on the usage by Palo Alto residents of the tennis courts, of the handball courts, and the 20
pickleball courts. We're a bit loosy goosy on the numbers right now. Anything we can 21
do to improve that really makes a significant impact. It'd be nice to know how many 22
tennis court users are from Palo Alto, how many pickleball users are from Palo Alto. 23
You understand the issue, and I understand the problem. On parking, I'm really 24
struggling with the concept that we should limit a community resource due to parking 25 constraints. I appreciate parking is an issue. It's shortsighted to be concerned about the 26 parking right now. We had a similar discussion regarding Rinconada recently. There are 27 all kinds of new development going on there, and the overall plan is not to increase the 28
parking, to allow the neighborhood to absorb it to the extent it's necessary, and also to 29
hopefully move the City towards alternate transportation means as time goes on. I know 30
that might not seem like it'll make such a big dent today, but that's the direction we need 31
to be moving. Adding parking at Mitchell Park is out of the question for a variety of 32
reason. I really struggle with the concept of trying to limit some sort of recreational 33
activity because we're afraid about the parking impact. Regarding the permanent 34
conversion of the courts, I do appreciate the tennis community's concern that that takes 35
away the flexibility. Right now on 5, 6, and 7, the courts can be used for drop-in for 36
tennis or pickleball. I also appreciate the need for permanent, dedicated pickleball courts 37
where you don't have to go to the trouble of loading nets out of a lockbox and setting it 38
up. That's very important. I don't know if maybe a compromise at this point would be to 39
consider permanently dedicating two courts, like 6 and 7. Perhaps 5 would be a court 40
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
that could go either way and still have the nets available. Finally on a humorous note, if 1
we add another tennis court, what will we number it? You can't put 8 in the middle. 2
Thank you. 3
Commissioner McDougall: The first thing I want to do is thank Adam. The ad hoc has 4
been to meetings with Adam, and we've been to meetings with the racket ball people, and 5
we've been to meetings with the tennis people. Adam has done a marvelous job of 6 allowing the passion of these groups to be expressed, at the same time making sure that 7
we were having a useful and honest discussion and managing the time. I'm very 8
complimentary of what Adam has done. One of my takeaways from the two meetings is 9
the Parks Master Plan and the City's Comprehensive Master Plan make a big point of 10
dealing with the diversity in the City and with the youth and with the aging population, 11
and particularly the whole momentum that people believe there's an aging population and 12
the forecast for youth numbers is actually going down. Both groups recognize that. I 13
think the tennis people conceded that point, that that was an important part of the 14
conversation. I agree with everything Jeff just said about parking. I hope and believe 15
that eventually alternate transportation strategies will help our parking. We shouldn't be 16
limiting anything we do today because of current parking. In terms of data, I've been as 17
enthusiastic as anybody about collecting data, but I would suggest that this is a case 18
where, number one, I'd be very careful about cameras in terms of privacy. That's a risk. 19
This is a case for some sort of sampling technique. You don't need to have 24 hours a 20
day for 6 weeks to come up with the data. We should be able to find sampling techniques 21
the same way the population census for the whole United States is done by counting 1 22
percent of our people and comes up with an accurate number. I would encourage you to 23
take that approach. I would encourage the Commission to believe that we can do some 24
appropriate sampling. Thank you. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Anecdotally, when I walk by there, I hardly ever see tennis players 26 playing on those courts. They really seem to me—this is not scientific—underused. I do 27 agree with Jeff. We're data driven. It'd be easy enough to get a camera, have that camera 28
just take a picture every 5 minutes, and have a stream of pictures, and then have someone 29
strip through there and count how many times that was used during the day. If you could 30
do that for a week, you'd have a really good idea what kind of coverage you'd have. The 31
same with handball courts. If you put them high enough, one camera could cover all 32
three tennis courts, and one could do all the handball. I think we'd have our answer very 33
quickly. My gut, without any backup, is that we should just put the pickleball in and give 34
it a shot. If it doesn't work out, we always can go back to tennis. The conversion from 35
one to the other is not that expensive. I would err on the side of putting the pickleball 36
courts in, but we should also do our best to get some data so we're making an informed 37
choice and not just a knee-jerk decision. 38
Vice Chair Moss: Anecdotally, when I always go by there, I always see tennis players. 39
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Really? On those courts? 1
Vice Chair Moss: Yes. 2
Chair Reckdahl: On the ones close to the Library, I see those are heavily used. These 3
aren't used that often. Maybe it's a sampling error. That's why we need the cameras. 4
Ms. O'Kane: Chair, could I respond to the cameras comment? 5
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. 6
Ms. O'Kane: We'd have to run that through our City Attorney's Office because there's 7
definitely privacy issues. We can't print any photos that have a child in them unless we 8
get written consent from a parent. We'd have to run that through the Attorney's Office 9
before we did something like that. 10
Chair Reckdahl: If you could have them defocused enough—all we need to do know is 11
are there blobs on there or not. It doesn't have to be a fine, high-resolution camera. It 12
can just be very low resolution. 13
Commissioner McDougall: I think we should listen to staff advice. I think it's a very 14
high risk. 15
Chair Reckdahl: We can talk to the Attorney and get their opinion on it. From a 16
practical standpoint, if you had a fuzzy picture, I don't see any danger, but I'm not a 17
lawyer. Yes, we should check with them. Jeff's point is that we make all these decisions 18
driven by data, and we have no data at all on how much our tennis courts are used. It's all 19
anecdotal, and that's just not a good decision-making process. 20
Ms. O'Kane: We could do a little bit of research on the best way to get data in a situation 21
like this, that's representative of the number of users that might be there in a day. We can 22
do a little bit of research on that and find the best way. 23
Commissioner Greenfield: I was just going to throw out if we did get clearance to do 24
some sort of video surveillance, I suppose—bad way to put it—sampling once an hour, 25 once a half hour would be plenty. You want to limit your samples because you're going 26 to have to check the samples. 27
Mr. Howard: We're going to need to put someone there to take the sample. We have to 28
think about staff time and when they can be there. We'd have to be careful with that. Not 29
careful, but think through how we're going to even take a sampling. 30
Chair Reckdahl: I would think you would have a camera mounted that automatically 31
would take a picture every X minutes. At the end of the day, you take the card out and 32
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
put it on your computer. Even if you did it every 5 minutes, you're talking—that's only 1
12 pictures an hour. You could go through a full day very quickly. 2
Mr. Howard: The camera is a different situation. They were talking specifically about 3
staff doing it. I'm sure we will have some legal questions we need to ask before we even 4
know if it's a possibility for a camera. 5
Vice Chair Moss: The other option is just to have a sign-up sheet. You do have one 6 now, I think, not for reservations but just who's using the court. 7
Commissioner McDougall: I think we've suggested to staff that we'd like any way that 8
they could get any kind of numbers. I think we should let them investigate this. 9
Chair Reckdahl: The path forward then, what's the timeline? 10
Mr. Howard: I haven't proposed a timeline on this mostly because we have such a short 11
timeline on the temporary lighting. I was trying to get through that. I would probably 12
start in the new year collecting the data. Maybe it's a month-long collection of weekdays, 13
weekends, different times, depending on how we can go about collecting that data. From 14
there, I think the ad hoc can meet again to come through with a little bit more clear of a 15
plan. We're excited to do it with the funding that we have in this fiscal year. That's 16
somewhat of a determinant of how quickly we're trying to do it. 17
Chair Reckdahl: How much money do we have for this? 18
Mr. Howard: I think the project … 19
Chair Reckdahl: Is this a CIP or how do we have the money? 20
Mr. Howard: Daren can help answer that because this is some money that was set aside 21
for these particular courts. 22
Mr. Anderson: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf. We have an existing CIP 23
we use for resurfacing tennis courts and basketball courts throughout the City. It's 24
ongoing and funded each year. The funding we have now is allocated for Mitchell Park 25 to do these. We've got adequate funding to do the conversion for pickleball and 26 potentially do that new tennis court as well. 27
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. We'll probably be a couple months away from an update on 28
this. 29
Mr. Howard: That would be my guess, yeah. 30
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 31
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
5. Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project Update. 1
[This item was postponed.] 2
6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 3
Chair Reckdahl: Next is Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. Does anyone have 4
any updates in the ad hoc? We did have a CIP ad hoc meeting with Daren. What's the 5
timeline when we submit this? 6
Mr. Anderson: The CIPs are being submitted now. We're getting information into our 7
OMB, Office of Management and Budget, for review. There will be several iterations of 8
review at different levels. What we anticipate is that we've put something forward, a 9
certain package of programs very similar to what we have in the existing 5-year budget. 10
Very little was added in the way of new programs, just some shuffling around with a very 11
minor change here and there. What happens is we put that forward, and then we get 12
feedback once OMB has looked at all the City's capital budgets. Usually there's some 13
horse trading and tweaks that have to be done, so we'll see. I think that's the next stage. I 14
anticipate getting some information back from OMB probably in the next month or two 15
and then consulting with the ad hoc again to say, "Here's what we're hearing. Which way 16
do you want to go?" 17
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 18
Commissioner LaMere: I do have a question with Kristen as far as guidance or updates 19
on the Master Plan funding that we're looking at or working on and any of the 20
information with bonds or consultants or what direction we're going there and help you 21
may need from the ad hoc going forward. 22
Ms. O'Kane: We met with the City Manager's Office to go over the different options for 23
funding the Master Plan and the relative costs of funding the high priority projects and 24
programs over the nearer term. What was decided is on Monday, January 22nd—that's at 25 a Council meeting—there's going to be a discussion with Council and the Office of 26 Management and Budget on an infrastructure funding plan, which includes a funding gap 27 for our infrastructure plan. What we decided to do so that Council has a full picture of all 28
the different funding needs within the City is that we would roll that conversation into 29
that Council item. They will not only see what could be a funding need in Public Works 30
or for roads or the airport or utilities but also the entire picture. Council is going to have 31
to make some tough decisions on what gets funded in the next few years because of this 32
funding gap. It is really important that they see that full picture. After that Council 33
meeting on January 22nd, we'll have a better idea of what our next steps are as a 34
Commission. 35
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: That'd be very good. The 22nd, that's still a month away. 1
Ms. O'Kane: Right. Council's on break right now. When that staff report is completed 2
and posted, I'll make sure I send the link so everyone can read that and get the big picture 3
on the City's needs. 4
Chair Reckdahl: It's hard because it's a complicated issue. You want to do enough prep 5
work, but if we wait too long we've painted ourselves in a corner. At least, we're on the 6 docket. Anymore updates? Then we will move on. 7
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 8
Chair Reckdahl: Comments and Announcements. Do we have any comments and 9
announcements? 10
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 23, 2018 MEETING 11
Chair Reckdahl: Tentative agenda for the 23rd of January. 12
Ms. O'Kane: We will have the Baylands Boardwalk update. This is just a—you saw the 13
staff report. It's just a follow-up from the last time that Public Works was here. There 14
were some open-ended questions on both CEQA, the handrails, and some design features. 15
Public Works will be coming back in January to provide an update on those. That was 16
intended to go to Council in January, but it's likely going to be postponed. That is not the 17
critical path at this point. The critical path is getting the permits from the regulatory 18
agencies, and those applications have already been submitted. That process is already 19
underway. The other items we have tentatively are the update on the Buckeye Creek 20
hydrology study. Daren's nodding yes, that will be an action item. A Boulware Park 21
PIO, is that … I'm not sure why that's … That's a possibility. We do have this park 22
dedication activities prohibited item that I admit I keep pushing. I'm hoping we can come 23
in January. I might have one of our Attorneys with me to help answer some legal 24
questions. I need to make sure that he's available to attend as well. 25
Chair Reckdahl: I think that'd be really good. Have they done prep work so they can get 26 us any time or do we have to—is there some risk that they'll say they're not ready in 27 January? 28
Ms. O'Kane: There is that risk. 29
Commissioner McDougall: Kristen, on that subject I can tell you that I was accosted in 30
the post office today by a Council Member on that subject. 31
Chair Reckdahl: About what you can do in dedicated parkland? Especially with the golf 32
course. 33
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
Commissioner McDougall: And the issue of undedicated parks as well. That list that 1
was apparently given to the Commission a year ago or whatever. 2
Chair Reckdahl: We can't really decide on whether we want to dedicate this undedicated 3
parkland until we really understand what that means, how does it tie our hands and how 4
doesn't it tie our hands. Daren, can you give us a comment about the whole—when we 5
had the Cubberley field rented out to Palantir? I was told Palantir could not rent out the 6 golf course. Is that correct? Because that was dedicated parkland. 7
Mr. Anderson: I believe the request was they wanted to use the parking lot. We've had 8
that request before. Yes, that was the rationale, that it was dedicated parkland including 9
the parking lot. That's part of the reason; although—I think Kristen might have some 10
comments on that too—we're exploring other opportunities that might allow for that kind 11
of thing. 12
Ms. O'Kane: That's correct. The reason they were attracted to Cubberley is because it 13
wasn't dedicated parkland. That's why the activity could occur there. Like Daren said, 14
there was also the issue last summer of the San Francisco mime troop. They were not 15
allowed to come to Mitchell Park, which is also dedicated parkland. That was a different 16
situation in that it wasn't commercial, but it was soliciting donations, which is not 17
allowed in the Code. I'm in the process of speaking with our Attorney's Office and 18
working with them to see how we might make some changes to that Code to allow very 19
specific activities to occur on dedicated parkland. I don't want to get into a discussion 20
really here tonight because it's not an agenda item. We can talk about it more in January. 21
Chair Reckdahl: With the golf course, that's a prime location if you have some big event 22
that someone wants to put a tent up for 2 days. There are no immediate neighbors, at 23
least not residential neighbors. It would be nice to have that as an opportunity to take the 24
pressure off other places that are dedicated. Another thing was public art. We had talked 25 about having a dog park at Bowden Park, and public art was in the way. There was some 26 discussion about moving public art and what kind of constraints if there's public art there. 27 Could we put a fence around it? Could we move it? What kind of restrictions do we 28
have associated with public art? I'm not sure who answers that. 29
Mr. Anderson: When we started looking at Bowden, for example, I met with the 30
Manager of Public Art, and we talked about those two pieces at that particular site and 31
what options there were. There's some flexibility, but there are VARA rights, meaning 32
there are rights to artists on where their art is. Some of those go on in perpetuity. We've 33
dealt with that in a few other parks, Byxbee being one where these rights were—when 34
that was put in place, they last forever ostensibly. I believe that's the case for those two 35
pieces there. There's still some flexibility, though. I think that particular Manager of that 36
program was willing to work with us, but there were still things where she said, "No, you 37
can't put a fence around it. That wouldn't work. You can only move it in certain areas. 38
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
We're really not intended to." For example, you might remember the one piece—there's a 1
series of boxes that are welded together. The other one's the baby car running thing. 2
That baby car element is very much tied to the transportation theme across the street from 3
the park, where you've got the train tracks and all that. It was intended to be connected to 4
there. Moving it would alter the intention of the art. There are some of those things. I 5
still think it's possible. It's just going to be a negotiation. The other big … 6
Chair Reckdahl: What about making a higher pillar so you could have it in the dog park 7
and the dog … 8
Mr. Anderson: Possibly. I had ideas of doing landscaping around it. I was willing to do 9
just about anything I could because it was such a great spot for a dog park. The moving 10
one art piece was so expensive that it shot my budget at the time. I think I had $50,000 11
from a different funding source to throw at it. It wasn't enough. I couldn't build the park 12
and move that art piece. Now, we've got a dedicated funding source that's larger. We 13
could look at it again and see if there's a way around it. Once we get Peers in the ground 14
and construction going, the dog park ad hoc meets, and we start talking about where we 15
do the next one. If we choose not to restore existing ones but look at new ones, Bowden's 16
a great place to look at. There are a couple others as well. That's where we dig deep into 17
what will it take to move that art to make it work. 18
Chair Reckdahl: That'd be a good time to have that conversation. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: Just following up on that for the dog parks. Budget-wise we 20
would be 2 years out for the next dog park? 21
Mr. Anderson: Yes. Every other year in the capital budget there's $150,000 for the dog 22
parks. 23
Vice Chair Moss: When do you think we would have another discussion about the 24
Baylands Comprehensive Plan? 25
Mr. Anderson: I think now is probably the right time. Maybe the February meeting, 26 something like that. I just need to get together with the consultant, make sure it's on their 27 calendar, and fits in with their budget plan, when we plan to give updates. It seems to me 28
a very appropriate time to come and give an update. 29
Vice Chair Moss: When do you think we could have another look at the AT&T property 30
and the Fry's property and the Boulware? I heard that Boulware was coming up for 31
renewal in 2018. 32
Mr. Anderson: I have to look at the calendar program. I'm sorry I don't have it in front 33
of me right now. 34
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
Vice Chair Moss: I certainly wouldn't want you to spend a lot of money on Boulware 1
until this issue has been resolved. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Boulware is just so out of date. 3
Mr. Anderson: It needs renovation almost independent of anything else, but I understand 4
what you're saying. If we were to add something, you'd want it to be complementary. 5
There are a number of elements in that that need rejuvenation. It's definitely not funded 6 in FY '18, which is our current fiscal year. That's for sure. I'll have to get back to you on 7
the precise date. 8
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk about this next meeting then. 9
Commissioner Greenfield: Is there any update on when something might be happening at 10
Cubberley in terms of grander plans? 11
Ms. O'Kane: Our RFP closed yesterday. We are in the process of looking at—our 12
contracts department is looking to make sure the proposals met all the qualification 13
requirements. We'll start looking at those proposals and see what we have. We only 14
received two, which surprised me actually because at our pre-proposal meetings—we had 15
a meeting and a phone call—we had quite a few consultants listen to the project. I was 16
surprised that there were only two. We'll have to decide after we look at those if we want 17
to pursue reviewing those proposals or if we want to go back out and try and get some 18
more. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 20
Vice Chair Moss: You went pretty quickly past the Baylands Boardwalk because we're 21
going to move that to next time. I was one of the ones that talked about the rail on the 22
top. I now understand that the rail on the top does work pretty well for people who are 23
using it for support. I have to go Alviso Marina, and I haven't had a chance to do it. I 24
encourage anybody—send somebody on the staff to actually play with it at the Alviso 25 Marina because it works better than I thought. Rumor has it that it works better than I 26 thought. I don't want you to spend a lot of brain cycles on it if it really works. You 27 talked about an extra handrail. If somebody could go out there and look at it or 28
something, that would be great. 29
Chair Reckdahl: My understanding is there's a rail under the roller, so you can still use it 30
as a rail. I've not seen it in person. 31
Mr. Anderson: I'd be glad to go look. I'm very interested in that. 32
Chair Reckdahl: Kristen. 33
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
Ms. O'Kane: I just wanted to add the calendar idea of future agenda topics was not 1
intended to be month-to-month but more of a big picture of the year. At any time you're 2
interested in hearing about anything, community gardens or one of our other programs 3
that we do, if you bring that to our attention, we can find a place in the whole calendar of 4
where that might fit in. Then, we can see the big picture and see where we might have 5
months that are too heavy or too light. I'd like to encourage that feedback. We can do 6 that a little bit more in our retreat, which we'll need to schedule in the coming year as 7
well. We should keep that in mind. 8
Commissioner Greenfield: Sometime back we had talked about potentially getting a 9
presentation from the Urban Forestry Department. I wondered if we could consider that. 10
Ms. O'Kane: Sure. We can speak with them and find a time. 11
Commissioner Greenfield: Also, is it too early to be talking about our retreat now? 12
Potentially work on getting something scheduled earlier in the new year than we did last 13
year. 14
Ms. O'Kane: I don't think it's too early to start. We could put some dates together and 15
send out a poll to everyone and start getting some dates on the calendar. That's a great 16
idea. 17
Chair Reckdahl: It'd be nice to reserve the date ahead of time. 18
Mr. Anderson: A quick question for you on the topic of the Urban Forestry presentation. 19
Anything in particular? 20
Commissioner Greenfield: Just some general information about what the Urban Forestry 21
Department does and its synergies with Parks and Rec, how we can be supportive, and 22
what information would be useful to them. Nothing specific, starting with a general 23
overview and see what comes from that. 24
Vice Chair Moss: A tie-in to that process of draining the basements of new houses, the 25 urban forest would be impacted by that. Also, if you go to the Cubberley field, you'll see 26 that several of the redwood trees are dying, specifically the ones that are not being 27 watered by neighbors. They've evidently stopped watering it or the drought really got to 28
them. The last thing is I predict that we're going to have another drought year. You 29
heard it here first. It's a constant discussion point regarding the urban forest. 30
Mr. Anderson: I'll be glad to pass that on. My staff does the irrigation for the redwoods 31
at Cubberley. I'll definitely look into that. We're not intentionally cutting it off. If 32
there's a problem—lots of times drought impacts are realized 3-5 years later. There are 33
also independent of the drought strange things going on with the redwoods around, not 34
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
just at Cubberley, at Magical Forest, Rinconada, and throughout the City. It'd be a great 1
thing for the Urban Forester to discuss with you and share some special issues like that. 2
Vice Chair Moss: My personal opinion on those redwoods is that they used to be watered 3
from the lawn, from the oval, natural turf field. When you put in artificial turf, most of 4
the water supply for those particular ones came from there and is no longer there. The 5
only ones that still survive are the ones that are getting water from the near neighbors, 6 who are watering their backyards. 7
Chair Reckdahl: The one thing I wanted to say is echo what Kristen said. If you have 8
something that you'd like to hear about, it's nice for her to have a list because sometimes 9
there are cancellations and sometimes there are two open spots. If we have a list of 10
things that would be nice to hear about, she may be able to turn that around and fill up the 11
agenda better and have more consistent agendas. 12
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 13
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Greenfield and second by Vice Chair 14
Moss at 8:51 p.m. Passed 5-0, Cribbs and McCauley absent 15
Draft Minutes 33
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2018 SUBJECT: BUCKEYE CREEK HYDROLOGY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that
Council:
1. Receive the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study report (Attachment A)
2. Direct staff to explore outside funding opportunities to implement the Wildhorse Valley and Grade Control Structures portions of the plan
3. Direct staff to add $150,000 to the Capital Plan in Fiscal Year 22 for design and permitting to replace Grade Control Structures and Pedestrian Bridge
BACKGROUND Buckeye Creek, which originates in Foothills Park and flows to Los Trancos Creek, has long
standing erosion and flooding problems. During heavy storms, the creek down-cuts causing
erosion. The eroded sediments wash downstream and deposit in various locations along the
creek, especially along the 7.7 acre parcel which can lead to flooding and can obstruct downstream culverts on private properties during heavy rain events. Past erosion control measures using gabions and check dams have had limited effectiveness at reducing erosion.
Buckeye Creek was heavily modified by grading related to agricultural activities that took place
prior to ownership by the City. The creek was also modified when underground utilities were installed in the 1960s. These modifications straightened and channelized the creek for approximately one mile through the park. Based on review of historic United States Geologic
Survey (USGS) maps between 1898 and 1960, it appears that the alignment of Buckeye Creek is
substantially different now than before agricultural uses were introduced to the area in the early
1900s. The channel was likely more centered in the Wildhorse and Las Trampas Valleys, and the entire valley floor likely served as an alluvial floodplain, which dissipated energy and allowed for moderate deposition and erosion processes for the creek system.
The City contracted with ENGEO in July 2016 to study the hydrology of Buckeye Creek and to
provide recommendations to reduce erosion, sediment deposition, and flooding conditions in Foothills Park and the 7.7 acre parcel of parkland located in the northern boundary of Foothills Park. On December 6, 2016, staff hosted a community meeting to discuss the project and initial
concepts. Approximately 25 people, including stakeholders from Grassroots Ecology and
Audubon Society, attended the meeting. There was broad support for the initial concepts
developed to solve the creek’s erosion and sediment deposition issues.
1
On February 8, 2017, ENGEO and staff attended an inter-agency meeting with representatives
from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). This informal meeting was an opportunity to collect feedback on the preliminary restoration concepts from the regulatory agencies. The agency representatives generally
supported the initial restoration concepts, and provided feedback that helped guide further
development of the concepts. The key elements of the feedback were that the creek should be
restored to its historic alignment to the extent practicable, and that a less engineered approach to
solving issues associated with the historic modifications to the creek channel is preferred. On March 28, 2017, staff provided an update to the Commission on the initial concepts
developed to help solve the creek’s erosion issues. The Commission supported the concepts; and
suggested that staff and consultant further develop the concepts, host another community
meeting, and return to the Commission with the draft report.
The consultant completed the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, and refined the concepts of
creek reconfiguration, which are designed to improve sediment transport conditions, resolve
erosion issues, and restore geomorphic and biological function of the channel to historic
conditions as much as possible. On June 12, 2017, staff hosted a community meeting to discuss the refined concepts. Although the number of participants was low (four members of the public),
there was unanimous support for the recommended solutions to solve the creek’s erosion
problem.
On August 22, 2017, the Commission reviewed a draft of the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study report (Attachment B). The consultant developed the report using the hydraulic analysis, and
feedback from community meetings, stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and Commission. The
report includes a preferred alternative conceptual design, which would restore and modify
portions of Buckeye Creek by widening the creek channel to create seasonal wetland floodplains
in the lower reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel), and create a new creek channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley); as well as retrofit the existing grade control structures,
which have exceeded their useful lifespans. The report also discusses options for implementing
portions of the full remediation alternative.
The cost of the full remediation alternative (including design, environmental review, permitting, and construction) is approximately $9.5 million. The report includes a detailed description and
itemized cost estimate for all the elements of the full remediation alternative.
The following is a brief summary of the different elements of the full remediation alternative:
Improvements to the Lower Reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel)
Widening the creek in the 7.7 acres of undeveloped parkland would create a 1.2-acre floodplain
at approximately the ordinary high water mark and extend westerly at a 2% slope approximately
to the extent of the 100-year water surface elevation. Based on hydraulic modeling performed,
creating a floodplain by lowering portions of the parcel adjacent to the current creek channel would help dissipate peak flows, equilibrate sediment transport, and enhance habitat. Energy
dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction
2
locations. Trails could be built within the floodplain area, to allow park visitors access to the
creek to learn about riparian habitat, with the understanding that they would need to be
maintained after large rain events.
Widening the section of creek along the Las Trampas Valley would create approximately 3 acres
of floodplain by removing soil material in the existing grass field, which appears to consist of fill
material placed in the historic floodplain. The existing channel would be moved closer to its
historic alignment, and the grade adjusted to create an extensive floodplain above the ordinary
high water mark. As in the 7.7 acre area, energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations, which would help with flow reduction,
sediment transport equilibrium, and habitat enhancement. Some tree removals are required in
this reach of creek to create the floodplain.
Upper Reach (Wildhorse Valley) The recommended improvements to the upper reach of creek involve creating a new creek
channel that would meander through the historic floodplain (current grass meadow) in Wildhorse
Valley. Approximately 2,655 linear feet of new creek channel and 5.5 acres of floodplain would
be created.
The improvements recreate the historic floodplain by re-routing flows entering the westerly portion of the upper Buckeye Creek into the new channel. The new channel would be designed
using geomorphic principles, including a low flow channel, a stable slope and a floodplain. The
upper westerly tributary to Buckeye Creek would need to be re-routed near the existing sediment
basin at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley to capture flows, and a stabilized confluence would also be installed where the new creek would meet the existing creek channel. The existing creek channel in Wildhorse Valley would remain and continue capturing flows from south eastern
tributaries of the valley. However, the existing channel would have significantly less flow and
there would be minimal erosion because the new creek channel would capture majority of flows
from the upper Buckeye Creek. The existing sediment basin located at the base of the creek system at the top of Wildhorse Valley would be eliminated.
Grade Control Structures
The existing grade control structures, which are expected to fail in the next five to ten years,
would be retrofitted and/or replaced to meet current restoration standards.
DISCUSSION After careful consideration, the staff and Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the City should
pursue outside funding to implement the portion of proposed work that includes creating a new
creek channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley) and retrofitting the existing grade control structures throughout the creek (approximate cost: $3.7 million). The recommendation also
includes directing staff to request $150,000 to the Capital Plan in Fiscal Year 22 for design and permitting to replace grade control structures and pedestrian bridge (located at the creek across from the Foothills Park Interpretive Center). Adding $150,000 to the Capital Plan provides a fallback option if the City is not able to obtain outside funding to implement the recommendations.
3
The key factors that guided this recommendation include:
1. The City’s approximately $50 million capital budget gap
2. Creating a new section of creek in Wildhorse Valley addresses a significant portion of the
erosion and sedimentation issue (approximately 50%). 3. The construction of a new section of creek in Wildhorse Valley and replacing the grade
control structures will disrupt park visitors and wildlife less than implementing all
portions of the preferred alternative.
4. If more erosion and sediment control is needed in the future, the City can learn from the
experience with the Wildhorse Valley creek improvements and consider implementing the creek improvements in Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres area.
5. The grade control structures and the pedestrian bridge are expected to fail in the next five
to ten years, and must be replaced.
Alternative Options
The following is a list of the options and their implications:
1. The City could take no action
The creek is expected to continue to down cut, and the existing grade control structures,
which are at the end of their useful life, will likely fail in 5 to 10 years. When the grade
control structures fail, severe erosion problems are anticipated in several areas of Foothills
Park, especially in Wildhorse Valley (upper reach) where the utility corridor would be
threatened. The utility corridor consists of electric, phone, sanitary sewer, a pressurized water main, and fiber optic communication lines that are positioned along the edge of the Buckeye Creek channel in Wildhorse Valley.
Thousands of cubic yards of sediment per winter could be deposited into the 7.7 acre parcel,
and eventually into Los Trancos and San Francisquito Creeks. Excess sediment can negatively impact creeks. The soil particles cover spawning areas, smothering trout eggs, aquatic insects, and oxygen producing plants. Increased turbidity levels (suspended
sediment) in a stream will increase water temperatures, reduce light penetration and plant
growth, and affect the ability of fish to locate and capture prey by greatly reducing visibility.
Steelhead trout and other fish can die from the abrasive, gill clogging effects of suspended sediment, which interferes with their breathing.
There would likely be substantially more down cutting in the creek channel; up to 30 feet
below grade in some areas. In the mid-1970s the deepest section of the creek was measured
at 7.4 feet below grade, and currently it is 20-22 feet below grade (Wildhorse Valley). With the deep down-cut creek channel, the water table in the meadows (in all reaches of the creek) is expected to prematurely drain with less mid/late season water for shrubs/trees. The
exposed creek banks will allow water to seep out of the horizontal layers like poking a hole
in the side of a barrel.
4
Several bridge structures would also become unusable. If no action was taken, the pedestrian
bridges will likely fail in the next 5 to 10 years as the creek banks, where the bridge footings
are located, erode.
Eventually the City would have to propose some structural improvements in the creek
channel to protect the existing utility corridor from being undermined. This would require
the same federal and state permits that would be required for the preferred alternative. The
USACE/RWQCB and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may ask the
City to provide a more holistic intervention approach to managing issues in the watershed, and potentially deny permitting clearances for activities where continued regular
maintenance of the channel is proposed solely to prevent disruption of utility services.
2. The City could propose to retrofit existing grade control structures and the pedestrian
bridges as a minimum project.
This would not solve the erosion, sediment deposition, or flooding issues. Given the current
state of the channel, retrofitted grade control structures would need to be geotechnically
designed to withstand additional scour and very large sediment loads, making them more
expensive to build and maintain. This scenario may be more challenging to permit because the USACE/RWQCB and CDFW may ask for a less engineered approach to solve issues associated with the historic modifications to the creek channel.
Approximate Cost for Grade Control Structures and One Pedestrian Bridge
Replacement: $1,572,768 Grade Control Structures $706,800
(50% increase due to standalone project) $353,400
1 Pedestrian Bridge $50,000
Subtotal $1,110,200
Assume 4% Construction Cost Increase over 5-years $1,350,728
Permitting, Design, Administration (20% of Present Day Cost) $222,040 Total $1,572,768
3. The City could elect to implement the Wildhorse Valley Restoration, grade control structures, and pedestrian bridge.
Because the majority of excess sediment appears to be generated in the upper reach of
Wildhorse Valley, implementation of that project first would provide the greatest benefit to the creek channel downstream. Only implementing the new creek channel in Wildhorse Valley, the grade control structures, and pedestrian bridge would help protect the utility
corridor, and resolve the erosion and sediment transfer in Wildhorse Valley; and help reduce
those problems downstream. A significant amount of the creek’s erosion issue would likely
be resolved through this work. Additionally, this work would be more isolated within Foothills Park and likely result in \ less interruption to most areas of the park while remediation work is underway (i.e., fewer effects to existing environmental resources and
5
park users). However, some continued erosion in the Las Trampas Valley and some
sediment deposition in the 7.7 acre area will continue. This project would also temporarily
limit access to multiple trails and the campground, as well as impact the Orchard Glen picnic
area.
Approximate Cost for Wildhorse Valley Restoration and Grade Control Structures and Pedestrian Bridge: $3,739,818
Wildhorse Valley $1,793,100 Existing and New Grade Control Structures $706,800
One Pedestrian Bridge (Las Trampas Valley) $50,000
Subtotal $2,549,900
Assume 4% Construction Cost Increase over 5-years $3,102,343
Permitting, Design, Administration (25% of Present Day Cost) $637,475
Total: $3,739,818
If the City elects to do more than the Wildhorse Valley project, and take a phased approach
to doing one or both of the other projects (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acre parcel) at
future dates, there would be added cost and time of repeating the regulatory permitting and
construction costs inflation.
Summary of itemized project costs:
7.7-acre parcel (construction) $838,400
Las Trampas Valley (construction) $3,358,130
Wildhorse Valley (construction) $1,793,100 Retrofit of Existing Grade Control Structures (construction) $706,800
Subtotal $6,696,430
Assume 4% Construction Cost Increase over 5-years $8,147,231 Permitting, Design, Administration (20% of Present Day Cost) $1,339,286
Total $9,486,517
Impacts and Challenges:
While the proposed improvements would have a number of benefits, including resolving the
erosion and sedimentation issues, creating more (and vastly improved) riparian habitat, providing public access to the creek areas, enhanced environmental education opportunities, and reduced
ornamental turf and potable water savings, there are some impacts from the creek improvements.
6
Wildlife Impacts:
During construction there will be significant efforts to protect nesting birds and threatened plant
species. However, some wildlife (deer, coyote, bobcats, etc.) will likely avoid the immediate
project site during construction. Post construction there will be a settling period where plants
gradually establish. Wildlife will be attracted to the natural stream channel. Visitors will have additional viewing potential of native riparian plants, multiple bird species, and larger wildlife
like raccoons, rabbits and deer. It is possible that the project could be completed in one summer;
however, it may take three to five years for the vegetation to fully establish.
More information about wildlife impacts will be known during the permitting and environmental review process of the project.
Park Visitor Impacts:
There may be certain areas of the park that are closed to public access during construction.
If the improvements are implemented in Wildhorse Valley, the construction would limit access
to Towle Campground, four trail heads, and have impacts to Orchard Glen Picnic Area.
If the improvements are implemented in Las Trampas Valley there would be permanent change to the look and use of the grass field. The grass field in Las Trampas Valley is used for recreation
activities. In addition to individual park visitors and families relaxing and recreating on the field,
the area is also frequently used by park visitors picnicking at the adjacent Orchard Glen picnic
area and by people who have rented the Oak Grove picnic area. The Oak Grove picnic area
accommodates up to 150 people. The lawn area is also used by City’s Recreation Division to host Foothills Park summer camps. Staff have evaluated the amount of use on the grass field, and
have determined that half of the grass field could be used for restoring the creek, and the
remaining half of the turf (approximately 5 acres) could still meet the recreational needs for the
park visitors. Recreation staff believes the proposed improvements to the creek would allow
them to incorporate more nature elements into the curriculum for the camps. Improved access to riparian areas next to the turf will be a helpful addition.
There are 16 acres of turf grass in Foothills Park, including 10 acres in Las Trampas Valley and
6 acres near the park entrance and lake area. If the section of creek in Las Trampas Valley were
widened as proposed, there would still be 11 acres of turf grass in the park.
If the improvements are implemented in the 7.7 acre parcel, the area would need to be closed to
public access during the construction phase. There would also be impacts to the Oak Grove
Picnic Area.
The impacts from the Buckeye Creek improvements would be similar to the Boronda Lake Dam
reconstruction project, which occurred in summer of 1987. During the 1987 project, park visitors
7
concentrated towards the lower section of Foothills Park and Vista Hill. The Buckeye Creek
project would likely result in greater concentration of park visitors in the upper sections of the
park near Boronda Lake/dam and Vista Hill.
Funding Challenges:
Staff will likely need to find multiple outside funding sources to finance any of the creek
improvements. The draft report highlights several grant funding sources that may be available to
assist in the financing of the project. In addition to grant funding, it is also possible that the project may be used as a mitigation bank to offset unavoidable wetland or stream impacts created
by projects elsewhere in the City of Palo Alto area, preferably in the San Francisquito Creek
watershed. If unavoidable project impacts to wetland or stream areas are acceptable to the
RWQCB or USACE as part of the 401/404 permitting process, the permittee may be able to
purchase created wetlands or stream features from the Buckeye Creek project to offset their unavoidable impacts as compensatory mitigation. Implementation of the creek improvements for
Buckeye Creek would generate stream, riparian, and/or freshwater wetland mitigation credits
that could be marketed to permittees in order to offset up-front funding costs for the project.
Permitting:
In order to implement the initial concepts of restoring portions of the creek, the project would
likely require the following permits: United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): The project would need to also complete a document to show compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to receive permitting clearances from CDFW and
RWQCB. Overall, the permitting review is expected to take approximately 18 to 36 months to
complete. NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE Discuss the report with Council March 2018
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study Report
Attachment B: August 22, 2017, Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report Regarding the
Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________ DAREN ANDERSON Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community Services Department
8
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2018
SUBJECT: ALLOWING PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE 7.7 ACRES OF PARK LAND AT
FOOTHILLS PARK
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that
Council direct staff to:
1. Open the 7.7 acres parcel of Foothills Park to public access as soon as the necessary security
fencing for the plant nursery and 7’ culvert is in place. 2. Direct staff to engage the community and the Commission to finalize a recommendation for Council on how to use the 7.7 acre parcel.
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 Commission 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.
1
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.
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 (Study) is now complete, and will be brought to Council in
spring 2018. Opening the 7.7 acre parcel to public access upon completion of the Study is consistent
with the Council’s direction to staff in August 2015.
While the Study includes an option for creek improvements on a 1.2 acre section of the 7.7 acre
parcel, the staff recommendation for resolving the Buckeye Creek’s issues does not include
implementing the creek improvements in the 7.7 acre parcel. For more information regarding this
recommendation please refer to the January 23, 2018 Commission staff report regarding the Study.
DISCUSSION
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommend opening the 7.7 acres parcel to public access, and
reaching out to the community to assess potential additional dedicated uses and amenities for that
area. Any further development of the 7.7 acres is expected to require funding that is not presently
available, but Parks staff and the Ad Hoc Committee will continue to collect feedback and work with
the community to develop plans for best uses of the space.
While there aren’t any park amenities on the 7.7 acre parcel, the Oak Grove Picnic Area is a short
walk away from the 7.7 acre parcel, and has parking, seating, a drinking fountain, and a park
restroom. Prior to opening the 7.7 acre parcel to public access, the appropriate fencing will be added
to secure the native plant nursery, and culvert. The neighboring private property owner has installed
fencing to secure their property line.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost for the fencing for securing the native plant nursery and the 7’ diameter culvert is
approximately $25,000, which will be funded from existing budget.
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
Staff and the Commission’s recommendation regarding opening the 7.7 acres parcel to public access
will be discussed with Council at the same time that Council reviews the Buckeye Creek Hydrology
Study in spring 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: August 31, 2015, City Council Staff Report Possible Uses for the 7.7 Acre Area at
Foothills Park (ID # 5911)
2
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community
Services Department
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Community Services Department
Date: January 23, 2018
Subject: Temporary Lights on Cubberley Turf Field
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Commission accept temporary lighting proposal on Cubberley synthetic
turf field from February 12th – March 11th as presented by the Palo Alto Soccer Club.
Background:
During the months of daylight savings there is a high demand for lit athletic fields in Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto currently has three lit fields available for rental; Mayfield Sports complex
has two lit fields and El Camino Soccer field is also lit. The three lit fields are booked 7 days a
week, with peak times being 4pm-10pm Monday-Friday. During the peak times there is no
available free space. Youth and adult leagues are always looking for additional space during the
winter daylight savings months.
Discussion:
The City of Palo Alto has been approached by Palo Alto Soccer Club with a proposal for a one
month trial that would place temporary lights on the Cubberley synthetic turf field for the
month of February.
Palo Alto Soccer Club provided a proposal that includes the following highlights (full report
included):
• 4-6 temporary light stations brought onto Cubberley turf field
• Lights are solar powered with generator as backup
• Lights only used Monday-Thursday, Sunset to 8:30pm (lights off at 8:30pm)
• All additional activity will go through Cubberley Community Center, no pick up/drop off
on Nelson Ave
• Additional time on field will be used for practice only
• Lights are secured and have 24/7 tech support
• Lights will be placed to have least disruption to field and track, with safety precautions
taken to keep participants and the public safe from running into the lights
Public Outreach
On January 17th, staff held a public meeting, with post cards being sent to all house within the
area shaded in image A, as well as email communication with neighborhood associations.
Image A
The meeting was only attended by 2 residents who felt the idea was well thought out and
would be a positive for the soccer community and create minimal impact on the neighbors. The
main concern for the neighbors was the use of Nelson Drive for drop off and pick up, which is
addressed in the plan.
Staff will continue public outreach during the trial period and provide the residents a survey
once the trial is complete to gather feedback.
Attachment A: Palo Alto Soccer Club lighting proposal
Prepared by
Adam Howard
Community Services Manager
City of Palo Alto
PALO ALTO SOCCER CLUB (PASC)
Cubberley Turf Field Temporary Lighting Proposal
1. Proposal: PASC is seeking permission to test the viability of using temporary
lighting units on the Cubberley Football Field in the early evening hours of February
2018. If the temporary solution is viable, PASC would obtain permits to use the
Cubberley Football Field from the City between the hours of 5:15pm and 8:30pm,
Monday thru Thursday, commencing February 19, 2018 and ending March 11, 2018 as a
trial period.
2. Lighting Plan: PASC has identified a provider, DC Solar Solutions, that will
supply the lighting unit during this period of time. The unit, depicted in Figure 1
below, is solar+battery/diesel hybrid, but will most likely run on the solar+battery
system for the estimated three hours of use per day. Accordingly, there would be very
little noise or exhaust emissions generated from these units. The specifications of the
unit are listed below. DC Solar believes that four units placed at the corners of the
field would be sufficient for practice purposes. However, two additional units could
be placed at the midline if additional lighting is necessary. See Figure 2 for potential
locations.
Mobile Light Tower Specifications
Trailer & Power
• 10 - 240w Solar panels
• Battery-based diesel hybrid
• Two 120-volt power outlets
• W. 11' 11", L. 22', H. 25'
• Lockable Trailer
• Decibel Rating 68 db(A) @ 23 ft.
when in generator mode
• Auxiliary Kubota GL11000
System & Controls
• Controls in Secure, Locked Cabinet
• On/Off Timer
• Wireless Capabilities/Controls
• Remote Operation Capability
• 24 Hour Technical Service
Lights & Towers
• 120w LED lights
• Emits 86,000 Lumens
• independently directed LED lights
• 20 hours of light with only 5 hours of sunlight Figure 1.
PALO ALTO SOCCER CLUB 4000 MIDDLEFIELD RD. ROOM J5 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Figure 2.
3. Safety Issues: The units are secure and safe from tampering. When placed on
location, the unit’s trailer hitch is removed, and the wheels are locked, making it
impossible to move without a vehicle. The unit’s control panel is in a locked cabinet
on trailer. Lights are both controlled by a timer and remotely through a wireless
interface. The system’s operation is remotely monitored, and DC Solar Solutions has a
24 hour on call team if needed to address any tampering or vandalism. PASC/DC
Solar would be responsible for all expenses including liability insurance associated
with these systems. Liability insurance will be secured for equipment and personal
injury.
4. Public Outreach Plan: PASC has spoken with a few of the immediate
neighbors behind the Turf Field about the prospect of deploying temporary lights.
This initial, informal feedback was not opposed to PASC’s proposal, but PASC
understands that a more formal neighborhood outreach effort should be conducted
before the City approves this request.
PASC proposes to conduct a formal, door to door outreach effort to the immediate
neighbors, within the redline area identified in Figure 3. The purpose of this outreach
will be to inform the neighbors of our proposal; solicit their support for the proposal;
and provide information regarding the City’s formal process of review and approval.
This effort will be commenced immediately upon review and approval of the
Commission review and approval.
PALO ALTO SOCCER CLUB 4000 MIDDLEFIELD RD. ROOM J5 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Figure 3.
PALO ALTO SOCCER CLUB 4000 MIDDLEFIELD RD. ROOM J5 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Megha Bansal, Public Works Department
Date: January 23, 2018
Subject: Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project Informational
Update
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken. This report provides an update on the Baylands Boardwalk
Improvement Project (CIP PE-14018) and clarifies the Parks and Recreation
Commission’s (PRC) comments discussed in a meeting on September 26, 2017.
BACKGROUND
The project replaces the existing boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature
Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center) with a new accessible boardwalk of the
same length and on the same alignment as the existing boardwalk.
On August 22, 2017, staff presented the preliminary design to the PRC
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61237), and on
September 26, 2017, the PRC voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the Park
Improvement Ordinance (PIO) to Council for the project
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61961). Staff would
like to provide design updates and clarify PRC’s comments, including the
comments received on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
document, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) comments, design changes,
and agencies permitting status.
DISCUSSION
The key discussion points from the PRC meeting on September 26, 2017 are
described below.
1. Boardwalk Deck Height: The PRC was concerned that a higher boardwalk
structure would not provide the same experience to the public. The
proposed project is in the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission’s (BCDC) jurisdiction and the BCDC has permit
authority for the project. BCDC has adopted policies that mandate that
1
projects located within their jurisdiction be designed to be resilient to
accommodate projected sea level rise. The proposed boardwalk deck
elevation of 13.5 feet was determined in consultation with BCDC to comply
with these policies. A lower height was initially contemplated but BCDC
staff requested a deck elevation of 13.5 feet, which is the same height as
the Interpretive Center, and is approximately 3.6 feet (major portion of the
boardwalk) to 4.3 feet (where the boardwalk is collapsed) higher than the
existing boardwalk. The project’s design team indicated to BCDC staff that
13.5 feet elevation is feasible from an engineering and geotechnical
perspective and the facility has been designed accordingly. For context, the
existing boardwalk deck is approximately 2.1 feet above the ground
surface, whereas the proposed boardwalk will be approximately 5.7 feet
above the ground surface. The CEQA document and the submitted permit
applications are all based on the 13.5 feet design elevation. The City’s
consultants believe that a proposal to change the deck height to a lower
elevation would, at a minimum, delay the permit process for several
reasons. A lower bridge elevation may or may not be permissible because
that would not be compliant with BCDC’s policy, and the applications with
the proposed 13.5 feet elevation have been submitted to the agencies.
Additionally, from the user’s perspective, the elevated boardwalk would
provide a better view of a larger marsh area.
2. Closer access to marsh at overlooks: The PRC asked staff to consider
providing closer access to the marsh by including overlooks with stairs
down to the marshland. This design would not provide equal access as
required to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. If
the structure is closer to the marsh, it would not comply with the above-
referenced BCDC policies, and it would require revisions to the shade study
to assess the potential impact on vegetation growth below the wider
structure section. This change would result in revision and resubmittal of
permit applications, potential updates to the approved CEQA document,
and potentially further delay the project.
3. Raptor Deterrent Rollers: The PRC are concerned about people using the
raptor deterrent rollers as handrails, which potentially could lead to
slipping hazards as the rollers move. The rollers are planned to be attached
to the top of the railing to prevent raptors from perching per the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) input. The PRC suggested adding
a handrail to provide additional public safety and stability for the users. Per
2
PRC’s input, staff is adding wooden handrails on both sides of the
boardwalk.
4. CEQA review: Pursuant to CEQA, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for public review from
September 15 - October 16, 2017. Staff received one comment from the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) on October 25, 2017. Although,
the SCVWD does not have any rights or facilities within the proposed
project limits, they recommended that the work be routinely inspected to
verify that spill prevention and response measures are properly
implemented. No other comments were received during the CEQA
circulation.
5. Architectural Review Board (ARB) review: The ARB recommended
approval of the project to Council on October 19, 2017
(http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62441).
Key comments from the ARB are summarized below.
a) Deck staining is not preferred if it is not a requirement per the Site
Assessment and Design Guidelines of the Palo Alto Baylands Nature
Preserve. Staining would not last longer and will become a long-term
maintenance issue. The Design Guidelines state that all wood
elements should be allowed to weather to gray or stained with
Olympic 911 natural gray color. The ARB noted that the renovated
Interpretive Center’s deck is not stained.
b) Specify types and grades of redwood suitable for the marsh
environment.
c) Explore alternates to Alaskan Yellow Cedar. Alaskan Yellow Cedar was
suggested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) due
to its durability and suitability to the marsh environment.
d) Remove the glass viewing panels because the marsh features will be
visible from between the railing pickets.
e) Install handrail on one side of the boardwalk if not on both sides.
f) Use stainless steel fasteners instead of galvanized fasteners as they will
last longer in the marsh environment.
g) Refine construction details.
6. Design Changes:
3
a) Based on the PRC and ARB input, staff is adding a wooden handrail on
both sides of the boardwalk. The handrail will be 2x6 redwood,
attached to the inside face of the railing and located approximately
4-6 inches below the top of the railing.
b) Based on the ARB input, the deck material will not be stained.
c) Stainless steel fasteners would be significantly more expensive than
the proposed galvanized fasteners. However, staff may consider
adding stainless steel fasteners to the project as an additive alternate
bid item.
7. Regulatory requirements and biological resources: This project requires
permits and guidance from the following regulatory agencies before
construction. All permit applications were submitted in
September/October of this year:
a) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404
Nationwide Permit
b) California RWQCB Section 401 Certification/ Waste Discharge
Requirements
c) San Francisco BCDC permit
d) USF&WS consultation
Northern coastal salt marsh supports some of the rarest wildlife species in the San
Francisco Bay due to its past conversion for other land uses, and this plant
community is considered highly imperiled by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. The salt marsh at the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve provides a
particularly high-quality example of this plant community and supports some of
the more robust populations of two critically endangered species remaining in the
South Bay – the California Ridgway’s rail, which nests in cordgrass, dense stands
of pickleweed, and marsh gumplant and it is frequently seen right along the
boardwalk, and the salt marsh harvest mouse, which occurs in pickleweed
habitat. These species are listed as endangered under both the California and
federal Endangered Species Acts. Thus, it is imperative that the project avoids
substantial adverse impacts to this sensitive community and its associated
species.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for design services for this project is included in Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) project (PE-14018) – Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project.
4
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/ October 2017
• PRC recommendation for PIO approval: September 26, 2017
• ARB recommendation for project approval: October 19, 2017
• CEQA approval and Notice of Determination: November 2017
• Council review of the PIO: January 2018 (TBD)
• Agency permits/review: September 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for public
review from September 15, 2017 to October 16, 2017. The IS/MND may be
viewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4113&TargetID=3
19
The MND concludes that, with mitigation incorporated, the project will have no
significant environmental impacts.
5