HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-27 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members ofthe public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting November 27th, 2018 AGENDA City Hall Chambers
250 Hamilton 7pm *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-463-4912.
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 timerestriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oralcommunications period to 3 minutes.
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT
V.BUSINESS1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 23rd, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
PRC Chair McDougall – Action (20 min) ATTACHMENT
2.Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan – Pam Boyle Rodriguez - Discussion (30 min)
ATTACHMENT
3. Horizontal Levee Conceptual Design– Karin North - Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
4.Renzel Marsh Update – Karin North - Discussion (30 min)
5.Cubberley Community Center Synthetic Field Replacement & New Restroom Facility – Peter Jensen –
Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
6.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min)
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 18th, 2018 MEETING
VII.COMMENTS AND ANNOUCEMENTS
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC LETTERS
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
October 23, 2018 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jeff Greenfield, Don McDougall, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, 13
David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Anne Cribbs 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Natalie Khwaja 17
I. ROLL CALL 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19
Chair McDougall: Agenda Changes, Requests, and Deletions is the next item. Because 20
we have so many visitors here, I'm going to change the agenda. I'm going to do Oral 21
Communications on subjects other than Item Number VI.2, which is the Rinconada Pool, 22
and I'm going to take Item Number IV and move that to the end. After the Oral 23
Communications, I'm going to ask to have a presentation on the Palo Alto to sea hike that 24
Commissioner Moss took. We've delayed that presentation several times. I think the 25 Commission would very much benefit from understanding that. I think we'll start with 26 that. Since we're changing the agenda, Commissioner Moss, we'll start with that. 27
[The Commission proceeded to Item V.1.] 28
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 29
Chair McDougall: To go to the next agenda item, which is Oral Communications and 30
public letters. I have two speaker cards, one from Monica Williams, which I know is not 31
on the subject of Rinconada. I have one from Timothy Groves. Timothy has checked 32
non-agenda item. Are you speaking on Rinconada or … 33
Timothy Groves: (inaudible) 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Chair McDougall: You're speaking on Rinconada, so it's an agenda item. Several of the 1
speaker cards were marked with Item Number III. What we were looking for was the 2
item under the Business items. I'm assuming that anybody who said Item Number III is 3
really Item Number VI.2 on the agenda. If that's not true, you should speak up. With 4
that, I'm going to invite Monica Williams. Monica, you'll have three minutes. 5
Monica Williams: Good evening, Chair McDougall and Commissioners. I'm Monica 6 Williams, President of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. I want to update you and tell you 7
how happy we are that the City Council approved the new court policy that you finalized 8
last month. It's good that we now have the same privilege that tennis players have always 9
had, to be able to reserve the courts for tournaments. We applaud the Recreation 10
Department for bringing this new court policy to fruition. Our club has now grown to 11
400 members including 160 Palo Alto residents. We play every day of the week. We're 12
looking forward to hosting the Encore Senior Games later this week. Last week, the Palo 13
Alto Girls Middle School reached out to us and asked if we could help teach them 14
pickleball during the week. New City of Palo Alto classes started this week, and both 15
classes are full. We're looking forward to the day when the City of Palo Alto will 16
provide pickleball for all. Tennis players have a choice to play anytime on any of Palo 17
Alto's 54 public tennis courts. Pickleball players have no courts on which to play. 18
Currently, unless our club members put up portable nets that our club has purchased, 19
there is nowhere in Palo Alto to play pickleball. We have to store the nets in lockers. If 20
club members are not at the courts with the locker combination, no one else can play 21
pickleball. We need access to pickleball for all. It's time for the City of Palo Alto to join 22
Santa Cruz and San Francisco, Foster City, and just recently Sunnyvale. Four pickleball 23
courts can fit on one tennis court, and all of these cities have converted a couple of tennis 24
courts to offer their communities a place to play pickleball. It will be nice when the two 25 paddle tennis courts at Mitchell are converted to pickleball courts, but they will only 26 accommodate eight players. We are appealing to the City to provide permanent 27 pickleball courts similar to permanent tennis courts so that anyone can drop in and play at 28
any time. Let's have pickleball for all. Thank you very much. 29
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Monica. Thank you for the extension of helping the 30
schools learn pickleball. That would move us to the first item. I'd like to keep that in the 31
proper order on the agenda. The approval of the draft minutes from September 25. 32
[The Commission proceeded to Agenda Item Number VI.1.] 33
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 34
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Community Services. I've got a 35
couple of items for you. First is the Cubberley Master Plan. The second of four 36
community meetings to reimagine Cubberley will occur on November 1 from 7:00 to 37
9:00 p.m. at the Cubberley Pavilion. The meeting is open to everyone, whether they 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
attended the first meeting or not. At the meeting, we'll begin to hone in on a vision for 1
Cubberley based on the results of the first meeting. All the materials related to the 2
project including the summary of the first meeting can be found on the project website 3
which is pausd.org/cubberley-co-design. We discussed the Renzel Marsh project, and I 4
got a recent update from Public Works that I'd like to share with you. The new repaired 5
levee is 100-percent complete now. It's been seeded along the outside edge and mulched 6 with wood chips and coconut fiber matting. Base rock is currently being added to the top 7
of this new levee, which will give maintenance vehicle access all the way around the 8
pond. A berm has been placed between—this is hard without a visual. Imagine it as two 9
ponds, a north pond and a south pond. There's now a berm that separates the two, and 10
that's now in place with a spillway that has pipes carrying the water from the north pond, 11
where the water will be discharged from the treatment plant. It'll flow through that 12
spillway into the southern pond, which has just been excavated and cleaned out. The 13
pond on the north side has got a large pile of soil, which all came from the excavated 14
southern portion. It looks really large. They've seeded that. Interestingly, I walked it the 15
other day at a peak freeway time, and as you round the corner behind this pile the volume 16
of the traffic dies away completely, almost so much that staff with me were checking 17
their ears because it was so startlingly quiet. Looking forward to seeing the seeding that 18
they put on this take root. Hopefully, we'll get some rain soon because this obviously 19
can't be hand-watered because it is an island. Once vegetated, I think we'll have some 20
really good habitat benefits. It's significantly larger than all the other islands we had in 21
the pond previously combined. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Depending on 22
how the vegetation takes, the open space team may come in and plant that in the future 23
with plants from Save the Bay nursery or elsewhere. The remaining part, when will we 24
get water into this pond? The remaining part of the contract is to finish the influent pipe, 25 the pipe coming from the treatment plant to the north pond. They just entered into a 26 contract and have issued the notice to proceed. They anticipate—it's both the inlet pipe 27 and this outlet pipe that takes the water out of Renzel pond and into Matadero Creek. 28
Both those will be worked on and new. They anticipate that will be done in the spring of 29
2019, if not sooner. The Cubberley field and track project. We've talked about this 30
before. We've got a plan to replace the synthetic turf and to do something with the track 31
July 1 of this next year. We're doing the design process right now, which includes the 32
cost estimates for different options. It's a little more than we had anticipated on our 33
preliminary estimates, so we're still working on the cost estimate. The key thing we're 34
trying to figure out is also doing an all-weather track. We haven't done one in Palo Alto 35
before, at least in the City-maintained areas. This would be new to us. It'll be a 36
challenge to fund them both, but we're going to do our best and see what we can do. I'll 37
be reporting back on that soon. We'll probably have a community meeting in November 38
or December to say this is the funding we have, this is the options we're looking at for the 39
field and the track. The last report … 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Daren. I'm wondering if there's any opportunity for 1
outreach to any of the Friends groups to fill the gap if we're close to potentially getting 2
the all-weather track. Is there some outreach we can do to help make sure that happens? 3
Mr. Anderson: That's a great idea. We can. 4
Chair McDougall: I'll work with you on that, Daren. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Maybe another option is private schools that may want to use 6 this also. They may be willing to chip in a little if they see that they can use this track for 7
their own sports programs. 8
Chair McDougall: Good idea. 9
Commissioner Moss: There's a lot of interest from current users of the track. 10
Mr. Anderson: I'll keep you abreast of that public outreach meeting, and we can discuss 11
it. The opening of the 7.7 acres up at Foothills Park. The site is now ready for opening. 12
We're just waiting to set up the ribbon cutting, checking with the Mayor's schedule. 13
We're hoping for early November. As soon as I get confirmation on the Mayor's 14
schedule, I'll be announcing that to the Commission and to all our stakeholders and 15
publicizing it for the regular visitors of Foothills Park as well. Lastly, something you 16
heard via email from me is the Los Trancos Trail and the Costanoan Trail are now open 17
again and being enjoyed by park visitors. That's concludes the Department Report. 18
Chair McDougall: Does anybody have any questions for Daren? 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had a question about the Renzel Marsh. Right along the path 20
at Matadero Creek, there's a whole bunch of mulch that's been put in. That's permanent 21
or is that temporary? 22
Mr. Anderson: There's coconut husk and mulch, and that's been seeded. I anticipate 23
once the grass and plants mature and grow up, it'll replace the need for a lot of the mulch. 24
It'll breakaway; it doesn't last more than a season or so. It's only about 2 or 3 inches 25 because it's on a slope. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: That would remain dry. That's not a marshy area. That's just a 27 … 28
Mr. Anderson: This is on the exterior of—yes, that's correct. The reason why the 29
previous one was wet and there were reeds and cattails growing is because there were so 30
many holes in that levee. Hence, the need to do the repair. 31
Chair McDougall: Any other questions? David. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Commissioner Moss: In the last meeting, there was a lot of discussion about the 1
Baylands Comprehensive Plan and the ITT property. Do you have any update since 2
then? 3
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. There's going to be a community meeting on November 7. 4
I'll be sending out an email to the Commission and stakeholders. We're just waiting for 5
one last bit of information from the consultant before I send out the invite. The Reading 6 Room is reserved, and we'll be hosting that pretty soon. That meeting will include a 7
review of the Byxbee Park conceptual plan and an action plan for the BCCP. 8
Chair McDougall: You say they've put out the RFP or contract for the pipes in and out, 9
and that'll be in the spring. Does that mean that part of the pond sits empty in the 10
meantime? 11
Mr. Anderson: Correct. 12
Chair McDougall: Keith. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: In one of the emails we received this last week, there was 14
something about the Magic Forest over at Rinconada. Did you see that email? 15
Mr. Anderson: I did. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: Was that accurate or was it … 17
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, I think it is accurate. Staff noticed the same dilemma. There are 18
approximately 50 coast redwoods in the Magic Forest at Rinconada Park that have been 19
underperforming and looking really poor. We hired a well-respected arborist firm to do 20
an inspection and make recommendations. They came out in 2017, did their analysis of 21
the soil, the trees, and the root system, and came back with a series of recommendations 22
that varied from de-compacting the soil to irrigating more. Some trees were getting hit 23
with water and not enough for some of the others. Additional soil amendments of 24
compost and mulch should be added. We implemented all of those along with some 25 pruning recommendations and a couple of removals for trees that were too far gone. 26 Those have all been implemented and are being sustained. I was out there today looking 27 at the site. We're erring on the side—you might have seen an email. One of the concerns 28
was it's a little wet, poor drainage. That's actually in response to making sure we're 29
adequately watering it, probably to a fault, but we're erring on the side of not letting them 30
dry out, which we know was part of the problem. We'll dial that back and try to get a 31
little better. You're not going to see the effects of these remedies for about two to three 32
years. Trees are slow to respond, but they are resilient. As long as we stick with a 33
program of ensuring the soil is not compacted, irrigating properly, and keeping a layer of 34
mulch distant from the trunk but over the site, we anticipate the trees will come back. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: How about ferns? The letter mentioned that there are no ferns 1
there anymore. 2
Mr. Anderson: When I first started with the City, there were some ferns there. Over time 3
they just faded out and got out-competed either with foot traffic or by the invasive ivy 4
that's in there. We don't use herbicide in our parks. Ivy is incredibly resistant even if you 5
hand pull it and rake it and try to get the root system. Most of the effort we're putting 6 into the Magic Forest is tree-related and less so for the plants. We haven't tried to replant 7
the ferns. That may be possible, but right now the focus is for the trees. There was also a 8
report that there was bamboo in there. There is a little weird stand; I don't know why it 9
was planted or maybe it volunteered. There's a small stand back there, and it's in the 10
same boat as the ivy. It's difficult to remove once it's established without using 11
chemicals. If we try to remove it, I'm a little nervous about impacting the roots of the 12
redwoods. We're going to monitor that. My hope is eventually with the CIP to renovate 13
Rinconada Park and incorporate some improvements, maybe replanting. Right now, the 14
focus is on the tree remedies. 15
Chair McDougall: Thank you. We hope the Magical Forest is magic. 16
[The Commission proceeded to Item VII.] 17
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 18
1. Presentation on Palo Alto to the Sea Hike 19
Commissioner Moss: Last year we approved the 20-year Parks Master Plan. One of the 20
items on there is to enhance and expand our ability to make connections to other parks 21
and open spaces throughout the Bay Area. In that light my wife, Jane, and I hiked from 22
Palo Alto to the sea in three days on July 1-4. I wanted to show a quick presentation of 23
that hike. I have a couple of comments, and then we can talk about it. We started in 24
Arastradero Preserve, nine of us, went through Foothills Park to the very top of Foothills 25 Park and on into Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, always on open space public land. 26 The Franciscan Loop takes us to the parking lot at Monte Bello Ridge Open Space 27 Preserve where we lost some people and added two or three more people and donned 28
backpacks to hike up to the top of Black Mountain, where you can camp overnight in the 29
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserve campground for $2 per person. Here we 30
are at the top of Black Mountain. You can see the sea tantalizingly close. The next 31
morning we started hiking back down to the parking lot and on into Skyline Open Space 32
Preserve and from there to the chestnut tree farm which is Long Ridge. From Long 33
Ridge, we ended up going on Ward Road, which takes you towards Portola State Park. 34
There's one small area that's private land, but we have an easement. You get into Slate 35
Creek, which takes you down into Portola State Park. That was Day 2. This is Portola 36
State Park. We added four or five more people, lost a couple of people. Now, we're on 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
our way from Portola to Butano through Pescadero Creek County Park. We're heading 1
towards Big Basin State Park through a small one-mile section of Red Tree private tree 2
farm. Now, we're at the very top of Butano Ridge at 1,900 feet elevation. It started to 3
rain, more mist. Now, we're walking into Butano State Park, and several miles into 4
Butano State Park, very exhausting. We go from the Butano fire road to the Olmo fire 5
road, which heads down into Butano Park. We were looking out over Big Basin State 6 Park. We've now reached Butano State Park. We lost our last person, and now we're 7
walking down to Gazos Creek State Beach, where we dipped our toes into the ocean after 8
three days, 45 miles, ten parks, six agencies, 11 separate maps. As I mentioned, the goal 9
is to try to do this on as much public land or public easements as you can. This was also 10
in preparation for our hike on the Camino de Santiago, which was just three weeks ago. 11
Similar to this, you can do one-day chunks and still make it all the way. One thing I 12
wanted to mention is that in the Bay Area—in Spain there are many pilgrimage paths, but 13
here when Junipero Serra walked from mission to mission it was supposed to be about a 14
one-day walk or horseback ride between missions. We have many regional trails like the 15
San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Ridge Trail, and the 32-mile East Bay Regional Parks 16
Trail. We can get to all of them by walking from Palo Alto. The message is that a 17
pilgrimage is for many reasons. They all have one goal in common and that is you're 18
moving towards some goal. We in the Bay Area have many opportunities to walk or bike 19
through spectacular scenery to get to beautiful and meaningful destinations. We should 20
embrace these opportunities no matter what our age and station. Palo Alto has those 21
connections to so many of these pathways, and we should be enabling and encouraging 22
each other to take them. 23
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Commissioner Moss. We do have a discussion later on 24
the agenda, review of where we are relative to the Master Plan. One of the things that is 25 in the Master Plan is the importance of connecting parks within Palo Alto and connecting 26 Palo Alto to neighboring communities. Off the top of your head, can you repeat those 27 numbers again? That was 144 maps and 28 parks. 28
Commissioner Moss: Forty-five miles, 10 parks, six agencies, and 11 maps. 29
Chair McDougall: Except for the part that there was 11 maps, the rest of it is just 30
incredibly good news about the environment that we live in here in the Bay Area and in 31
Palo Alto. I thank you for bringing that to us. Congratulations on both walks. Keith or 32
Jeff, do you have any comments, questions? 33
Vice Chair Greenfield: It sounds like a great time and a great experience. Thank you for 34
showing us the way. 35
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have one question for Daren. With regard to maps, do we 36
coordinate with any app makers to put our maps in a Palo Alto-specific app or any 37
general app? 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Daren Anderson: No, but we're working on it. We got a good recommendation from 1
Commissioner Moss to do something with some online mapping, and we're already in 2
touch with our GIS people about trying to implement that. 3
Commissioner Moss: I did present to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Board in 4
August. They put me in touch with their mapping person. They're going to do something 5
very similar to what Palo Alto is going to do and try to connect maps where possible so 6 that it's all seamless, which is pretty good news. They've just started that now. 7
Chair McDougall: For anybody that's sitting there thinking, "I've got my iPhone, so I 8
should be able to get any maps," you probably experienced that a great deal of that walk 9
had no cell towers and no cell phone. The good old-fashioned map would have been 10
nice. Thank you. 11
[The Commission returned to Agenda Item III.] 12
VI. BUSINESS 13
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 25, 2018 Parks and 14
Recreation Commission meeting. 15
Approval of the draft September 25, 2018 Minutes was moved by Commissioner 16
Reckdahl and seconded by Commissioner LaMere. Passed 5-0 with Commissioners 17
Cribbs and McCauley absent 18
2. Rinconada Pool Aquatics Contract Update 19
Chair McDougall: We'll move on to the Rinconada Pool Aquatics Contract Update. 20
Jazmin LeBlanc, welcome this evening. Daren, are you going to do an introduction or 21
Jazmin's on her own? Thank you. 22
Jazmin LeBlanc: Thank you. My name is Jazmin LeBlanc, and I am presenting an 23
update to the Palo Alto aquatics contract. As many of you know, Palo Alto has two 24
outdoor pools at the Rinconada Aquatics Complex. One is a 14-lane performance pool, 25 and the other is a large play pool with spray fountains, play equipment, and space for kids 26 to play and swim lessons to occur. We currently offer the following programs at the 27 Rinconada Pool: lap swim, open and recreational swim, swim lessons, a youth swim 28
team, and an adult Masters swim team. Several years ago, we started to have staffing 29
shortages in the learn-to-swim program and the open and lap swim programs. At the 30
same time, we were getting more and more customer feedback that we should expand our 31
open hours and offer more swim lessons. In the summers of 2015 and 2016, the City 32
partnered with an aquatics vendor, Team Sheeper, to provide summer swim lessons. 33
Those swim lesson contracts were very successful, so the City put out a request for 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
proposals to do a full suite of pool operations in, I believe, 2015. At the time, Team 1
Sheeper won that bid. We put that into effect beginning in August 2017. Team Sheeper 2
has overseen the pool operations for about a year and several months at this point. It's 3
been quite a success from the staff's perspective. Some of the program enhancements 4
that Team Sheeper has been able to implement at the pool have been to respond to those 5
customer requests for increased swim lessons and increased swim open times for 6 recreation and lap swim. The swim lesson program has doubled year-over-year in 7
serving almost 900 community members. They also introduced a summer swim camp 8
program that served 350 children this summer. They've expanded the recreational swim 9
program to be a year-round recreational swim program. They've expanded lap swim 10
hours pretty significantly as well. Because of the successes in this short-term aquatics 11
management program, the City put out an RFP this summer seeking a longer-term 12
partner. Our goals have been to identify a partner who will collaborate with the City and 13
the community to provide high quality, accessible, and safe aquatics programming at the 14
Rinconada Pool Complex. We put this RFP out on July 19th. We had an optional pre-15
proposal meeting on August 7th. All proposals were due August 21st. Through 16
September and through now, we've been reviewing the contract proposals that came in 17
and developing a new contract. You can see tonight we're presenting to the Parks and 18
Rec Commission. It's our expectation that the contract will be presented to the City 19
Council on November 26th for their approval and to have a start date of January 1st. Our 20
evaluation criteria really reflects the goals that we had; safety of pool users and aquatics 21
employees, City and customer costs, quality of service and customer satisfaction, and 22
diversity of programming and accessibility. The City received one bid for this program 23
from Team Sheeper—that's the same operator that we currently have—to provide 24
comprehensive swim programming. The City was satisfied with the response after doing 25 a review and found that they would offer a flexible model that can handle increased 26 demand at multiple times throughout. They have the ability to change as needed 27 throughout seasons, throughout the week. They have a goal to continue to expand 28
services. Our customer feedback has been very positive in general. I apologize for 29
everyone in the audience trying to read this. This is the proposed scheduled for January. 30
The notable changes are lap swim continuously throughout the day on as many weekdays 31
as possible; Masters swim times at the same times of day as they're currently offered; 32
PASA at the same times of day they're currently offered; recreational swim at the same 33
times of day as they're currently offered. This is January, so this is probably the lowest 34
usage time of year for aquatics. This would look very different if we were looking at 35
July. Jumping ahead a little bit, one of the features that we've had in this current contract 36
and that we're developing in this next contract is that the City will have oversight over the 37
pool scheduling. Team Sheeper will propose a schedule, but City staff have to approve 38
any changes. This was something that we heard from many pool users. They wanted to 39
make sure that this treasured asset is still a City asset and that we're responding to our 40
customers' needs. The initial pricing for January that they've proposed is very similar to 41
the current pricing that's offered at the pool. It continues to have a 30-percent discount 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
for seniors and youth who are purchasing the monthly or quarterly passes as well as 1
participating in drop-in programs. There's a slight increase for monthly fees for adults—I 2
should clarify that this is resident pricing that you're looking at—from $45 to $48 3
monthly for lap swim. That translates from about $31 to about $33 a month for senior 4
residents. There is an introduction of an annual fee to sign up for those monthly passes. 5
We're very cognizant that the swimming public—there are some very price-sensitive 6 folks, and we don't want to try to increase prices unless absolutely necessary, but it's very 7
expensive to operate a pool. This is an attempt to collect a little bit more revenue to 8
cover those costs that keep going up. Jumping back to some of the other basic contract 9
terms. This is a revenue-share agreement just as we have in the current contract. It has a 10
five-year term, comprehensive programming. The City will continue to provide facility 11
management, and we will expect to continue to have a high level of engagement and 12
collaboration with the City and swimming community. The scope of work will be the 13
same as what we have now, swim lessons for all ages and skill levels, summer swim 14
camps, year-round lap swim programs—we've requested seasonal recreational swim; 15
although, they propose to do it all year-round—an adult Masters swim team. This is a 16
change and why many people are in the audience. They have proposed to provide the 17
Masters swim team directly through their operations and a subcontract with PASA. 18
That's the youth swim team. That subcontract would continue. In addition, discounted 19
pricing for Palo Alto residents, collaboration with the City of Palo Alto for Palo Alto's 20
summer camp access, pool parties. They're hoping to add some additional aquatics 21
programming if possible. To summarize, there are some slight changes to the weekly 22
programming schedule. Notably, there will be continuous lap swim availability 23
throughout the day on weekdays, introduction of an annual administrative fee, some 24
slight changes to customer pricing, Masters programming operational changes, and some 25 slight changes to the revenue share terms. With that, I'm finished with my presentation. 26
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Jazmin. What I'm going to do now is move to public 27 comment. While we're doing public comment, I hope you can listen. At the same time, 28
if you have a look at your one slide that had a before and after, they're both the same. 29
Ms. LeBlanc: You're right. This is showing resident pricing. I apologize for that. It's 30
not showing non-resident pricing. I can get back with that. 31
Chair McDougall: If you'd get back to us. I just thought I'd clear up that now rather than 32
going through that 25 times as we go through. Thank you for that. I'm going to invite 33
speakers up in the order that I have the cards. I might have shuffled them a little bit from 34
exactly the order that they were handed in. We have 14 or 15 cards. We're going to be 35
doing two minutes for each speaker. You'll notice that there will be a green light. After 36
one minute, a one-minute warning will come on. There will be an orange light. After the 37
public has spoken, then we'll go to Commission comments. I'm going to start with 38
Lindsay Belden. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Lindsay Belden: Good evening. My name is Lindsay Belden. I've been a Masters 1
swimmer at Rinconada for approximately 36 years. It is vital to my health and well-2
being, and I would be lost without it. I have made many friends as well as getting my 3
exercise needs met along with pickleball, which I've also been here for meetings, and 4
walking. Rinconada Masters is not broken. It does not need fixing or replacing. It 5
serves the needs of a portion of Palo Alto citizens and helps to create community within 6 our City. We don't need to replace the coaches. We don't need to add lap swimmers to 7
our scheduled times and lanes. We don't need to turn it into a club whose structure we 8
know nothing about. Rinconada Masters is a functioning program in and of itself with 9
dedicated coaches, lifeguards, workouts, social activities, and our own yearly swim meet, 10
which is well attended by many other Masters communities surrounding the Bay Area. 11
To allow Tim Sheeper to restructure this program would be a big mistake and very 12
disappointing to the many people who have supported this program for many years. He 13
already has a number of Masters programs in the surrounding area, I am told, and 14
controls all of the other swimming programs at Rinconada, so I don't understand his need 15
to want to take over this program. We like our program as evidenced by the number of 16
people who have supported it for many years. We hope that you will see fit to keep it the 17
way it is and continue to serve the needs of the Palo Altans who frequent it. Thank you. 18
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Shahe Krakirian, and the next speaker will be Don 19
Williams. 20
Shahe Krakirian: Hi. My name is Shahe Krakirian. I'll keep it brief. I'm a Palo Alto 21
resident, and I've been swimming with the Rinconada Masters for about eight years. It's 22
been a great experience and something I enjoy a lot. I would like to see the program 23
continue. Again, just like Lindsay said, I don't see the need to have the program replaced 24
by a different team, different structure. I like it the way it is, love it the way it is, would 25 like to see it continue. Thanks. 26
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Terri Baxter-Smith followed by Edie Gelles. 27
Don Williams: I apologize. Did you say Don Williams would be next? 28
Chair McDougall: I'm sorry. Yes. I was not deliberately trying to … 29
Mr. Williams: I'll try to (crosstalk). 30
Chair McDougall: As each of you speak, if you wouldn't mind saying if you're Palo Alto 31
residents. I think that's always important for the record. 32
Mr. Williams: My name is Don Williams, a Palo Alto resident, Palo Alto High class of 33
1984. I learned to swim in Rinconada Pool in the early 1970s, swam with the old Palo 34
Alto Swim Club under John Williams through the mid-'70s into the '80s. I joined 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Rinconada Masters in 1989 and have been a member every since. I'm representative of 1
the strong existing community of folks who use the pool and who predated Mr. Sheeper. 2
Rinconada Masters with a 40-year history is obviously an important part of that strong 3
existing community of users. We have a long history, a strong team spirit, and again we 4
are a community. What I would ask is that rather than pushing out the Rinconada 5
Masters, Mr. Sheeper, who is a relative newcomer to the pool, work with us to try to 6 come up with a solution that continues the program, also accommodates his needs and the 7
City's needs. By collaborating, as I heard various people mention earlier, we can reach 8
an outcome that's favorable for everyone. Being pushed out doesn't feel like 9
collaboration at all to me. From our perspective, Rinconada Pool is here to serve the 10
community. Mr. Sheeper undoubtedly worries about revenue and profits and control and 11
issues like that. Those are all fair considerations. We understand the pool doesn't operate 12
for free. Again, there is a community. We are a bunch of Palo Altans. Please work to 13
preserve our program. Help us work collaboratively with Mr. Sheeper, who has not 14
shown a strong indication, as I understand it, to do so, and preserve our program and 15
accommodate his needs and the City's needs. Thank you. 16
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Terri Baxter-Smith followed by Edie Gelles. 17
Terri Baxter-Smith: I'm Terri Baxter-Smith, assistant swim coach of the Rinconada 18
Masters, graduate of Palo Alto High School 1982, and I do live in Palo Alto. Last week, 19
Rinconada Masters was totally blindsided when Tim Sheeper informed our head coach, 20
Carol MacPherson, and a couple of our advisory board members that our subcontract 21
with him was not going to be renewed for 2019, thus, ending Rinconada Masters' 45-year 22
relationship with the community. Last week, Tim gave Carol three reasons as to why he 23
is not renewing our contract. I'm going to speak right now as a former aquatic director 24
and not a swim coach. As a former aquatic director, I can say that all of these things can 25 be worked out, but Tim is not interested in doing so, and he told us that. At last year's 26 Parks and Rec meeting in May 2017, a member of your Community Services Department 27 spoke about Tim Sheeper's contract. This is part of what she said, "We would like to add 28
into the contract language that guarantees Rinconada Masters and PASA have the same 29
swimming pool access that they've had in the past. We want to make sure the terms work 30
for everyone. That is very important to us to maintain what has worked for so long at the 31
pool." Now, 16 months later, Tim has no interest in working with us, not collaborating 32
with us and, therefore, not renewing our contract. In the past, Rinconada Masters has had 33
a wonderful, productive, positive, and beneficial relationship with the Parks and 34
Recreation Department, the City of Palo Alto, and the previous aquatic directors. In 35
regards to the snack chats or outreaches, I don't know what they're formally called, but 36
there have been a few of them. They've been in March and in October. I think they are 37
put on by the Community Services Department. I would like to say that our Rinconada 38
Masters swim team has never been notified of any of these snack chats or outreaches. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Terri. 1
Ms. Baxter-Smith: Thank you. I can also say that our team in the last year has not felt 2
any support from Tim Sheeper or the Community Services Department. 3
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Terri. 4
Ms. Baxter-Smith: Thank you very much for listening. 5
Chair McDougall: Is it … 6
Edith Gelles: It's Edith Gelles. 7
Chair McDougall: Edith, okay. Thank you. 8
Ms. Gelles: Hi. I'm 81 years old. I've lived in Palo Alto for 35 years, and I have swum 9
with Rinconada Masters for 35 years. I'm a historian, and I want to address the history of 10
Rinconada and how our history has fit into the history of Palo Alto for 45 years. As you 11
know, we're a swim program for adults who wish to participate in a structured swim 12
program. We're part of a national Masters program. Some of our members compete; 13
many do not compete but opt for a rigorous training program for health and/or recreation 14
purposes. Our Rinconada Masters program was the first and the only Masters swim 15
program on the Peninsula for many decades, but we've always been more than a swim 16
team. We're a community of people of all ages and occupations. We're also a family, 17
and we've grown the way families do. When someone has a birthday, we celebrate. 18
When someone has a baby, we celebrate. When someone passes on, we grieve together. 19
There are Palo Altans in our program who went to grade school, high school, and college 20
together. They came back here. Our program has been in this City for 45 years, long 21
enough to service generations of Palo Altans. Palo Alto has changed in 45 years. The 22
point I want to make is with change one has to maintain roots with the past. Rinconada 23
Masters with its 45-year-old history is part of the past and part of the tradition of Palo 24
Alto. The City of Palo Alto has decided the public pool that has served generations of its 25 citizens should be farmed out, and the future of Rinconada Masters is threatened with 26 extermination. I ask you to save our Masters program as it currently exists within the 27 changes that will take place in the overall governance of Rinconada Pool. 28
Chair McDougall: Thank you very much. David Levinson followed by Ann Prater 29
[phonetic]. 30
David Levinson: My name is David Levinson, and I've been a continuous member of the 31
Rinconada Masters since I moved to Palo Alto more than 40 years ago. Carol 32
MacPherson has been our dedicated coach the entire time. Under her tutelage and that of 33
retired coach Cindy Baxter, I have been a national Masters champion eight times over the 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
years. Now, I am 68 years old, have retired from competition, and suffer from several 1
age-related ailments. I rely heavily on Rinconada Masters' highly structured but low-2
pressure workouts to maintain my health. Once again, we swimmers find ourselves 3
compelled to take time out from our busy lives and attend a Parks and Rec Commission 4
meeting to speak out concerning this recurring issue of the survival of the Rinconada 5
Masters and lap swimming programs. Once again, our message is leave our programs 6 alone. Now, we find that Tim Sheeper, under his pseudonym of Palo Alto Swim and 7
Sport, is making his long-planned move to gain full control of the Rinconada Masters 8
swim program and terminate the program as we know it. Moreover, he has the 9
unmitigated gall to demand an administrative fee for this, which is reminiscent of the 10
days when a gangster would shoot a man's wife and then force him to pay for the bullet. 11
The Parks and Rec Commission needs to decide whether they hire Tim Sheeper to serve 12
the swimmers of our Palo Alto programs or whether the members of the Commission 13
believe that we swimmers exist to serve Tim Sheeper. I call on the Parks and Rec 14
Commission please do not abandon us swimmers and especially do not abandon us while 15
appealing to what President Reagan called the nine most terrifying words in the English 16
language, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. 17
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Ann Lemmens followed by Carol MacPherson. 18
Ann Prater: I'm Ann Prater. I've lived here since 1963. I am a Palo Alto resident. I'm 19
talking to you for a slightly different reason. I have a son with special needs. He has 20
mental health issues. I have tried for many decades—he's almost 18—to teach him how 21
to swim. I've tried private lessons. I've tried Rinconada swim lessons. I've tried lessons 22
at the Y. We have a lake house at Lake Almanor, and we have a sailboat. It's critical to 23
me that he learns how to swim. In August, I enrolled him in Carol's class after trying to 24
teach him at Rinconada again this summer. It's peers there teaching, and he couldn't be 25 taught by a girl that he's going to high school with. I put him in Carol's class, and this is 26 magic. He's been in there since the first of August, and he has learned four strokes. The 27 other day, I saw him learning how to do a kick turn. She has taught him when nobody 28
else has been able to teach him, and I've tried. I see her teaching other people how to 29
swim as well. There's, I think, six or seven people in her swim for fitness class. I don't 30
see this program on the schedule in the future. I think it's a life skill, and I want my son 31
to learn how to swim. He already has a goal of being on a swim team. He's excited 32
about the program. He tells me he's grown an inch; he wants to be taller. It's pretty 33
amazing. I don't see anybody else being able to do this besides Carol. I also want to say 34
I'm a lap swimmer. I've been swimming at Rinconada for decades. I'm not a part of the 35
Masters program because I have to do my own thing. I'm swimming there while he's 36
taking a lesson, and I'm watching her. She is pacing up and down the pool, telling these 37
people what to do stroke by stroke. I can't believe her dedication. I honestly can't believe 38
that we're even considering swapping her out just to make a couple more dollars. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Ann. 1
Ms. Prader: You're welcome. 2
Chair McDougall: I believe it's Ann Lemmens followed by Stan Weiss. 3
Carol MacPherson: I have some letters here that I'd like to give to the Commission. 4
They couldn't be here tonight, but they wanted to voice their opinions. This is also a 5
booklet that shows all of our lifeguards and swimmers who are CPR qualified and my 6 resume. I'm Carol MacPherson. I've lived in Palo Alto for over 46 years. I run the 7
Rinconada Masters team. I've been a coach for 46 years. Cindy Baxter and myself 8
founded this team under Tom Osborn, who had the vision of the future for our team. We 9
started with 15 swimmers in 1973 and graduated to 100 very shortly. We were the first 10
Masters team along with San Mateo and De Anza. If you look at my resume, you can see 11
that we have helped the community of swimming and also put Palo Alto City on the map 12
with all the swimming we have done worldwide. We have competed in different 13
countries all over the world. Our team asked the City when we first started also to put 14
heat in the dressing rooms, which there wasn't any when we first started the team. We 15
also paid for covers with the City. We also put lane lines in. We've had a swimmer that 16
put some knobs on the wheels to get the covers off and on because it was very hard. He 17
put a little knob on there, and now it's much easier for the lifeguards and our team. I 18
would like to see our team continue. I would like to see the contract continue that we've 19
had. We would prefer and would like to work with Team Sheeper over this. Thank you. 20
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Carol. Somehow Ann knew she was next. 21
Ann Lemmens: Hi. My name is Ann Lemmens, and I'm a Palo Alto resident and 22
homeowner. I've been lap swimming at Rinconada Pool for the last 20 years, and my 23
children learned how to swim there as well as spending many happy hours playing in the 24
pool. I now try to bring my granddaughter over there whenever she is visiting. That's 25 become harder to do because of the reduced recreational swim hours that the pool 26 employs. This summer, we went there, and we stood in a line waiting for people to exit 27 the pool so that we could go in. We eventually gave up because it was a hot day, and we 28
were probably going to wait an hour and a half or more to get in. I'd like to see the 29
recreational hours improved as well. I'm part of a large group of people who lap swim 30
multiple times a week at Rinconada Pool. I'm really hoping that you don't allow a change 31
or reduction of hours for this valuable community and personal benefit. In addition, 32
please be sure that the recreational swim hours are sufficient to cover all the members of 33
our community that desire to use this public pool. Please be sure that the new five-year 34
contract for Rinconada Pool maintains it as a community asset as it should be. Thank 35
you. 36
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Ann. Stan Weiss followed by David Kuo. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Stan Weiss: Good evening. This is Stan Weiss. I've been swimming in this valley for 1
over 60 years with virtually every Masters program that's been around. The Rinconada 2
Masters program, which I've been swimming in for over ten years, is by far and away the 3
best. What I'd really like to see is it stay the same. The one-year contract that you had 4
with Mr. Sheeper—if you just continued that for the next five years, it would probably 5
eliminate a lot of the problems. The way it is structured now Rinconada Masters would 6 be eliminated, and Mr. Sheeper would take over. I don't think that's necessary. I think 7
we can just roll over the one-year contract into the five-year contract the way it is, and 8
everybody would be pretty happy about it. Thank you. 9
Chair McDougall: Thank you. David Kuo followed by Timothy Groves. 10
David Kuo: My name is David Kuo. I'm a resident and a homeowner of Palo Alto. I've 11
been jogging for many years, and two years ago my knees gave out. I switched to 12
swimming. Swimming is on my bucket list. I'm here because I'm very wary about the 13
future of Palo Alto, especially in terms of the lap swimming that has been available to us. 14
Two points. I noticed that the contract is a five-year contract; it's going to be a five-year 15
contract. I'm 75 years old. If we make a mistake, that mistake is going to be with us for 16
five years. That five years is a very long time for me; it could be the rest of my life. I'm 17
quite concerned about that. I'm also concerned in particular about, from the lack of 18
willingness to work with the Masters program, what we can anticipate in the future. How 19
accommodating is Mr. Sheeper going to be? This is our pool. We pay for it with our tax 20
dollars. We should control it's destiny. Thank you very much. 21
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Timothy Groves followed by Gwen Fisher. 22
Mr. Groves: My name is Timothy Groves. I'm currently a Palo Alto resident and a 23
member of Rinconada Masters swim club. We support the existing contract and 24
subcontract and abide by both of these willingly. Last week, Tim Sheeper informed us 25 that he intends to unilaterally cancel our subcontract after the new year and reallocate the 26 swim lanes to another "Masters" group of his own devising. This could effectively 27 prevent the Rinconada Masters from using the Rinconada Pool facility, which we have 28
done continuously and successfully since 1972. As one reason, he cites a lack of certified 29
lifeguards and individuals certified in CPR and AED. This is incorrect. We have three 30
lifeguards with valid and current Red Cross certification, and we have 14 swimmers with 31
valid and current CPR and AED certification. We meet our contractual obligation to 32
have qualified supervision present and on duty at the pool. He further cites that 33
Rinconada Masters failed to communicate with Team Sheeper. This is a 34
misrepresentation. We are perfectly willing to communicate and have done so. In fact, 35
no one in our group has ever seen Tim Sheeper at the pool during our designated hours. 36
We, therefore, have two requests: that the Parks and Rec Commission improve and 37
increase its oversight of contractor Team Sheeper to prevent what threatens to become a 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
devastating and unfair situation for Rinconada Masters and that our existing subcontract 1
between Masters and Team Sheeper be renewable with appropriate modification for 2
allocation of swim lanes effective January 1st. Thank you for your attention. 3
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Gwen Fisher followed by Jack Lourdan [phonetic]. 4
Gwen Fisher: Hi. My name is Gwen Fisher, and I'm a Palo Alto resident and taxpayer. 5
Thank you all for allowing us to come speak tonight. As a longtime taxpayer and 6 resident, I'm quite disturbed and quite angry at the handling and the management of our 7
town pool. Prior to Tim's 18-month trial contract, our community pool was a welcoming 8
place for all types of swimmers and all pool users. Lap swimmers, Masters swimmers, 9
family and recreation swimmers, and PASA all enjoyed our pool and the accessibility 10
that it offered. There was a place and space for everyone, everyone who wanted to use it. 11
Over the past year, Tim has quickly and systematically reduced the community's access 12
to the pool. He most recently denied a subcontract to the long-running, 40-plus years, 13
community Masters program by Carol MacPherson, most likely in favor of bringing in 14
his own Masters program to our town pool. For the past 18 months, Tim's privatized 15
operations have been conducted with a complete lack of transparency and 16
communication. The degree of secrecy and disregard for community involvement and 17
input between Parks and Rec and Team Sheeper is so high that most of us don't even 18
know who to go to or who to talk to regarding a maintenance or locker room issue. Over 19
the span of less than 18 months, Tim has completely removed the community from our 20
community pool. It is my belief and opinion that Tim has an agenda solely focused on 21
his own pursuits and goals without regard to the Palo Alto swimming community. If he 22
is granted the five-year contract that he has proposed, I believe he will turn our 23
community pool into a peak-performance aquatic center dedicated to the exclusive use of 24
high-level Masters swimmers and those training for triathlons as he has done with the 25 Burgess Park pool. I am asking you to examine Tim's proposal from the lap swimmers' 26 perspective or a common pool user like me, people who want to use the space of 14 lanes 27 and the freedom to swim according to our needs, the moms who want to come and enjoy 28
the pool during the weekday at any time with their kids. Tim has taken the community 29
out of our community pool. You need to put it back. Thank you. 30
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Jack Lourdan will be followed by Fran Dubose 31
[phonetic]. 32
Jack Lourdan: I am Jack Lourdan. I am not a resident of Palo Alto; they wouldn't let me 33
in. I can't help that. I don't know how long I've been swimming with Rinconada; it's 34
probably over 30 years. All I can tell you is when I started I had hair. Secondly, I was 35
good looking. You can decide on how long that's been. Once thing I want to bring up is 36
I've been swimming many years with Rinconada. Currently, I'm doing about 12,000 37
yards a week. That's not as much as other people do, but it's a lot for me. It helps with 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
my health. I have a hip that's not as good as it used to be. It definitely helps with that. 1
It's a great group of people to be with. It always has been the Rinconada Masters in the 2
pool. Secondly, this is the most important thing. One of the problems that Tim seemed 3
to think was that we weren't communicating. It takes two. I think you gentlemen would 4
agree that it takes two parties to communicate. If you call this communication, never any 5
mention in the past months he was thinking of terminating our contract. He tells Carol on 6 the 16th of October. I don't know about you, but that infuriates me. He says "you're not 7
communicating with me." I say he did not communicate with us. One other thing. You 8
say he's going to bring a Masters team. Is it possible that the Masters team he brings over 9
will be his Masters team? The point being that he's not only making money running the 10
operation for you gentlemen, but he's also making money or he will be making money off 11
this team he's bringing to the Rinconada Pool. I just don't think that's a fair situation. I 12
can't say that's what is going to happen, but it has crossed my mind. Thank you very 13
much. 14
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Fran Dubose followed by Marilyn Bauriedel [phonetic]. 15
Fran Dubose: Good evening. My name is Fran Dubose, and I am a Palo Alto resident. 16
Unlike many of my teammates tonight, I'm a newbie in the team. I just joined the 17
Rinconada Masters program a year ago. I really want to tell you that I found an amazing 18
team. Actually, it was recommended by many people in Palo Alto, so this is a program 19
that's well known. I found a very united and welcoming team. I know that some of my 20
teammates are shy and won't talk, even if they don't have the accent I have. I would like 21
to ask them to all stand up so that you can see how important it is for all us swimmers. 22
We have two great coaches. It goes from very rigorous practices to progressive workout 23
that I need because I'm really starting. I've made tremendous progress. Terri and Carol 24
know everyone. I already made friends. This is a wonderful program, and it's really key 25 for the community. Please save our team. I'm really hopeful that we can solve the 26 situation. Everybody in the team is ready to work with Mr. Sheeper. I'm always 27 optimistic, and I really trust that we can find a solution for everyone. Thank you. 28
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Fran. Marilyn. Marilyn would be the last speaker of all 29
the speaker cards I have unless … 30
Marilyn Bauriedel: I'm Marilyn Bauriedel, and I've lived in Palo Alto since 1969. I've 31
been a lap swimmer at Rinconada about 46 years. I was a little while with the Masters in 32
the beginning. I loved it, but it didn't work out with my work schedule and so forth. 33
There's just a couple of things that I would like to add. The stakeholders were supposed 34
to be invited to participate in knowing at least about how this contract was being 35
developed. A lot of us went to the March 6th meeting where Stephanie Douglas said 36
we'll meet again and we will get the stakeholders' information and we'll have the lap 37
swimmers in and the Masters and different people in. She had our email addresses and so 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
forth. Neither I nor any of my co-lap swimmers that I know ever received any kind of 1
invitation to attend any other meeting. The first thing we've known about the contract is 2
that it's come out and here's what it's about. We had input into the first year's contract, 3
and we were quite specific as the lap swimming community that our—I'm not speaking 4
for others, but I'm summarizing what I hear—reasonable needs were for the full pool of 5
the 14 lanes at least for the morning swims and at other lap swimming times when there's 6 a large number of lap swimmers that are expected. We originally objected to the Sheeper 7
schedule that was proposed because he wanted to have lap swimmers and Masters 8
swimmers divide the pool at the same time, especially during these busy hours. The 9
schedule of pool lanes is, for me and certainly for a lot of others, of utmost importance to 10
us. We heard tonight that maybe they are going to expand lap swim hours, but those 11
expanded hours don't work for an awful lot of the people in this program. Many of them 12
are working people that come at 6:30 in the morning, and then they're off to work. I 13
come later in the day. We retired people also do a lot of other things in the day, and we 14
want to get going with our aerobic exercise. The early morning is the only time a lot of 15
us have to devote to our swimming fitness. The fact that these other times have been 16
added are not going to be helpful to many of us. I'm thinking there are maybe 28 or more 17
lap swimmers in the pool many times. If it went to seven and seven between the two 18
groups, there'd be four people in a lane. It doesn't work out terribly well. Lap swimmers 19
are not casual swimmers. They're mostly people that are doing this for fitness, but we 20
don't all have the same styles or we don't have the same needs. Sometimes people are 21
recovering from injury. It's good that our community has a place that people can go to 22
walk laps and do that kind of thing. I hope you can work this out. Thank you. 23
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Marilyn. The two last cards that were just turned in, John 24
Beeley followed by Kuble Dimish [phonetic]. 25
John Beeley: Thank you. I'm John Beeley. I used to be a resident of Palo Alto. My two 26 kids graduated from Palo Alto High School. I live in the area, Mountain View. I've 27 continued to stay with Rinconada Masters since I joined it in the late '90s. My point is 28
that you need to understand that not all Masters swimmer clubs are the same. That's 29
really what we are. We're not a team per se; we're a club. We're a collection of people 30
that have different goals, different requirements, but we have a common coach, and we 31
have a common sport, swimming, that we all participate in. There are some clubs that are 32
very competitive oriented. There are a lot of people that have come to Rinconada and left 33
to go to Stanford because they have a different outlook there. They have a different 34
expectation. We are an everyman, person club. This is how Rinconada is constituted. 35
Sheeper may have other goals. He may have a performance or higher requirements for 36
either entering the Masters program or to participate in it. I prefer the low-key attitude of 37
Rinconada Masters. I hope that you continue to allow it to participate the way it has 38
before. Thank you. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Chair McDougall: Thank you, John. Kuble. 1
Kuble Dimish: Good evening. My name is Kuble Dimish. I'm a Palo Alto resident. I 2
have been a Palo Alto resident since five years, and I have been swimming as a lap 3
swimmer at Rinconada Pool since nine months. I just want to stress the availability of 4
the pool lanes for the lap swimmers. If you look at the Menlo Park swimming pool 5
schedule for the primetime hours, very few of the lanes are allocated for lap swimming. 6 The proposed schedule halves it will be in the future. There should be enough lanes 7
allocated for the lap swimmers. Thank you. 8
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Absolutely the last card would be Shawn Sasse. 9
Shawn Sasse: Hi. My name is Shawn Sasse. I am not a Palo Alto resident; I'm a Menlo 10
Park resident. I am a Masters swimmer at Rinconada by my own choosing. What's been 11
presented tonight by the Community Services Department differs significantly from what 12
the current contract is that we have. It has negative implications for our swimming 13
community, and we're concerned. The community Masters team of 40-plus years has 14
been denied a renewed contract by Tim Sheeper. A new Masters team is supposed to be 15
administered by Tim Sheeper, and it's to be the replacement. Lap swimmers have no 16
assurance of their dedicated pool time during prime morning and evening hours. In fact, 17
we saw only one schedule for January, and it was tentative. I'm not entirely sure what I 18
saw, but I didn't notice that there were many lap swimming hours in the evening. It was 19
given over to some other discipline. We've watched Menlo Park privatize their 20
community pool to Tim Sheeper. It's no longer a community pool. It looks like Tim 21
Sheeper's pool. On weekdays, prime morning, noon, and evening hours are given to Tim 22
Sheeper and his youth swim team. Lap swimmers are allotted anywhere from 0 to 20 23
percent of lane space during these prime times. Weekends, the pool closes early, and 24
prime morning hours are again primarily for Team Sheeper. This is not what the 25 Rinconada Pool community is about. We're a community of independent groups that 26 have coexisted for decades. We value designated prime pool time for lap swimmers. We 27 value a Masters team that serves a unique segment of Masters swimmers in a way that 28
other local teams do not. We have PASA, a prized youth swimming team. We have an 29
incredible recreational facility that is for the community for long summer weekdays and 30
weekends. 31
Chair McDougall: Thank you very much. Mark Sloan. 32
Mark Sloan: I'm a Palo Alto resident, homeowner. I graduated from Palo Alto High 33
School, and I did not swim in high school. I learned how to swim, and I started Masters 34
at Rinconada. It's been really rewarding. It's an excellent program. I don't think it's fair 35
to privatize and say you're going to bring in a different Masters program when it's been 36
here for 45 years. It's important to make that known. Thanks. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Chair McDougall: Thank you. We've now had all of the public comments. I'd like to 1
turn it over to the Commission to comment and ask questions. We'll just do one round 2
that basically you can comment and question at the same time. Before we start that, I 3
believe and I'd like to understand from the group. Carol clearly is your head coach. 4
There are some other people here that are sub-coaches or assistant coaches. I heard 5
several times that this is a club. Is there any other structure to the club? Is there a 6 treasurer, a president, a social convener, or anything like that? Can somebody speak to 7
that? 8
Ms. MacPherson: We have an advisory board. We have a president of the club who has 9
been the president for 20 years. We have a treasurer who is here tonight. We all decide 10
what's best for the team. I'm not the only one that decides. I go to my board, and we talk 11
about things and decide together. 12
Chair McDougall: Thank you for that clarification. I'll start with you, Keith. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: I guess this is for Jazmin. I'm confused here. This seems like 14
a really bad idea. Why are we doing it? 15
Ms. LeBlanc: That's a good question since we've had so many comments. As I said—I'll 16
put this slide back here—we actually have had quite a lot of positive comments come 17
back about the use of the pool. There's 10,000 more lap swim and open swim visitors 18
that we had year over year. We doubled the number of swim lessons. We had 350 19
families participating in summer swim camps. We have heard feedback from members 20
of PASA, lap swimmers, and recreational swim users that they've been happy with this 21
program. Administratively, we've also been very happy to work with Team Sheeper over 22
the last year. They've been very easy to communicate with. We're having daily check-23
ins, very flexible around the City's needs. Sometimes the City can be difficult to work 24
with, and they've been willing to partner with us. They were the only respondent to our 25 RFP, and we reviewed them looking at safety, which is absolutely essential to all of our 26 programs, City and customer costs, quality of service and customer satisfaction, diversity 27 of programming, and accessibility. We feel strongly that they are going to be able to 28
deliver on all of these elements. It is our goal to have a long-term partner that we feel is 29
going to be collaborative, willing to give and take with the City. One of the elements that 30
made this somewhat unattractive to other potential aquatics vendors—I can't say for 31
certain—is that we have insisted that the City can retain that oversight of the pool 32
schedule and the pool pricing. This will not be the same as what Menlo Park offers. This 33
will be very much the same as what the City of Palo Alto offers. The biggest drawback is 34
that there is a change in oversight of the Masters program. The Masters programming is 35
not going away. Everyone who is a Masters swimmer is absolutely welcome to continue 36
to be a Masters swimmer. I know that it doesn't necessarily feel the same to every 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
participant, but there is still Masters programming at the same times and at almost exactly 1
the same prices. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: As a City, I don't see our incentive for getting rid of the current 3
Masters program. It doesn't seem to be broken. Why are we trying to replace the 4
Masters program? 5
Ms. LeBlanc: We received on RFP response, and that was from Team Sheeper. Team 6 Sheeper has already developed a subcontract with PASA. We don't have the ability to 7
require Team Sheeper to subcontract with any particular vendors. We really can't force 8
something like that. The other element is we felt satisfied with the response. There were 9
enough positives here. We did hear from Team Sheeper what their concerns were around 10
continuing with the subcontract, but we felt comfortable moving forward with this. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: We have no ability to require him to continue? Last year, we 12
did that. 13
Chair McDougall: We have the ability to ask him to continue a Masters program. We 14
don't have the ability to insist that he subcontract with this particular group. That's the 15
issue. 16
Commissioner LaMere: When we do an RFP, do we have the ability to structure an RFP 17
to make requirements of what we think are important? For example, could we say part of 18
this RFP is we're going to keep certain existing groups as part of the pool? As we go 19
forward with our community, I do foresee even more public-private partnerships with 20
City budgets and staffing problems. That's actually what led to this public-private 21
partnership with the pool. As we do RFPs, are there ways to figure out what are 22
important community assets and make those part of an RFP? If so, was there anything 23
within this RFP that talked about different community assets that were existing? 24
Ms. LeBlanc: In terms of making sure we have all the programming that we think is 25 important, yes, we can put that in an RFP, and we did. We also invited all of our pool 26 users, PASA, Rinconada Masters, and Team Sheeper along with any other aquatics 27 vendors that we could reach out to respond to the RFP to make sure that any group that 28
wants to be in the pool knows that this is the process to take to put their bid in to 29
continue. 30
Commissioner LaMere: Was that to put a bid in to manage the entire pool or to put a bid 31
in to carve out three hours a morning for an existing Masters group? 32
Ms. LeBlanc: We asked for total aquatics oversight. When we had discussions with 33
different vendors, we made it clear that the response can be anything, but the ideal is total 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
aquatics oversight. Combining programs is an option that we encouraged as well, a 1
partnership (crosstalk). 2
Commissioner LaMere: What do you mean by combining programs? 3
Ms. LeBlanc: For example, there could be two vendors that come together with one 4
response so that one vendor provides this service and another for that service. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now, we have one RFP response. Do we have to accept 6 that? Can we put another RFP out? Can we structure it differently to allow us to contract 7
directly with PASA and with a Masters program so the City makes the decision instead of 8
a private company? 9
Ms. LeBlanc: We do have the option not to proceed. As I said, staff feels strongly that 10
this is a good choice to proceed. As was indicated, we're really focused on these 11
elements around safety and quality of service and customer satisfaction. We're very 12
confident that this is what Team Sheeper will be able to provide moving forward. The 13
option would be to throw this out. We may have to suspend all aquatics programming if 14
we don't have any oversight of the pool and try to come up with a new plan. It's not ideal 15
to walk away from this. We would certainly do that if it seemed like this was going to 16
cause problems because our goal is to improve aquatics programming. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Have you talked to Sheeper about this? What's his rationale 18
for changing the Masters program? 19
Ms. LeBlanc: Sheeper provided several concerns around the way the Masters program 20
oversight currently is, which he did express to the Rinconada Masters earlier this month. 21
The one that caused the most—the issue that we are especially focused on is pool safety. 22
Our goal is that every program at the pool is as safe as can possibly be. They had 23
concerns that we felt were valid. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: This is the lifeguard issue? 25
Ms. LeBlanc: The lifeguard issue being the main one. 26
Chair McDougall: I'm going to pass it to Ryan. 27
Commissioner McCauley: Could you say a little more about that? I'm sorry that I'm not 28
up to speed on the lifeguard issue. I appreciate the concern is they may not have enough 29
lifeguards. Is that the City's rationale? 30
Ms. LeBlanc: That's their rationale for not wanting to partner. They are liable for 31
anything that happens at the pool. They're the contractor. Any subcontractor—if 32
something goes wrong, Team Sheeper is liable as well as the City. They're focused on 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
safety as is the City. The City went through a complete safety review by an independent 1
aquatics professional earlier this year to make sure that we were doing everything we 2
could in best practices. They identified the requirement to have two lifeguards around 3
the pool, at least one of them being on the deck—it's possible to have one in the pool as 4
well—as something we need to do in all of our programs. We have that requirement in 5
Team Sheeper's contract and also in the subcontracts with PASA and the Rinconada 6 Masters. That has not always occurred during the Rinconada Masters programs. It's 7
serious enough that we felt this was justified, for Team Sheeper to move forward with 8
overseeing the Masters program. 9
Commissioner McCauley: It seems like a fixable problem. You could even contract with 10
Team Sheeper to have lifeguards there. That's largely why he's there in the first place. 11
Let me just raise a couple of practical concerns that I have. One, I don't believe, given 12
the community feedback tonight and that's been received via writing as well, this will 13
have a chance before the City Council. I think something has to change; otherwise, this 14
is not going to move forward in the way that staff has proposed it. That's going to be 15
problematic because you're going to be a month farther behind the ball. I would really 16
hope that there'd be some solution between Team Sheeper, Rinconada Masters, and the 17
City. I hope the City could broker that solution. I'm going to make one other comment. 18
I have a broader concern about the lack of competitive bidding. I know that you probably 19
share that concern. We're in a difficult position where we are entirely reliant upon Team 20
Sheeper to keep our town pool open. That's a difficult position to be in. We need to find 21
some way—I don't know if it goes back to the RFP process or something else—that we're 22
not so entirely reliant upon one organization that we have little control over, frankly. 23
Relatedly, I'm wondering whether or not a five-year contract under those circumstances is 24
the right way to go or whether we should have a shorter-term contract, two or three years 25 perhaps. Do you have thoughts on any of those questions? 26
Ms. LeBlanc: I do share your concerns about vendors and making sure we're getting 27 competitive bids. This is an area where there are not a ton of vendors in general. That 28
makes it a little bit hard. We did our best to reach out to every vendor we could think of 29
to try to solicit more than one bid. With regard to the five-year contract, we did think a 30
lot about that, and we've put a termination clause in for no reason. For no reason, we can 31
terminate with 90 days. The thinking is if things are going right, it's a very time-32
consuming process to do a whole RFP and new contract every couple of years. It would 33
be nice to have some continuity. It also allows the vendor to feel more like they are a 34
part of the community, and they want to get to know all of the customers and want to 35
make sure they're satisfying the existing pool customers more because they know they're 36
going to be in it for a long term. I do feel like a five-year term is a good idea in this case. 37
Was there more? I'm sorry. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Commissioner McCauley: That was essentially it. I know there are probably others that 1
want to ask a few questions as well, so I'll pass the baton. Let me say also thank you. I 2
know this is largely a thankless job that you have. Appreciate the fact that you are so 3
committed to this. I know you are a Palo Alto resident, so these are all your neighbors 4
who are speaking tonight. I know you probably bear that in a different way than perhaps 5
others who may not be Palo Alto residents. Thank you. 6
Chair McDougall: Jeff, do you have anything else you want to add? 7
Commissioner LaMere: I want to get a little clarification on the administrative fee and 8
the thoughts behind that. Did he do the administrative fee last year when he first took 9
over? 10
Ms. LeBlanc: No, he had proposed it, but we requested not to do that. 11
Commissioner LaMere: That administrative fee is counted as part of total revenue? 12
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. 13
Commissioner LaMere: There's not something that he would add to additional costs? I 14
was just curious about why he needs an administrative fee as opposed to whether it's a 15
dollar or two more for each service. 16
Ms. LeBlanc: Their costs continue to grow. Luckily, they have the ability to quickly 17
change the rates that they're paying lifeguards, unlike the City, so they can maintain 18
adequate staffing levels. Their costs are growing, but they don't have a lot of flexibility 19
to raise monthly fees without upsetting people. This is effectively a way to try to 20
increase … 21
Commissioner LaMere: It's still an increase in monthly fees essentially. 22
Ms. LeBlanc: If you average it over 12 months, it is. I recognize that. 23
Chair McDougall: David. 24
Commissioner Moss: I agree 100 percent with what Ryan said about if one of the only 25 things Team Sheeper is worried about is lifeguards, they should get some lifeguards and 26 move on. Using the golf course as an example, OB runs the golf course. There are many 27 clubs that have regular use of the golf course. OB's responsibility is to maintain the golf 28
course for them to use. I don't see any reason why—this swim club is a City treasure. It 29
has a national reputation. It has a long history. Why does it go away just because 30
somebody's managing the pool, especially if it's a great group of people with a lot of 31
camaraderie and they do great events together? I don't understand that. It's a layer on top 32
of the running of the pool. If you need a couple of lifeguards, get a couple of lifeguards 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
and move on. They're not going to turn away anybody from that pool, so everybody here 1
can join it, and they can still be their club. This RFP process really has some issues. Put 2
up the schedule real quickly. What you're telling me is that the proposals were due 3
August 21st. On that day, did Team Sheeper have in there about Masters swim? What is 4
this about October 16th? Why did we wait two months from August 21st to find out this 5
stuff? Why isn't there an RFP from—did they know that there needed to be an RFP just 6 for Masters swim or that it had to be part of an overall structure, going back to what Ryan 7
said? I don't understand that part of the RFP process. I don't want to negate the RFP 8
process, but it seems fishy. When you go to the City Council, it's going to look fishy. 9
What do we do? 10
Ms. LeBlanc: When we first recognized that the Masters program operations were likely 11
to be different, that was not August 21st because we didn't get it released from the 12
Purchasing Division for several days. It was in the beginning of September, 13
September 11th, when we started to do our review of the response and tried to look 14
through all the elements that Team Sheeper had proposed. As soon as we saw that 15
Rinconada Masters was not mentioned as a subcontractor, we had a suspicion that there 16
could be something we needed to understand. At the same time, it was not the City who 17
could tell Rinconada Masters anything about their contract with Team Sheeper. The RFP 18
does not say Rinconada Masters will not be in the pool. It just proposes the same 19
schedule and pricing. We reached out to Carol, the head coach, to try to set up a meeting 20
as soon as possible. The meeting was actually towards the end of September, but we 21
asked—we didn't see a Rinconada Masters RFP response—what was going on. We 22
urged them to reach out to Tim Sheeper, the only RFP respondent, to find out what was 23
going on. It's my understanding that that meeting did take place on October 16th. I'm not 24
sure why there was such a long delay from the 28th. That is our understanding. 25
Commissioner Moss: It doesn't seem like they're allowed to do that so late in the process, 26 to say that. I'd like you to revisit that. You have a very strict process, and that doesn't 27 seem like it's part of the strict process. It's the blindsiding that I find disturbing. 28
Ms. LeBlanc: We reached out to all of our pool users to participate in this RFP. I would 29
really hope that every pool user would be in communication as early as possible. It's 30
unfortunate that that didn't happen in this case. You said this is like the golf course. I 31
think that's very apt. Team Sheeper is providing administrative oversight, but he doesn't 32
have a group of Masters swimmers that are waiting somewhere to take over. 33
Commissioner Moss: That's exactly my point. There's no reason why the name Palo 34
Alto Rinconada Masters swim club team has to go away. There doesn't seem to be a 35
reason why these members can't swim in that pool. Because the City has oversight on 36
running the pool, if they need some more lifeguards or some other safety issues, they 37
should deal with it. I know this club has had a long history. Regulations change, and 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
they need to change with it. It doesn't mean that the club has to go away. I can't accept 1
that. If you have stricter safety requirements, then you have to meet them. Every other 2
sport that's played in our City has the same restrictions. That's all. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm certainly hearing lots of concerns from Rinconada Masters 4
about their program going away. It's been certainly a valued program within the 5
community for many years. I'm also hearing from lap swimmers issues regarding access 6 hours. I don't think the Commission has addressed that. I want to spend some time on 7
that as well. I'm also hearing from staff, who I have a lot of respect for as well, that even 8
considering the longstanding history of Rinconada Masters they're recommending an 9
option which effectively doesn't include them. I'm trying to understand how did we get 10
here and what are we missing. I have a number of questions that will maybe shed some 11
light. Regarding the RFP, there's been discussion about the preference for a complete 12
package versus a partial RFP. Could you elaborate more on that? You said it is possible 13
to respond in a partial manner. Is that acceptable? 14
Ms. LeBlanc: It is, but it's not going to be as attractive of a response when it's being 15
evaluated. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Was Rinconada Masters engaged? Did you have 17
communications with them to encourage them to make a response? 18
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. During the RFP process, we cannot do that. Beforehand, in the 19
spring, we met with Rinconada Masters, PASA, and Team Sheeper individually to talk 20
about the RFP process and encourage all of them to respond. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: If I understand it correctly, the ideal arrangement would be the 22
primary contractor working with the subcontractors and coming together with a single 23
unified response to the RFP. Effectively, that's what Team Sheeper has done with PASA, 24
but Rinconada Masters was not included. I understand the City is limited to the role they 25 can play to pursue that. Speculatively, if Rinconada Masters had made a partial RFP 26 response, would we potentially be in a different position now? 27
Ms. LeBlanc: I haven't asked our City Attorney's Office, but it is possible. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: I appreciate what Ryan has said. We're in a difficult position 29
with a single response to the RFP. I appreciate that you did outreach and would have 30
loved to get more bids. This is what we have. One option is we can accept the RFP as it 31
is. We can reject it outright, and then the City must resume management of Rinconada 32
Pool. That sounds problematic and a timing issue as well. Is it possible to reopen the 33
RFP? 34
Ms. LeBlanc: I believe it's done. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: That is not an option. What type of negotiation is possible? It 1
sounds like we cannot specifically require Team Sheeper to have a contract with 2
Rinconada Masters. 3
Ms. LeBlanc: Just like a construction contract that the City enters into, there are lots of 4
subcontractors and maybe even sub-subcontractors. This contract actually doesn't say 5
anything about whether or not a Masters program must be or could be in the future 6 subcontracted. All this requires them to do is provide a Masters program; whether it's 7
through their own service or a subcontract is up to them. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: We're basically somewhere between a rock and a hard place. We 9
have one contract option. For whatever reason, the primary contractor doesn't want to 10
work with the subcontractor. We have an adoring community that loves this program and 11
desperately wants to maintain it. We have a City that has to manage a pool. For reasons 12
well stated, we're not in a position to manage it ourselves, so we're looking for third-party 13
management. We're trying to figure out how we meet. Can you clarify more the three 14
reasons? Can you elaborate on the three reasons that Team Sheeper expressed why they 15
did not want to proceed with Rinconada Masters? It would be helpful for the 16
Commission to understand that better. I'm hearing safety is one. Lifeguards are part of 17
the safety issue. Are there other components of the safety issue? 18
Ms. LeBlanc: There have been some other issues that they've brought to our attention 19
over the course of—I think someone said 15 months. Some of those have been 20
addressed. The lifeguarding is the main safety issue that continues. One of the 21
hesitations that Team Sheeper has with entering a new contract that says we will have 22
lifeguards is this is already in the contract, and it's not being met. If there's a new 23
contract with a mandate for lifeguards, Tim Sheeper doesn't have confidence that that 24
element will be met. It's been in place, and he's attempted to address it for several 25 months. 26
Vice Chair Greenfield: Can you quantify the transgressions which have occurred in the 27 past so we can better understand the magnitude of this? On the surface, this sounds like a 28
solvable problem, but I'm hearing maybe it's not. 29
Ms. LeBlanc: All of our programs are required to have two lifeguards at all times. My 30
understanding is the Rinconada Masters have asked if they could certify their own 31
participants as lifeguards in order to not pay for lifeguards. It is a relatively small 32
program, and this puts a cost burden them on to pay for outside lifeguards. This was 33
something the City and Team Sheeper believed was workable. Since we have pressed the 34
request to make sure we can see all the lifeguard certifications and see the schedule that 35
there are, in fact, volunteer lifeguards in every single hour of programming, we haven't 36
seen that. That's been a request that the City and Team Sheeper has made. It's been 37
outstanding since July. We've indicated just how important it is for the pool to be safe at 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
all times. We need to know that there are lifeguards there at all times when Rinconada 1
Masters is swimming. This is actually for their own safety. The other elements that 2
Team Sheeper provided were service to the community and respect for all the programs 3
that are onsite. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Service and community? 5
Ms. LeBlanc: Service to the community and respect for all programs that are onsite. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: What does service to the community mean? 7
Ms. LeBlanc: Over time, the Rinconada Masters program has dropped in size. They've 8
been much larger in the past. It's been an issue that the City has encouraged that we get 9
more. We really want to see this pool getting used as much as possible. When we see 10 10
or 12 kids in a lane during PASA's practices, it makes me smile that there's so many 11
people, so many kids in the pool at that time. That's something that we want to see with 12
the Masters, and something Tim wants to see with the Masters program as well. That 13
was … 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Essentially, this is enrollment and usage. What is the typical lane 15
usage for Rinconada Masters, how many people per lane? 16
Ms. LeBlanc: I'm sure the Rinconada Masters would probably want to speak to that. I 17
only know anecdotes from Team Sheeper or when I pop over occasionally to look. In the 18
past, it's been often one person in a lane at a time, which is very nice for one person but 19
not a lot of usage. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Can you go back to the schedule slide? When Rinconada 21
Masters has the pool, it is exclusive use of the pool or shared? I thought there was some 22
lap swimming along with the Masters. 23
Ms. LeBlanc: I actually have a few slides that I added just in case we wanted to talk 24
about the current schedule. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: There is exclusive use right now. I was trying to understand it. 26 In these time periods, Rinconada Masters has exclusive responsibility for lifeguards? 27
Ms. LeBlanc: Ignore those. Those are not the current rate. I was just trying to pull 28
things together. This is Rinconada Masters' pool schedule now. I'm sorry that it's not a 29
grid like the others. There are shared times. The exclusive use for the Masters is in the 30
morning, Monday, Wednesday, Friday. I think Saturday and Sunday might also be 31
exclusive use. Tuesday and Thursday is shared. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: Getting back to the lifeguards, the City requirements to Team 1
Sheeper are two lifeguards must be on duty for—is this for the main pool or for both 2
pools? 3
Ms. LeBlanc: It's for each pool. If both pools are open, four. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Two lifeguards per pool. The compromise with Rinconada 5
Masters is they can have certified lifeguards who are actually swimming but not 6 monitoring the pool. They're considered the lifeguard for the pool? 7
Ms. LeBlanc: You have to have at least one on deck. One of the two could be in the 8
water. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: Their requirement is one on deck. The compromise is for the 10
second person to be someone in the pool. The issue that the City and Team Sheeper have 11
is there are times when there's only one lifeguard and not two. 12
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes, or no lifeguards, just certified coaches. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: Are there times when there is no on-the-deck lifeguard? 14
Ms. LeBlanc: That's my understanding. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: How often has this happened? 16
Ms. LeBlanc: Perhaps I'm wrong. Enough that it's been brought to our attention multiple 17
times, and we have tried to rectify this by calling meetings and sending emails to push for 18
these schedules so that the City and Team Sheeper has assurance that there are always 19
two lifeguards. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Dozens of times? I'm trying to understand the magnitude of the 21
problem. 22
Ms. LeBlanc: So far, we have not seen a schedule that gives assurance that any of the 23
exclusive-usage times have two lifeguards. I can't say that we have seen anything. 24
Chair McDougall: Carol, why don't you comment? 25
Ms. MacPherson: We just handed in a yellow booklet to you that has all the lifeguards 26 that we have. We have always had at least one lifeguard on the deck, sometimes one in 27 the water, not on the deck. The only time she is talking about is the morning, Monday, 28
Wednesday, Friday, Saturday sometimes, and Sunday. All the other ones are covered 29
with two lifeguards. The lap swimming does not always have two lifeguards. They have 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
one. He's a lap swimmer; he just told me that. They do not always have them either. To 1
say that we never had any lifeguard on the deck is incorrect, very incorrect. 2
Chair McDougall: Thank you. 3
Female: I'm a lap swimmer too. I have never seen more than one lifeguard on the deck 4
except for during the summer. 5
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I'm sorry. This is not an open forum. Everybody had the 6 chance to … 7
Male: (crosstalk) address that lifeguard issue. I have personal experience. 8
Chair McDougall: I think we've had an answer. I respect Carol's answer. 9
Male: I'll say it real quick. A year and a half ago, I had a cardiac arrest in the pool, and I 10
was saved by the lifeguard on deck and the people who took care of me. Between that 11
year and a half, I went back, and I took the lifeguard training. I've been there. Never in a 12
year and a half (inaudible) not had at least one person on deck and one person in the pool. 13
I know what I'm talking about. I'm alive today because Carol did a good job, and 14
everybody did a good job. 15
Chair McDougall: Thank you. 16
Ms. LeBlanc: The City has not seen a schedule that provides that assurance that there are 17
two lifeguards. That cardiac arrest, the lifeguard that joined in to help was a Team 18
Sheeper lifeguard that was performing a swim lesson in the other pool. They were able 19
to come over and help save someone's life. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Has there been any kind of spot-check audit or has someone gone 21
out to the pool and checked to see if there's lifeguards? Have there been cases where 22
there haven't been sufficient lifeguards? 23
Ms. LeBlanc: We've asked Team Sheeper to do that. It was in the safety review that we 24
paid for earlier this year. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: The third issue that Team Sheeper raised was respect? 26
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. It's our understanding that there has not been an always respectful 27 environment created between the different groups. I really don't want this to be a 28
negative focus. We have a great opportunity to have a wonderful pool that is going to 29
meet the needs of our different pool users. We have only one lap swimming pool in the 30
City, and I know that is why there are so many concerned residents coming out to make 31
sure the pool is not degraded. That is our goal, to have a community-serving pool that 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
meets the needs of all of our users and does so in a way that's safe, that's financially 1
sustainable. What we're getting is the ability to greatly expand programming, expand 2
hours at a lower cost than when we did it in-house. We have a lot of assurance that we 3
get that moving forward in this contract. Everyone who's in the pool gets to stay in the 4
pool. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you for the extra insights. I wanted to touch base on the 6 lap swimmer hours as well. What I'm hearing from the community is in the transition to 7
Team Sheeper there was a reduction in primetime lap swim hours for the community. 8
Ms. LeBlanc: No. There was a strong concern when we initially were developing the 9
contract with Team Sheeper to make sure we did not go into a strongly shared-usage pool 10
schedule. Team Sheeper's program at Burgess has a lot more shared times so that there's 11
overlap. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: I remember those discussions coming before the Commission in 13
the past. It sounded like the general consensus was folks prefer to have their own block 14
where they had all the lanes and they could spread out and make do. In the January 15
schedule that you put up, it looked like there were no exclusive mornings. Masters and 16
lap swimming would be sharing time every morning? 17
Ms. LeBlanc: No. Right now, the Masters have exclusive use Monday, Wednesday, 18
Friday until 8:30, I think. There's no lap swimming on Monday, Wednesday, Friday until 19
after that. Their proposal was to continue to offer the block of lap swim from 6:00—it's 20
starting at 6:00 a.m. Tuesday, Thursday when they have had exclusive use for lap swim, 21
and to offer additional lap swim hours on Monday, Wednesday, Friday that don't 22
currently exist. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: If I'm reading this correctly, there are 14 lanes at the pool. From 24
6:00-8:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Masters has half the pool, and lap swim 25 has half the pool. 26
Ms. LeBlanc: Right. That's the proposal. Exclusively used by Masters during those 27 hours. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: Currently, it's exclusive use for Masters. This would get cut back 29
to half the pool. Do you understand the concerns raised by the lap swimmers about lack 30
of primetime slots? Is primetime morning and evening, before work and after work? 31
Ms. LeBlanc: This January schedule does have—I believe there were three evenings that 32
were open until 8:00 p.m. last January. This is two. It is something that we discussed 33
with Team Sheeper when they sent this. We would like to get back to where we were 34
offering evening hours lap swim on at least three week nights. That is their goal as well. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
In the morning, there's no rejection for lap swim. If you look at the rest of the schedule, 1
it's all additions. 2
Vice Chair Greenfield: The City does maintain ultimate control of the schedule. Even 3
with the constraints with the RFP, we can control that. 4
Chair McDougall: I'm going to try to wrap this up. Obviously, we're dealing with a very 5
scarce and very valuable resource. This is the same as the scarce resource for pickleball, 6 soccer. In the City, with the energy our citizens have, it ends up being a scarce resource 7
issue in every case, including scarce resource relative to funding. Many of these 8
problems could be solved if we had the $60 million that we need in the parks and rec area 9
for the various things we have. This is continuing to be a learning process. Some of the 10
Commissioners brought up very good points relative to the RFP process and the RFP 11
status. I am sympathetic to the fact that you reached out to everybody and reached out 12
again. We only ended up with one. In terms of the status, we understand stopping it now 13
or starting over again is not possible. There was also an issue of how much outreach and 14
transparency there was. If I had to pick on something, the transparency was probably the 15
issue. You are in a negotiation process now. I am going to be confident that, based on all 16
of the input that we received tonight and the conversations we have here, our negotiation 17
might be different than it might have been 24 hours ago. We'll see what we can do with 18
that. The discussion point tonight, the agenda item, was about the pricing. I don't know 19
that you got approval or disapproval. This was a discussion. We are not here to vote. 20
The questions we asked constitute recommendations. I don't think there was major 21
objection to the pricing structure that you were talking about. Bottom line, an issue that 22
we have that's associated with the scarce and valuable resource is trust. Somehow we've 23
broken the trust. I don't know that the Commission's in a point to do anything about that 24
except to use that word with all capital letters and say that's what I would ask the 25 community to focus on as well as staff. We have to find a way together. It can't be just 26 simply staff fix it. That doesn't work. That message of trust needs to be passed on to our 27 contractor. That's the issue that needs to be built here in some way. In terms of the 28
contract, it's a five-year contract, but the way we would manage that contract is going to 29
be a one-year contract renewable five times. Every year, we will have the opportunity as 30
a Commission to ask you to give us a status report. We can then have conversations 31
about whether that contract should be continued. In the short term, I doubt that this is 32
going to make everybody in the audience happy. Everybody should know that this has 33
been recorded tonight, number one. Everybody should know that there will be a 34
transcript of this. This isn't just hearsay that will be presented to any other staff members 35
and negotiators that might be involved in this process. It won't be hearsay that there was 36
52 people at the meeting. Sheeper will be able to see the total transcript and view this. 37
That's important. At this point, on behalf of my fellow Commissioners, I thank 38
everybody who came and presented and for the civility of the process. This is the kind of 39
democracy that is important. It's the kind of civility that's important. I thank you very 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
much for attending, for spending your time. Somebody commented about spending your 1
time at night here and it's not a lot of fun. Thank you again. 2
3. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan–Fiscal Year 3
2018 Accomplishments and Fiscal Year 2019 Projects 4
Chair McDougall: It's 9:00 at night. I know that you've waited this long. I'm going to 5
preempt some conversation and ask my fellow Commission members if they would go 6 along with me. I appreciate very much the fact that we've put this on the list. I 7
appreciate very much the detail that somebody has gone through. I don't know whether 8
that's you, Peter, or somebody else. It's an incredible amount of detail. I am a little 9
confused by some of the detail, particularly when I look at anticipated FY '19 results. It's 10
all in the past tense. I would find more interesting, having spent the time to go through a 11
lot of it, is turning this into a very simple dashboard. I took 1A and 1A1-1A7—because 12
it was a PDF, I had to cut and paste a bit. I put 1A1, which was periodically evaluate the 13
use of effectiveness and evaluate a fee reduction. I said that sounds like an orange or 14
something. It doesn't really sound like a red. We didn't do it at all. It doesn't sound like 15
a green as in we've accomplished it. 1A2, which is develop fees for low-cost team 16
programs, I'm not sure why I put it green since there's nothing in FY '18 17
accomplishments. When I was done with even those seven things, I had a pretty good 18
image of what I thought we'd accomplished. I also knew that if I had that, I could filter 19
this into the greens, the reds, and I could make a pretty quick presentation that didn't have 20
to go through it all. I don't know if it's reasonable or unreasonable, particularly because 21
of the time constraint that we have and the fact that you've sat here all night and had all 22
this fun listening about swimming, to suggest that that might be a more effective way and 23
to invite that for the next meeting. I'll ask my fellow Commissioners if they have 24
comments on that or if they'd like to hear the whole presentation tonight. David. 25
Commissioner Moss: The page in your report that gave us all of the things that were 26 accomplished, that's enough. There's a ton of stuff, and the City Council is not going to 27 go into the details. They just want to know that one page that has goal one and the five 28
things that were done, goal two and the five things that were done. If we just said yea or 29
nay to that list, that's what the City Council could wrap their arms around. You don't 30
really have to go much more detailed than that. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm going to take a contrary opinion. For City Council, a high-32
level executive summary approach is appropriate. This is an incredible amount of 33
detailed work, and this is very useful tracking for us as a Commission to look at and 34
useful for staff as well. It's a method of setting your north star and looking at are we 35
headed in the right direction. I do like the red/yellow/green idea. That would be helpful 36
since the information is so dense. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Peter Jensen: Because this is the first time that we've done this, the charts, the goals, the 1
programs, the policies set in this way is valuable for the Commission and staff. It can be 2
refined. The goal for me at this meeting was to have a discussion about this thing and the 3
best way to set it up and how to talk about it and track successes and failures. What we 4
as staff would like to do, if the Commission agrees, is do this at least once a year so we 5
have an understanding of what we have accomplished and all the things we want to 6 achieve. We can discuss what time of year do we do that, at the beginning of the year 7
when you have a retreat. Like the Master Plan, it's in the early stages. This is the first 8
time we've talked about how we're using it and accomplishing things. If there's feedback, 9
as Don started to give, of how we look at this thing to better understand it, mostly for us 10
that's what we're looking at to develop this over the next few months. 11
Chair McDougall: I view this as being for you and me. If a summary of that is valuable 12
for us to present to Council or Council's awareness at some point, that's an interesting 13
outcome of it. 14
Commissioner Moss: This is perfect for the offsite every January or February, not May, 15
to plot what we want to do for the next year. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Could you say a little bit more about how you envision staff 17
using this document? That would be helpful for us to understand. 18
Mr. Jensen: Mainly for the process that we're going into, the capital improvement and 19
recommending future projects. This is a valuable tool for how we're going to do that and 20
what we are going to prioritize or present to the Finance Committee. We have our 21
priority projects, which are key things, we want to look at and make sure we're working 22
on. All six goals have multiple programs and projects associated with them. If we had 23
more staff, we could probably accomplish more. With the staff we have, we have to be 24
realistic about what we have, the budget we have. This allows us to see where we are 25 achieving or failing and to address those issues. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: I love it. I thought it was very good. The only thing I didn't 27 like was on page 2. You listed the goals and all the different items that fit in that goal. It 28
would be really nice if you also did that going forward. This is like driving in the 29
rearview mirror. If you want to help this driving—like you said, it's very useful for staff. 30
It'd be nice to summarize what we plan to go forward with in each of the goals. I thought 31
it was very well done. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: Anything else, Ryan or Jeff? 33
Commissioner LaMere: I appreciate your taking the time to put this together. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Mr. Jensen: We're at that point in the process of the Master Plan. From staff's point of 1
view, we want to follow this thing as the roadmap it's supposed to be. This is one of the 2
ways to do that, by making sure we are doing that so we can have this open dialog and be 3
transparent about what we're doing. It's nice to have it now in this format even though 4
we may simplify it or change it a little bit. You can see them all right in front of you, 5
what they are. You don't have to search through the Master Plan. That makes it easier 6 for us to communicate what has taken place with it. 7
Commissioner Moss: I have three things to add to those. When you say the dog park, 8
you should say it's the first dog park in ten years. Second, the Los Trancos Trail 9
renovation is a big deal. It's not just maintenance; it's also redesign for the next 25 years. 10
Third, the Cubberley bleachers. 11
Mr. Jensen: There is a process that we're trying to refine because the scope of the 12
projects and programs involve multiple departments. We did our best to circulate it to 13
everyone so we could add as much information as possible. I'm hoping that we did our 14
due diligence and most staff were able to add to it. There could be accomplishments that 15
are missing. 16
Chair McDougall: I heard Keith say that he liked it. I'm sure he liked all the detail. My 17
experience with something like this is 90 percent of the value is in the preparation of it. 18
It causes introspection about what we really do. For this audience, we should also be 19
interested in the detail. Our predecessors and some of the people here were involved in 20
the details of making the Master Plan and what 1A1 was. We should care about that and 21
not just be at the level of the six goals and what are we doing. Continually trying to go 22
with all the details as opposed to turning it into a dashboard that could be easily filtered, 23
then it becomes a device for celebration or for whipping. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think the word's reflection. 25
Mr. Jensen: It was valuable as a staff goal to fill this out because staff had to read all of 26 them. That refresher is a big help. Putting it together in the future, we should talk about 27 the PRC's role. Maybe we should send this to the Commission as well to look through it 28
and add things. It's mostly about refreshing the mind about what we have. We have a lot 29
of stuff here. Unless you're looking at it all the time, you could lose some of it. 30
Commissioner Moss: It should also be a useful tool for seeing what we didn't do. For 31
instance, I see a lot of things here and not many programs or new processes or teen 32
programs or things like that. It may cause us to reflect that we should have a better mix. 33
We're supposed to do this over 25 years, but we should have a mix of things. 34
Mr. Jensen: For this first year, staff wasn't overly focused on achieving the goals of the 35
Master Plan. The Master Plan has come out, and a lot of the staff weren't in the 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
development of all the details. This is a good way to refresh and educate all the staff that 1
there are specific goals we want to work on. They can see what those are. That will start 2
to push forward the Master Plan. In the future, there will be more accomplishments 3
because it'll focus more on specific things. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with that. You've elucidated the rule of an aspirational 5
document. 6
Chair McDougall: I totally agree. Is it unfair to ask—it's not unfair to ask you to look 7
into whether it could be made into a dashboard and brought back in a useful way that 8
would be interesting to you and us, fully understanding that we weren't supposed to do 9
everything this year. The fact that some of these things we haven't even started is okay. 10
These could be marked green because it's still on course to be done in five years. 11
Mr. Jensen: I was excited to see that we have started to make strides on our top priority 12
projects. Because they will go on for multiple years, we've started the steps to achieve 13
them. That keeps us on course. 14
Chair McDougall: The ones that I picked to look at, I'm incredibly impressed. Maybe 15
we should end this with one more thing. This was an extremely well-done Master Plan. 16
It was useful as an example when the Comprehensive Plan was being done. This is a 17
better document in terms of being able to do what you just did. Evaluating and 18
discussing it properly in detail may be a really good example for how to use the 19
Comprehensive Plan. Anybody else want to add or have I ranted enough? Thank you, 20
Peter. Thank you for staying through the … Thank you for going to Cubberley the other 21
day—not Cubberley, the Girl Scouts building. 22
4. Cubberley Fields Seasonal Lighting Proposal 23
Chair McDougall: Good evening, Mr. Howard. 24
Adam Howard: Good evening. How is everybody? 25
Chair McDougall: Our only mistake was to tell your buddy that he should be here at 26 8:30, not 9:30. 27
Mr. Howard: I am going to get started in hopes that Natalie returns. There's a couple of 28
pictures that might be useful for all of you to see. Adam Howard, Senior Recreation 29
Manager for the City of Palo Alto. We are here today to get some feedback about the 30
seasonal lighting proposal on Cubberley's turf field and recommend a path forward. 31
When Daylight Savings Time is over, there is a high demand for athletic fields in Palo 32
Alto. The City has three lit turf fields, two at Mayfield and one at El Camino Complex. 33
Those three fields are booked heavily seven days a week until 10:00 p.m. with peak times 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
being Monday through Friday 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. During those times, everyone 1
crunches and puts as many teams on those spaces as possible, but it's never enough. In 2
late 2017, the City of Palo Alto was approached by the Palo Alto Soccer Club with a 3
proposal to try out a temporary trial on the Cubberley synthetic field, where we would 4
bring in temporary lights to see if we could run a trial Monday through Thursday sunset 5
to 8:30. That proposal was brought to the Parks and Rec Commission January 23. With 6 feedback from this Commission, we moved forward with a trial. The proposal brought 7
forward six temporary light stations to cover the field. The lights were solar powered 8
with generators as backups. The lights would be used Monday through Thursday sunset 9
to 8:30 p.m. with a hard cut off. They actually ended practice at 8:15 so that the lights 10
were off at 8:30. All additional activity for those times would be sent through Cubberley 11
Community Center, so no pick-up or drop-off on Nelson. That additional time would be 12
used for practice only, limiting the crowds that come and the noise levels. Those lights 13
were secured and had 24/7 tech support. The lights were placed in a way that provided as 14
little impact to the track as possible. We did run the trial. Some of the output from 15
that—the trial ended up being about four weeks in duration. We had roughly 60-80 16
participants a day, so it was about 4-6 teams using those time slots. We did end up using 17
the full six light stations because with just four the middle of the field was extremely dark 18
and unusable. The solar-powered lights provided everything; the generators never kicked 19
on. The schedule of Monday through Thursday was stuck to with no reported incidents. 20
There was some minor congestion on Nelson, but that issue seemed to be quickly 21
resolved. The light stations had minimal impact on the track, but we didn't think they 22
were the best locations for full field use. During that trial, my contact information was 23
provided before, during, and after. We had one contact during the trial about Nelson, 24
which we quickly resolved. We provided a survey after to see how the neighbors felt it 25 went. We did it to the 18 residences that border the field; we gave them self-addressed, 26 stamped envelopes so they could send it back. They could also take it online. What you 27 will see are the responses from last year's trial. It may be very difficult to see. 28
Ultimately, we felt it was successful. There was one person of the people that responded 29
that felt the lights had a negative impact, and that was not so much that the light was 30
coming into their house. If they looked out towards the field, they could see it. Not a lot 31
we could do about that. That particular residence was directly in front of a tree that was 32
not very healthy. That tree did not provide as much coverage as all the other trees. That 33
tree has since done better, so that problem might be resolved. The other person that had 34
negative feelings really talked about not having enough participants setting precedent. 35
They didn't feel it was essential, which doesn't reflect on the trial itself. We are here 36
today because, with Daylight Savings coming to an end, Palo Alto Soccer has approached 37
again and would like to continue the seasonal lighting plan at Cubberley for the winter of 38
2018-2019. This would run two different periods, November 5, which is the end of 39
Daylight Savings, through December 14 and then January 7 through March 8. They 40
would actually remove the lights between that period, December 15 through January 5. 41
Because it is a longer time, we're going to focus on safety, which includes orange safety 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
fencing, high-density foam to any area that we feel is exposed. We think it's important to 1
note that there were no safety concerns at the end of the last trial. We just figured the 2
extra precaution would be wise to take. During the November through December 3
timeframe, the field is used a little bit heavier for full games, so we thought better 4
locations for the lights would be appropriate. There are two lights in each endzone, 5
which is the same that we did last year. We would put the two sideline lights off the field 6 and on the other side of the track. In the pictures, you can see one is this empty dirt area 7
beside the bleachers. This would be out of the way, wouldn't get in the way of people 8
watching if there was a game, and clearly wouldn't interfere with the track or the field, 9
which we thought would be a good use of space. The other one is on the other side 10
adjacent to where we store the goals when not in use. Staff prefers this option as it 11
doesn't have any impact on the track or the field but provides the lighting for the middle 12
of the field. That was the tweak that made us feel better about the extended amount of 13
time. Really that extended amount of time is why we felt it necessary to come here 14
today. It was a little unclear when we did it whether we were just talking January 15
through March or from the end of Daylight Savings. Because we didn't feel we had a 16
clear answer, we wanted to be sure that we gave the public the opportunity to respond. 17
We have emailed the neighborhood associations and hand delivered information to the 18
neighbors surrounding the field, inviting them to this meeting and to email me directly. 19
I've only had one email response at this time, and it was pro soccer, please let them 20
continue as they did last year. That's the information I have for you. We wanted your 21
feedback. There are no speakers here to provide additional concerns. As before, if we 22
move forward, we will have all of our information out there to make sure that any 23
concerns can be addressed immediately. I'll open it up for questions or comments. 24
Commissioner McCauley: This is great, Adam. Thank you. If I understand correctly, 25 based on what you just said about the new location of the lighting stations in the middle 26 of the field, you won't have anything on the track any longer. There will be no intrusion 27 onto the track, is that right? 28
Mr. Howard: There would be no intrusion. This location right here, although I measured 29
it, it might stick out 6 inches. I don't think it will, but I want to—it should have very little 30
if any effect on the track or the field. 31
Commissioner McCauley: Is there a long-term plan either for permanent lighting or to do 32
this year after year? 33
Mr. Howard: The long-term lighting is a different conversation. If the Commission 34
wanted to address it, we could, but that hasn't been discussed. This is going to be a 35
seasonal lighting plan, which would only be in effect year after year during the time that 36
Daylight Savings Time is over. However, if this field is replaced with a brand new all-37
weather track, that could change our feelings about putting these lights out there. If this 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
works, that's another option. We might not feel the same way about putting these on 1
brand new turf fields or brand new all-weather tracks. Barring the changes, this would be 2
the seasonal lighting plan moving forward. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we put them down on the turf, we would put plywood 4
over the top? 5
Mr. Howard: Yeah. They were put on the turf, and there was no damage to the turf last 6 year. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we had new turf, you'd be hesitant to do that? 8
Mr. Howard: The hesitancy is more about the track and driving out and back. They're 9
big, and they come out on a truck and have to be towed onto the field. There's additional 10
concerns about the wear and tear of that. I'm not saying that we would say no, but we 11
would want to re-address the conversation based on whatever changes were made out 12
there. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: High schools have the all-weather track, and I assume 14
maintenance vehicles drive on that track. It might be worth a call to Gunn or Paly to see 15
how they handle their tracks and how careful they have to be. 16
Mr. Howard: I think that would definitely be a conversation we'd have based on 17
whatever changes occur out there. 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: These lighting units, are they the only type or are there other 19
competitors that might have smaller ones that would be easier to get on? 20
Mr. Howard: We did look for ones with smaller footprints, but they typically are more 21
generator-operated rather than solar-powered. When we last checked, which was about 22
six months ago, we didn't find any with a smaller footprint. I'm sure they're coming 23
though. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Just give it time. Overall, this is a good use. We have this 25 field; we have the demand. It's a good idea. It ends at 8:30, which is a very reasonable 26 time. The fact that we had all these surveys, there was only one, 1 1/2 people that 27 complained, and half of them weren't even returned suggests that they were happy with it. 28
I say go for it. 29
Commissioner LaMere: Adam, thanks for putting this together. Obviously, we have 30
need for field use and lighting. What are the other uses of the field? 31
Mr. Howard: Outside of soccer? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Commissioner LaMere: Yeah. 1
Mr. Howard: Those are the primary permitted users because they're the priority groups 2
during this season. It does sometimes get lacrosse or ultimate frisbee. Soccer is probably 3
99 percent of the use. 4
Commissioner LaMere: What's the process—I'm not on this committee at all. In terms 5
of how field users are decided, this would seem to make that Cubberley field a very 6 coveted asset for groups to use if they know it could be lit. How do we determine that 7
Palo Alto Soccer Club has first priority use to that year-over-year and what can other 8
groups do if they were to determine they'd be interested in this field because it can be lit 9
at night during the winter? 10
Mr. Howard: The field would be brokered as it is for any other space. We look at 11
residents, priority sport, and so forth. This has actually been offered to all the clubs. 12
Because Palo Alto is footing the bill—it's basically if you're willing to pony up for some 13
of the lighting prices, then we'll broker slots to you just like we would any other field. 14
Commissioner LaMere: I understand that. This is the only field that would—have we 15
determined that there are other fields available for usage of lights? 16
Mr. Howard: This would be the only one that could house temporary lights because it's 17
turf. Grass couldn't handle the additional play. 18
Commissioner LaMere: If another group came in and wanted to put in lights, they would 19
have an opportunity to, but they would first have to have the opportunity for field use. 20
Correct? 21
Mr. Howard: Right. They'd have to be a priority group in order to even have the 22
opportunity first. The priority groups have had the offer to them. 23
Commissioner LaMere: Appreciate the outreach to the community. I may have asked 24
this before. What would it take—we need to have a turf field in order to have lighting. Is 25 that what we're determining? 26
Mr. Howard: Yeah, turf is key so it can handle the additional play. The grass really 27 wouldn't handle the extra play that would come with lighting it. 28
Chair McDougall: David. 29
Commissioner Moss: Thank you very much. Being a near neighbor, I really appreciate 30
your going the extra mile to get feedback from everybody and reacting to it. The only 31
concern I still have is I want to see the number of participants increased. Going back to 32
what Commissioner LaMere said, if Palo Alto Soccer doesn't come up with enough 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
people, the other teams should be allowed to use it. If we have all of this resource and 1
only 30 or 40 kids show up, that's not good long term. It was okay for the trial, but I 2
want to see more participants. They've got plenty of time to deal with that. 3
Mr. Howard: I appreciate that. Palo Alto Soccer's addressed that, and they feel they'll 4
probably be closer to 100, which is actually quite a bit. Even 50 kids on a field for 5
practice, they are very well-organized to pull that off. They are anticipating more now 6 that they have planned for it and see it coming. 7
Chair McDougall: Jeff. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you, Adam, for pulling this together on short notice. This 9
was an effort on your part to act quickly, particularly after a week off. We all appreciate 10
that. I agree that the peak demand for fields is evenings in the time when Daylight 11
Savings is off. The weekends, the fields are open. I'm out there, and there are open slots. 12
One other point I'd like to add. The ad hoc discussed with staff the compromised 13
timeframe, which we're permitting this seasonal lighting. Palo Alto Soccer Club had 14
actually asked to start the seasonal lights a week early. Staff reasonably articulated 15
concerns that when we did the trial initially it was a trial. We don't want to open 16
ourselves to concerns about excessive expansion of a program. The general guideline 17
that we're working with is this program would be permitted during Pacific Standard Time 18
when Daylight Savings Time is off. That puts a clear guardrail and bracketing of when 19
the program would be permissible. That's a great compromise. I do know for a fact that 20
the cars do run on the artificial track at Gunn. This weekend is homecoming, and they 21
will be out pulling the floats around. I'm sure that's a consideration when we get into a 22
study to spec out the project. We're not turning over new ground in this one. Palo Alto 23
Soccer Club is going to fill up the field with probably more people than we recommend. 24
I don't think that's a concern. Thank you very much. 25
Chair McDougall: Adam, thank you. This is an action item. An action item implies that 26 we should have a motion. The motion should be to support the Cubberley Field Seasonal 27 Lighting proposal. Do you need anything more than what I just said? 28
Mr. Howard: No, that will do it. 29
Chair McDougall: Is there … 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: I do have one question before we move. In the January to March 31
timeframe, will the lights be off the track or on the track? 32
Mr. Howard: Our ideal situation would be to leave them where this priority is. If that 33
absolutely didn't work, we would probably go back to the 50/50, but I don't foresee that 34
being a problem. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Vice Chair Greenfield: That's something we talked about. I agree it would be great to 1
keep them off the track and particularly … 2
Mr. Howard: This is the ideal, and Palo Alto Soccer agrees to that. Because they can be 3
pointed, it shouldn't cause any additional problems. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Particularly as we're looking to redo the track and the turf field, 5
this sets the precedent for where the lights would be located. I'm supportive of that. I'd 6 be happy to make a motion. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: Please. 8
MOTION 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'll move that we adopt the Cubberley Seasonal Lighting Plan as 10
proposed. 11
Chair McDougall: Do I have a second? 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: I second it. 13
Chair McDougall: Thank you. All in favor? Any opposed? It passes unanimously. 14
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY with Commissioner Cribbs absent 15
Chair McDougall: Adam, thank you very much. 16
Mr. Howard: Thank you. 17
Chair McDougall: Once again, looking after our scarce and valuable resources. The 18
final item is to go back to what should have been the first item and have the Department 19
Report with Daren. Thank you for being here so late, Daren. 20
[The Commission returned to Item IV.] 21
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: We had our School/City Liaison Committee meeting last week. 23
Very calm, no ranting and raving by any Commissioners. The only thing that influenced 24
us was the Cubberley update. The School Board Members had a suggestion that we need 25 more outreach to high schoolers to get their input on Cubberley. That was the only 26 comment. It was pretty much the same update that we've seen from Cubberley before. 27 Also, we had the Fry's site, that North Ventura site. I'm the liaison for that for the 28
committee for the CAP. I'm not sure what CAP stands for. Comprehensive Area Plan. 29
The first one was just the icebreaker to get to know everybody. Next month we will start 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
doing the real stuff. What's strange is it's all privately owned. If we want to do 1
something with Cubberley, we do it. Here, if you want to do something, you have to 2
convince the private owners to do it. I'm not sure exactly how well that's going to work. 3
The area is now from El Camino to the train tracks and from Page Mill to Lambert, which 4
runs by Boulware Park. Boulware Park is not part of it; it's right next to it. Some of the 5
people from the neighborhood were really insistent that Boulware be thought about as we 6 make these plans. We'll see. 7
Commissioner Moss: Any update about the solar panels and JLS? 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: They're still there. That's the update. 9
Commissioner Moss: I meant with other schools. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good question. Did you ever get your … 11
Chair McDougall: There are no other schools. That was their commitment. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: There seemed to be some question about plans that may have 13
already been approved but haven't been implemented, such as solar panels at JLS on the 14
roofs of buildings. It would be good to get some clarification on that. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we were at the City Council meeting a month and a half 16
ago, they said there's nothing else in work. I think that was misleading. I think they 17
meant no new ones would be approved. They're still doing some construction, but I don't 18
think there's any more construction on open fields. They're doing some rooftop solar 19
panels. 20
Commissioner Moss: They put a ton of them in Terman and one other place. They were 21
over parking lots; I'm concerned about the open space. 22
Chair McDougall: Keith made a lot of friends with that. Doing it when we did it, there 23
was some question about urgency. It made a difference, to your question of there are no 24
more going on, if we had not acted when we did—it provided a platform for Kristen to 25 work with the School Board representative as well. It was a great outcome and 26 appreciated. I appreciate Keith and Jeff pushing that forward. That was well done on 27 their part. Anything else? 28
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 27, 2018 MEETING 29
Chair McDougall: In terms of identifying topics, I would suggest that rather going 30
through a list right now, I'll meet with Kristen and arrange a topic. Jeff is always good at 31
identifying what we need to do. He and I and Kristen will get together and do that unless 32
anybody has anything in particular. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
Commissioner Moss: (inaudible) 1
Chair McDougall: I have the Bol Park and the AT&T … 2
Commissioner Moss: Not Bol Park (inaudible). 3
Chair McDougall: Including Bol Park, we need an update on the … 4
Commissioner Moss: (inaudible) 5
Chair McDougall: Anybody else have anything they're desperate to hear about? 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: We skipped over ad hoc. 7
[The Commission returned to Item VI.5.] 8
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 10
Moss at 9:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 11
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2018
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
PLAN
RECOMMENDATION This informational report is intended to provide background to Commission members regarding
the City of Palo Alto’s (City) Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan (Plan) that must be
accepted by City Council by June 2019 as required by the Water Board. There is no staff
recommendation at this time.
BACKGROUND
GSI uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage stormwater runoff (Figure 1). Where
feasible, the City hopes to gradually integrate GSI features into its urban landscape and
stormwater conveyance systems over several decades. This process will, in time, create a more
resilient, sustainable system that will carry out one or more of the following functions:
1) reduces, slows and detains runoff by dispersing it to vegetated areas;
2) promotes infiltration and evapotranspiration;
3) collects runoff for non-potable uses;
4) treats runoff using biotreatment and other GSI practices; and
5) incorporates landscaping features within areas that encourage more pedestrian and bicycle
safety.
Furthermore, the upland/foothill and shoreline (Baylands) areas act like sponges, allowing rain to
be intercepted by vegetation and infiltrate into underlying soils, leading to a significant reduction
in stormwater runoff to the downstream watershed in addition to supporting diverse ecosystems,
natural assets and wildlife. Consequently, the protection and restoration of these already existing
features is just as important as those features the City will create through this Plan.
The City is subject to the requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit in the San Francisco Bay Area (Order R2-2015-
0049,) also known as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), which became effective on January
1, 2016. The MRP applies to 76 municipalities and flood control agencies that discharge
stormwater to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). Under the MRP and previous permits, new
development and redevelopment projects on private and public property that exceed certain size
thresholds have been required to mitigate water quality impacts by incorporating site design,
pollutant source control and stormwater treatment measures as appropriate. One of the
requirements of the current Permit is to identify public (and potentially) private opportunities to
integrate GSI measures on streets, roads, parking lots, roofs, and other elements beyond the
current threshold requirements. This long-term GSI Plan serves to meet the MRP requirement
2
and outlines how the City of Palo Alto aims to transform its stormwater infrastructures over years
to come.
Figure 1. Examples throughout Palo Alto
The City’s GSI Plan contains certain mandatory elements (per the MRP) as well as other
elements desired by the City. The GSI Plan elements are briefly listed below.
• Project Identification and Prioritization Process for planned and proposed projects
• Prioritized Project Locations and Timeframes
• Mechanism to Determine Feasibility to be incorporated into the City’s long-term planning
processes and capital improvement projects
• Project Tracking System
• Construction Guidelines and Specifications
• Integration with Current and Future Plans
• Evaluation of Funding Options
• Implementation Plan & Schedule
• Outreach and Education (during Plan development and implementation)
Southgate Neighborhood:
Bioretention Areas/Pervious Pavers
Lucie Stern Community Center
(Middlefield/Kellogg): Bike/Ped Safety Project & Bioretention Areas
Mitchell Park Library: Bioretention Areas; pervious pavement and green roof
Matadero Pump Station: Pervious Asphalt
3
Internal and external collaboration during the Plan development process involved creating a GSI
Workgroup, made up of staff from various departments, with meetings that began in March 2017.
In addition, GSI Plan updates were presented to the Stormwater Management Oversight
Committee, which was formed to review proposed stormwater management capital
improvements and operating programs to be funded by the City’s Stormwater Management Fee.
Finally, outreach efforts have included a City utility bill insert in August 2018 and the
establishment of a City webpage (www.cityofpaloalto.org/gsi) to provide information about GSI
and the Plan. The website will be periodically updated, and once available, the Draft GSI Plan
will be posted on the webpage for review.
DISCUSSION
During the comprehensive and elaborate Plan development process, staff identified certain
challenges and gaps to long-term successful implementation. Further work will be needed in
these areas in future months and after the acceptance of the Plan by City Council. The solutions
identified below are in various stages of implementation. Items #1-4 are in progress, while #5-6
will commence in the future. The following briefly describes these items:
1) Improved authority to enforce Plan
o The City’s current legal mechanisms related to implementation of MRP
requirements need to be updated, especially to provide sufficient legal authority to
implement the GSI Plan.
Solution:
Chapter 16.11 (currently titled Stormwater Pollution Prevention) of the
City’s Municipal Code is being updated and will be adopted by City
Council before July 2019. The update will provide sufficient authority to
the City to implement its GSI Plan and associated requirements and
processes.
2) Standard engineering specifications and guidelines
o The City does not have standard engineering specifications for GSI features that
can be used consistently for public and private projects.
o There is a need for increased understanding of working around existing utilities
o Consistency in both design and construction are necessary for both public and
private projects in order to assess effectiveness. These features are currently
inspected on an annual basis by a Stormwater Inspector.
Solution:
Contract consultant to create City-specific engineering designs that will be
vetted by all Departments
3) Improved maintenance and monitoring of GSI features o Current features at City facilities and right-of-way areas may not be maintained
using best practices and, thus, may not be as effective as the intention of design.
Solution:
Contract consultant to create a Maintenance & Monitoring Plan that will
identify and schedule responsibilities; conduct effectiveness assessments
of current features; apply an adaptive management approach; and identify
4
funding needs and opportunities.
Coordinate the development and regular implementation of maintenance
agreements for each public site. Responsibilities and best practices will be
clearly identified and revisited on a yearly basis.
4) An improved and established internal review process o Standardized processes need to be in place for staff to determine feasibility of the
addition of GSI to a project, including physical constraints, and to avoid missed
opportunities.
Solution:
Establish a map-based and tracking process to vet future projects planned
by the City to be evaluated for the opportunity to include GSI measures.
The City will map potential projects to determine their proximity to green
street or LID project opportunities, compare the project to the prioritized
list of project opportunities, and evaluate each project for inclusion in the
CIP.
Conduct regular coordination meetings led by Stormwater Program.
5) Limited funding
o Although the City’s residents have demonstrated their high level of commitment
to stormwater issues by voting to implement a stormwater management fee to
fund stormwater projects in the City, a limited proportion is allocated for GSI.
Proposed Solution:
Based on a countywide funding opportunities assessment, determine those
additional options that may be feasible fit for the City and that need further
study. These may include state grants and loans, public/private
partnerships, and leveraging capital projects.
Consider adapting current requirements for private projects’ stormwater
treatment measures (or GSI) through an alternative compliance program
that may support the construction and/or maintenance of public projects.
6) Improved education regarding benefits of GSI
o Need for increased understanding of community-wide benefits of GSI (e.g.,
stormwater capture and reuse)
o Proposed locations of these features may not always be welcomed by residents
Proposed Solution:
Create an outreach strategy and plan with adequate tools to increase
support for the implementation of the GSI Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is a planning study and therefore does not require California Environmental Quality Act
review, because the Plan does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code
21065. An environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA will be prepared for each
constructed project.
5
NEXT STEPS
The GSI Plan must be adopted by City Council by June 30, 2019. Prior to Plan development, the
Permit required the approval of the Green (Stormwater) Infrastructure Plan Framework (outline
document) by June 30, 2017. The Framework document was signed by the City Manager and
timely submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) by September 30,
2017 as an attachment to the City’s Regulatory Annual Report. The following is a brief schedule
of the development and adoption of the GSI Plan.
Table 1. GSI Plan Adoption Timeline
Task Due Date
(50%) DRAFT GSI Plan June 2018
Parks and Recreation Commission presentation November 2018
(85%) DRAFT GSI Plan December 2018
Planning and Transportation Commission presentation December 2018
City Council Study Session January 2019
FINAL DRAFT GSI Plan (100%) February 2019
Final GSI Plan for CITY COUNCIL Adoption March 2019
CITY COUNCIL Approval of GSI Plan June 2019
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
PAM BOYLE RODRIGUEZ
Stormwater Program Manager, Public Works Environmental Services Div.
Page 1 of 4
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2018
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE HORIZONTAL LEVEE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS
FOR PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
PLANT
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational report to facilitate discussion on horizontal levee opportunities in the
Baylands adjacent to the City of Palo Alto’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant. There is no
staff recommendation at this time.
BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto has been evaluating the feasibility of constructing horizontal levees in the
vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to provide sea-level
rise protection, improve habitat for special status species, and provide wastewater effluent
polishing treatment. A horizontal levee is a flood control levee with a gently sloping vegetated-
berm along the shoreline. By encouraging sediment and biomass accretion, the vegetation
supported on the horizontal levee can build the ground surface elevation, contributing to sea-
level rise resilience. Horizontal levees also contribute to flood management by attenuating
waves, allowing for flood control levees to be constructed with crest elevations up to two feet
lower than conventional levees and provide erosion protection limiting the need for rip-rap on
the levee face. The target vegetation for the gently sloping berm consists of grassy wet meadow
and riparian scrub. This type of habitat has been decimated by development along the shoreline
in the Bay Area and is a high restoration priority for resource agencies. Horizontal levees would
include habitat for endangered species in the area such as the saltmarsh harvest mouse and
Ridgeway’s rails. To replicate the natural transition from freshwater to estuarine habitats, a
freshwater source is required. Since the natural seeps in the vicinity of the RWQCP are no
longer available, the RWQCP’s treated wastewater discharge could be used to irrigate the
horizontal levee. In so doing, the treated wastewater discharge would receive polishing treatment
for increased removal of nutrients and trace organics as it moves through the levee prior to
discharge in the Bay.
City staff has worked with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and the San Francisco
Estuary Partnership to develop conceptual designs for multiple locations within the City and
adjacent to the RWQCP. Funding for the development of these conceptual designs came from an
Integrated Regional Water Management Program grant obtained by Oro Loma Sanitary District
and administered by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership.
Page 2 of 4
Figure 1: Illustration of an example horizontal levee system.
DISCUSSION
A recently completed conceptual design memorandum considered seven sites for application of
horizontal levees (Table 1). Of those seven, only three (Embarcadero Road, Duck Pond, and
Mountain View’s Pond A1) were carried forward for conceptual design development.
Conceptual designs included figures, water supply connections/needs, plantings, construction
cost estimates, and permitting strategies. Construction cost estimates ranged from $1.5 million to
$3.2 million (2018 dollars). Horizontal levee construction would require significant permitting
due to construction occurring adjacent to sensitive habitat and the use of treated wastewater.
Page 3 of 4
Table 1: Sites Considered for RWQCP-Fed Horizontal Levee Conceptual Design Development
Site Description Pros Cons
Embarcadero Road* Proximity to RWQCP
Water availability (legacy emergency outfall connects to proposed levee)
SAFER levee permitting process will include project impacts
Coordination with SAFER levee planning
process could impact implementation schedule
Duck Pond* Project size and complexity is limited
Proximity to RWQCP – could run new
effluent line to site
Could provide plant nursery at existing Save
the Bay location to support future horizontal levee implementation
Limited benefit for SLR adaptation to protect
infrastructure
Mountain View’s
Pond A1* Project proponent (South Bay Salt Ponds)
currently designing ecotone slope that could be converted to a horizontal levee through
the application of recycled water or treated wastewater
Would significantly increase habitat benefits of current restoration plan
Could tie in to Shoreline irrigation line and potentially rely on groundwater pumped
from the nearby Shoreline complex
Recycled water available adjacent to Pond A1
is not ideal water source (expensive, requires dechlorination, limited capacity)
Routing treated wastewater from RWQCP would require new pipeline and significant
costs
Complicated implementation process with
multiple agencies and jurisdictions
Adjacent to Existing RWQCP
Outfall
Available wastewater effluent
Adjacent to shoreline and tidally-influenced
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional tidal marsh wetlands – likely compensatory mitigation
requirement under current regulatory policy
Adjacent to existing Palo Alto Airport which
could limit habitat value and create conflicts with increased bird use
Seasonal
Wetlands Between Airport & Existing Levee
Could tie into potential SAFER levee
alignment along airport/runway creating horizontal levee connected to existing marsh
habitat
Limits impacts to adjacent jurisdictional
wetlands related to the RWQCP option (above)
Adjacent to existing Palo Alto Airport which
could limit habitat value and create conflicts with increased bird use
Palo Alto Flood
Basin Large existing wetland area
Adjacent to Renzel Marsh and wastewater
effluent pipeline
Cross-jurisdictional (multiple cities and
regulatory agencies involved)
SAFER levee alignment relative to the flood
basin currently undetermined (location of levee determines if horizontal levee is connected to
tides/shoreline and other parameters)
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional wetlands –
likely compensatory mitigation requirement under current regulatory policy
Renzel Marsh City looking to enhance public access and
habitat
Wastewater effluent currently feeding this marsh
Isolated from shoreline and tides
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional wetlands –
likely compensatory mitigation requirement under current regulatory policy requiring large mitigation efforts
*selected for development of conceptual designs.
550 Kearny Street
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
www.esassoc.com
memorandum
date September 13, 2018
to Samantha Engelage, PE and Karin North – City of Palo Alto
Jason Warner, PE and Jimmy Dang, PE – Oro Loma Sanitary District
cc Adrien Baudrimont and Heidi Nutters – San Francisco Estuary Partnership
from Mark Lindley, PE; Scott Stoller, PE; Marisa Landicho, PE; and Matt Brennan, PhD, PE
subject Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum describes conceptual designs for horizontal levees at three potential locations in the vicinity of
the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The horizontal levee concept is an innovative and
experimental approach with the goals to 1) create habitat for special status species by replicating freshwater seeps
that historically occurred on gently sloping transitional zones into tidal marshes, 2) provide sea-level rise
adaptation through accretion of freshwater wetland plant biomass, and 3) provide polishing-level treatment of
wastewater prior to discharge to the Bay. The conceptual design approach builds on the experience gained
through design, construction, and monitoring of the Oro Loma Horizontal Levee Demonstration Project in San
Lorenzo, California.
A horizontal levee is a flood control levee with a gently sloping berm along the Bay shoreline which provides key
transitional habitat between tidal wetlands and terrestrial uplands. Its target vegetation consists of grassy wet
meadow and riparian scrub. This type of habitat has been decimated by development along the shoreline, yet is a
high restoration priority for resource agencies (Goals Project, 2015). The horizontal levee includes habitat for
endangered species found only along the Bay shoreline, such as the saltmarsh harvest mouse and Ridgeway’s
rails, by providing refugia during high water and connectivity between marshes. These slopes also provide
accommodation space for tidal wetlands to adapt to sea-level rise by shifting landward. Historically, natural
transition zones would be fed by freshwater seeps from the surrounding watershed. In today’s highly modified
and developed shorelines with stormdrain systems designed to efficiently route rainfall from developed areas,
transition zones are disconnected from the natural freshwater supply. To replicate the historic freshwater seep, the
slope’s vegetation can be irrigated with highly treated wastewater effluent. As the effluent percolates through the
vegetation and soil, nutrients and pollutants are removed, thereby improving the effluent’s water quality before
discharge to the Bay. A horizontal levee can also contribute to flood management by attenuating waves, allowing
for flood control levees to be constructed with crest elevations up to two feet lower than conventional levees.
Additionally, the horizontal levee provides erosion protection on the front side of coastal levees, limiting the need
for rip-rap (rock) protection on the levee face. By encouraging sediment and biomass accretion, the vegetation
ATTACHMENT A
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
2
supported on the ecotone can build the ground surface elevation, contributing sea-level rise resilience to both the
habitat and flood management functions.
The desirability for horizontal levees from the ecological viewpoint has been understood for some time (Goals
Project, 1999) but these features have not been included in many restoration projects to date. The horizontal levee
approach using treated wastewater effluent and its role in increasing resilience to sea-level rise is more recent,
with the Oro Loma project serving as proof-of-concept and continuing to provide insight from ongoing
monitoring. Designs for the Palo Alto sites will extend the Oro Loma Horizontal Levee Demonstration Project
experience to typical Bayland settings. In addition to tailoring the designs to Palo Alto-specific considerations,
the Palo Alto sites have been selected for greater habitat and hydrologic connectivity to tidal marsh and the Bay,
as well as integration with regional coastal flood protection. Since this approach is new, these sites would likely
undergo extensive regulatory review to secure permits.
Funding for the development of conceptual horizontal levee designs comes from an Integrated Regional Water
Management Program (IRWMP) grant obtained by Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) and administered by the
San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP). The bulk of this grant supported design and construction of a pilot
horizontal levee at the OLSD wastewater treatment plant in San Lorenzo. With a remaining portion of the grant,
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), the engineering firm that led design of the OLSD project, has
developed conceptual designs of horizontal levee projects for the City of Palo Alto. ESA has been assisted by
Peter Baye, the plant ecologist from the OLSD project, City staff, and other stakeholders.
This memorandum incorporates and expands on the information presented in the Ecotone Slope Opportunities
memo in January, 2018 (ESA, 2018) and serves to memorialize the rationale for the conceptual design decisions
and discuss important issues to resolve in order to bring the project(s) to fruition.
SETTING
Much of the Palo Alto shoreline, while highly developed and altered, continues to sustain tidal marsh along San
Francisco Bay in particular at the former harbor and adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. Harbor Marsh and the
Baylands Nature preserve are backed by levees and a closed landfill (Figure 1). Just behind these levees are
significant City of Palo Alto infrastructure, including the City’s RWQCP, airport, the Palo Alto Flood Basin,
roads and light development. The existing levees limit potential flooding from the Bay for the City infrastructure,
as well as buildings and other development extending landward of Highway 101. Although the levees prevent
flooding, they are not engineered to meet FEMA accreditation standards. To improve these levees, the City has
partnered with nearby cities and county flood agencies as a member of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers
Authority (SFCJPA). The SFCJPA is currently planning levee improvements, as well as habitat restoration and
recreation enhancements under its Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation along San
Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) project. The SAFER Bay project includes FEMA-accredited levees that can
accommodate an additional three feet of sea-level rise. Still in its feasibility phase, the SAFER Bay project is
considering several levee alignments along the Palo Alto shoreline. The City is also in the process of updating the
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which provides guidance for managing City-owned open space
property along the Bay shoreline.
The City owns and operates the RWQCP to treat and dispose of wastewater from the City and surrounding
communities. In 2016, the plant received approximately 19 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry weather
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
3
inflow (City, 2017), provided primary through tertiary treatment, and routed its effluent to recycled water uses
(approximately 0.5 mgd), Renzel Marsh (approximately 1 mgd), and the Bay (the remaining 17.5 mgd) (City,
2017). The RWQCP’s recycled water permit allows for up to 9 mgd of recycled water. Some of the RWQCP
recycled water is piped to the northern shoreline section of the City of Mountain View for that city’s recycled
water program. The RWQCP is currently designing a redundant, parallel pipeline to carry effluent to the Bay, to
improve capacity when Bay water levels are high, conditions that will become more frequent with sea-level rise.
This new pipeline may offer opportunities for diverting effluent to a horizontal levee or enable re-purposing of
the legacy emergency outfall.
Effluent from RWQCP currently meets water quality criteria from its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits (City, 2017) that are issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City,
along with other Bay-area water treatment operators, is assessing the capacity of the plant’s current treatment
process to meet more restrictive criteria for nutrients, particularly nitrogen, that may be implemented with a
future permit renewal. To meet future nitrogen criteria, the City is planning upgrades to the existing treatment
process including adding denitrification filters to reduce total nitrogen content to approximately 15 mg/l (Carollo,
2012). A horizontal levee can provide additional nitrogen removal capacity while also reducing concentrations of
emerging contaminants of concern including trace pharmaceuticals.
ORO LOMA HORIZONTAL LEVEE - STATE OF THE ART
The horizontal levee demonstration project constructed at the Oro Loma wastewater treatment facility is a proof-
of-concept project that incorporates several project elements, some that are common to future projects and some
that are specific to the operational and research objectives of that particular facility. The essential elements of a
horizontal levee include:
Flood Control Levee – Comprised of compacted silt and clay soils with relatively low plasticity and low
permeability to protect adjacent property from flood risks. Flood control levees typically incorporate
relatively steep slopes to limit the amount of material required for levee construction.
Horizontal Levee (i.e. Ecotone Slope) – A broad flat slope located adjacent to a flood control levee that is
comprised of soil and planted with native wet meadow and/or riparian scrub vegetation and irrigated with
freshwater seepage and/or shallow (approximately 1 mm) continuous or pulsed flow. Along a tidal marsh
the horizontal levee above the marshplain (at ~MHHW) up to the 10-year or 100-year high water
elevation. To provide high tide refugia habitat, the slope should be as flat as possible, generally a
minimum of 10h:1v or ideally, flatter ranging from 30-100h:1v.
Water Source – To support the habitat benefits of an ecotone, the slope requires some level of irrigation
with freshwater. At minimum, irrigation during the rainy season into the spring would be required to
mimic the fresh water seepage that historically supported this habitat. In the context of the Palo Alto
RWQCP, a consistent source of treated (at least secondary-treated), nitrified, and disinfected wastewater
can be used to irrigate the slope.
Distribution System – Reliable system to deliver varied, but consistent flowrate and to evenly distribute
water across the face of the ecotone slope. The distribution system could require controls to manage flow
rates and to provide alternating periods of discharge and drawdown to vary saturation levels of surface
soils.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
4
Treatment Zone – For wastewater polishing, a high permeability subsurface layer of gravel (or similar)
substrate that extends for a specified width that provides a reducing environment for biologically-
mediated processes to treat the constituents in the wastewater. Because the nitrate concentrations in the
Palo Alto RWQCP effluent are anticipated to be below 15 mg/l (as N) following the planned treatment
plant upgrade, nutrient polishing would not be a primary project goal. However, there are other polishing
treatment benefits such as the reduction of emergent constituents of concern (i.e. pharmaceuticals) that
may warrant research focus and could be important for the project. The treatment capacity of the
horizontal levee could be adjusted to meet the agreed upon project goals.
Segregated Treatment Cells – Hydraulically isolated cells that can allow for delivery to support varied
saturated/unsaturated conditions and/or to implement various treatments to test and advance the state-of-
the-art.
An overview of Oro Loma horizontal levee design:
Pretreatment of secondary treated effluent prior to distribution to the horizontal levee includes
nitrification and denitrification in free surface wetland. Disinfection is not currently included in the
pretreatment process.
A containment berm constructed to similar standards as a flood control levee. The containment berm
forms a basin to contain up to 7.5 million gallons of primary treated effluent during extreme wet weather
events.
Total horizontal levee width is 456 linear feet, separated into 12 cells with 2-feet wide compacted clay
berms. Each cell is 38 feet wide. The slope is approximately 3.3% (30h:1v) and length of ecotone and
treatment zone is 150 linear feet. The length of the slope is divided into three (3) segments by a full-depth
gravel mixing and sampling trench, every 50 feet to allow for flows to redistribute evenly across the cell
to minimize preferential pathways.
Horizontal levee substrate varies per cell for experimental purposes. The typical section is between two to
three feet thick with 6-inches of drain rock for seepage at the bottom overlain with a 6-inch layer of sand
and then one to two feet of top soil - either fine (clay loam) or coarse (layers of sand loam and clay loam).
Drain rock and sand were blended with wood chips and the top soil was blended with wood fines to
provide a carbon source to support biologic treatment processes.
Horizontal levee cells were graded with two treatment approaches. Nine of the twelve cells incorporated
a flat cross section to evenly spread water across the cell. Three of the fine-grained cells were graded to
produce shallow swales and depressions to better mimic natural transitional ecotones with shallow
freshwater wetlands.
Vegetation communities also vary per cell for experimental purposes and encompass native wet meadow
herbaceous, riparian scrub, and freshwater wetland species.
Pump stations that allow for variable flow rates to be applied to the slope and that allow for greater flow
rates to be applied on one or more days in three to four day cycles to mimic variable hydrologic
conditions to support alternating periods of saturation and unsaturated conditions.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
5
Each cell is equipped with flow meters and valves to allow for fine tuning of flows delivered to specific
cells.
Operations:
The ecotone at Oro Loma was irrigated with freshwater pumped from a local well from early 2016
through the spring of 2017 to support plant establishment while construction of other project elements
was completed.
Beginning in April 2017 treated wastewater was routed through the free surface wetland and applied to
the horizontal levee. Initial flow rates were approximately 70,000 gpd through November 2017 with flow
applied consistently each day.
In November 2017, flowrates were reduced to approximately 50,000 gpd to try to keep flows within the
subsurface drain layers to the extent possible.
From November 2017 through May 2018, flows to individual cells were adjusted to try to
manage/maximize the ratio of subsurface flow to surface flow.
Beginning in November 2017, Oro Loma implemented a bypass within the free surface treatment
wetlands to deliver wastewater with nitrate concentrations ranging from 18 to 32 mg/l to test application
of higher nitrate levels to the horizontal levee.
June through August of 2018, flows were further reduced to approximately 30,000 gpd to maintain nearly
100% subsurface flows in the nine flat treatment cells.
At Oro Loma, removal of nitrate and trace organics has occurred primarily within the subsurface. Shallow
surface flows have demonstrated relatively limited treatment efficiencies possibly due to the shorter residence
times and relatively limited biological treatment. It’s possible that as a surface layer of organic material develops
surface treatment efficiencies may improve. Another important observation is that most of the removal has
occurred in the upper portion of the high permeability drain layer within the horizontal levee. Even with the
higher nitrate levels, very high treatment efficiencies have been demonstrated within the subsurface. Within the
first 9-10 feet in the subsurface, nitrate levels are reduced by at least 90% (to non-detectable levels in many cells)
and trace organics are reduced by 40% to greater than 90% depending on the constituent. This suggests that
wastewater polishing could be spread over a longer and thicker, but narrower sub-surface treatment zone within
the slope to achieve higher effluent throughput for the same total area.
The Oro Loma Ecotone Demonstration project was designed with capacity to deliver an average of up to 100,000
gpd to the horizontal levee with a daily maximum of up to 400,000 gpd. The project has been operated to deliver
30,000-70,000 gpd to 1.7 acres spread across a 456 LF horizontal levee. Delivery rates at the lower end of this
range, 30,000 gpd (18,000 gpd/acre or 66 gpd/LF), have minimized overland flow and resulted in substantially
higher removal rates.
It’s possible that the hydraulic loading rate could be increased if the hydraulic conductivity and/or the depth of
the drain layer substrate were increased or if the slope of the treatment zone was steepened. The drain rock
treatment layer at Oro Loma is 0.5 feet thick. The conceptual design for Palo Alto proposes to increase the drain
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
6
rock depth to one foot and to steepen the slope to 5% (20h:1v), which could increase the hydraulic loading rate up
to 200 gpd/lf. Additionally, the design could be refined to improve hydraulic conductivity by incorporating
separation fabric to limit intrusion of fines into the drain layer.
The vegetation establishment at Oro Loma has exceeded all expectations. Nearly 100% native cover has been
observed and the vigor of the plants irrigated with the nitrogen content in the treated effluent has been beyond
that seen on any other project. The revegetation leaders at Save the Bay have commented that the plants are
growing as if on steroids due to the abundant water supply and high nutrient loads.
Moving forward to develop the next generation of the horizontal levee for Palo Alto, we would like to take into
account the following lessons learned to advance or improve the process:
Effective treatment is concentrated in the subsurface drain layer and correlated with hydraulic residence
time requiring a relatively short distance of subsurface flow to achieve relatively high treatment
efficiencies. Increasing the thickness of treatment media and steeping the slope of the treatment zone to
increase subsurface flowrate should allow for increased volumes of treated wastewater.
Since treatment volumes are also limited by hydraulic conductivity, increasing and/or maintaining the
porosity of subsurface media could also increase treatment volumes.
Vegetation for habitat creation and accretion – in particular willow have thrived at the Oro Loma
demonstration with unforeseen impacts due to root growth into distribution pipes and potentially limiting
the porosity of the subsurface drain layer. Planting of willow should be limited to maintain a sufficient
distance from distribution lines and the upper portions of the treatment zone. Ecologists from Save the
Bay indicate that willow roots can travel laterally up to 30 feet seeking water sources.
PALO ALTO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City of Palo Alto has identified the following objectives for the horizontal levee, in order of priority:
Restore rare and historic ecotone transition slope habitat along the Bay’s shoreline for special status
species.
Adapt to sea level rise by providing a transitional ecotone slope that will support freshwater plants to
build organic soils to keep pace with some level of sea level rise and to allow wetland habitat bands to
migrate up slope with rising water levels.
Provide tertiary-treated wastewater to enhance ecological functionality of horizontal levee. The RWQCP
intends to upgrade the treatment plant to denitrify all effluent and discharge at no more than 15 mg/l
nitrate. Additional treatment by the horizontal levee would be an added benefit, but not relied upon to
meet potential future permit requirements.
Additionally, the horizontal levee would advance the design of horizontal levees allowing for continued
monitoring and research, including:
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
7
Advance the state-of-the-art for horizontal levees for wastewater polishing, habitat creation, sea-level rise
adaptation, and flood management.
Advance the current permitting paradigm to allow for discharge of polished effluent from a horizontal
levee into an adjacent tidal marsh connected to San Francisco Bay.
Monitor effect of salt water at the toe of the horizontal levee on ecology and wastewater polishing.
SITE SELECTION
Several sites along the Palo Alto shoreline were considered as possibilities for a horizontal levee, but were not
recommended for additional planning. Although a horizontal levee may be feasible at these sites, they are not as
well-suited as the three recommended sites. In some instances, these other sites offer good opportunities for a
horizontal levee, but will need to coordinate with the SAFER Bay project. As the SAFER Bay project advances,
that project will likely include some of these other horizontal levee opportunities.
The pros and cons of these sites are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Sites considered for additional planning
Site Description Pros Cons
Embarcadero Road Proximity to RWQCP
Water availability (legacy
emergency outfall connects to
proposed levee)
SAFER levee permitting process
will include project impacts
Coordination with SAFER levee
planning process could impact
implementation schedule
Duck Pond Project size and complexity is
limited
Proximity to RWQCP – could
run new effluent line to site
Could provide plant nursery at
existing Save the Bay location to
support future horizontal levee
implementation
Limited benefit for SLR adaptation
to protect infrastructure
Pond A1 Project proponent (South Bay
Salt Ponds) currently designing
ecotone slope that could be
converted to a horizontal levee
through the application of
recycled water or treated
wastewater
Would significantly increase
habitat benefits of current
restoration plan
Could tie in to Shoreline
irrigation line and potentially
rely on groundwater pumped
from the nearby Shoreline
complex
Recycled water available adjacent
to Pond A1 is not ideal water
source (expensive, requires
dechlorination, limited capacity)
Routing treated wastewater from
RWQCP would require new
pipeline and significant costs
Complicated implementation
process with multiple agencies and
jurisdictions
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
8
Site Description Pros Cons
Adjacent to existing RWQCP outfall Available wastewater effluent
Adjacent to shoreline and
tidally-influenced
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional
tidal marsh wetlands – likely
compensatory mitigation
requirement under current
regulatory policy
Adjacent to existing Palo Alto
Airport which could limit habitat
value and create conflicts with
increased bird use
Seasonal wetlands between airport
runway and existing levee
Could tie into potential SAFER
levee alignment along
airport/runway creating
horizontal levee connected to
existing marsh habitat
Limits impacts to adjacent
jurisdictional wetlands related to
the RWQCP option (above)
Adjacent to existing Palo Alto
Airport which could limit habitat
value and create conflicts with
increased bird use
Palo Alto Flood Basin Large existing wetland area
Adjacent to Renzel Marsh and
wastewater effluent pipeline
Cross-jurisdictional (multiple cities
and regulatory agencies involved)
SAFER levee alignment relative to
the flood basin currently
undetermined (location of levee
determines if horizontal levee is
connected to tides/shoreline and
other parameters)
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands – likely compensatory
mitigation requirement under
current regulatory policy
Renzel Marsh City looking to enhance public
access and habitat
Wastewater effluent currently
feeding this marsh
Isolated from shoreline and tides
Substantial impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands – likely compensatory
mitigation requirement under
current regulatory policy requiring
large mitigation efforts
The three alternative sites that warranted additional consideration were the Embarcadero Road Site, the Duck
Pond Site, and the Pond A1 Site. Conceptual designs were developed for each of these sites as described in the
following section and shown in the attached design figures.
Based on an initial review of these concepts, the Embarcadero Road site emerged as the most practical project tor
the RWQCP to pursue in the near term. The primary drivers included:
Proximity to the treatment plant, which reduces water supply costs, enables use of treated effluent and
also simplifies operations and maintenance.
The project would be primarily on uplands adjacent to existing tidal marsh allowing for implementation
with minimal impact to existing marsh habitat.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
9
The project would be located on property that is owned by the City of Palo Alto, simplifying
jurisdictional issues.
The horizontal levee added to a comprehensive levee improvement project (SAFER Bay) would directly
improve the flood protection for the RWQCP including protection from rising sea levels. Additionally,
implementing a horizontal levee along the planned SAFER Bay levee improvements could allow the
SAFER Bay levee to be constructed with a lower crest elevation due to the wave attenuation benefits
associated with the horizontal levee.
The Duck Pond site also warrants serious consideration. This site has some of the same benefits as the
Embarcadero Road Site such as proximity to the RWQCP and land ownership. However, this site is not adjacent
to existing marsh habitat which limits its utility for meeting the City’s primary objective of creating ecotone
transition habitat for special status species. Additionally, the Duck Pond site would provide a limited benefit for
sea level rise adaptation because the Duck Pond basin is connected to the Bay through a culvert/tide gate structure
with muted tidal exchange. However, the potential for creating a native plant nursery that could support
restoration of ecotone transitional habitat around the Bay provides a powerful driver for this site. The City
indicated that Save the Bay, which operates the native plant nursery at the site, could function as a viable project
sponsor at this location. The RWQCP would be willing to supply treated effluent to support a project at this site.
The Pond A1 Site also has good potential for implementing a horizontal levee. However, this site has a lower
potential for direct involvement from the RWQCP primarily because it is further from the plant than the other two
sites. The existing supply of treated effluent to this site is a recycled water line to the Shoreline Golf Course. This
line has a limited capacity and recycled water would require dechlorination prior to application to the horizontal
levee. There could be an opportunity to utilize groundwater pumped from the Shoreline Park as a water source for
a Pond A1 project as discussed below. In addition, the South Bay Salt Ponds Project is currently pursuing an
ecotone slope on the proposed levee at the site, and would be a viable sponsor for a potential project at this site.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
The conceptual designs for the potential Palo Alto horizontal levee alternatives integrate the design approach and
the lessons learned from the Oro Loma Ecotone Demonstration Project.
The horizontal levee envisioned for this project consists of the following key design elements: a water supply
system, site grading to create a broad transitional slope, a permeable treatment layer for wastewater polishing, and
vegetation planting. Since these elements would be common across the possible project sites, design
considerations for these elements are described in this section. The key design elements influence one another, so
they also need to be integrated with one another. For example, the volume of water supply needs to be appropriate
for conveyance capacity of the permeable treatment layer and to support the native vegetation. Other factors, such
as, integration with existing and proposed infrastructure (such as trails and levees) scalability, environmental
permitting, and monitoring, have been considered in developing conceptual designs.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
10
Water Supply System
Water supplied to the horizontal levee provides irrigation to support target vegetation species, and as such, should
meet the water quality needs for the vegetation. In addition, the water that leaves the slope needs to meet water
quality requirements for discharge to the Bay.
For the Embarcadero Road and Duck Pond alternatives, final effluent from the Palo Alto RWQCP would supply
the horizontal levee. At later stages of design, the water supply system will need to specify details such as
connections to the existing RWQCP piping and the distribution system for plant irrigation. For purposes of the
conceptual design, the focus is on water supply in terms of volumes, quality, and main pipeline alignment.
Design Flowrate
The quantity of water supplied to the horizontal levee will depend upon:
Available effluent – The horizontal levee can be utilized to provide wastewater polishing under normal
dry flow conditions. Alternatively, the horizontal levee and vegetation community can be designed
around utilizing excess flows during the rainy season into spring to allow for other, higher uses of
recycled water during the dry season. The supply should be achievable for sustained periods that can be
integrated with the RWQCP’s typical wastewater treatment process. We assume that the point of
compliance will remain unchanged (i.e. at the treatment plant discharge up gradient from the horizontal
levee), since this system is still experimental and in the developmental stage. At this time, the RWQCP
has identified 3 MGD of environmental flows dedicated to improving nearshore habitat including
horizontal levee(s), Renzel Marsh, and shallow water discharge. The 3 MGD of flow available for
environmental flows is more than enough to support all of the three horizontal levee alternatives
developed for Palo Alto (Embarcadero Road, Duck Pond and Pond A1).
Irrigation demand – At minimum, this demand is a function of the irrigated area and the vegetation’s
evapotranspiration within the irrigated area. In general, the irrigation demand provides a lower limit on
the required level of effluent to be applied to the slope and is not a limiting factor in the design.
Typically, the design seeks to maximize the flowrate that can be effectively treated by the system which
significantly exceeds the minimal irrigation demand required to maintain the vegetation community. The
availability of excess treated wastewater significantly increases plant growth rates which can improve
habitat quality.
Hydraulic Loading Rate – The hydraulic loading rate refers to the maximum flowrate distributed along
the top of the horizontal levee (i.e. gallons per day per linear foot) that can effectively be treated by the
horizontal levee. Optimizing the loading rate is a secondary objective of this project. At Oro Loma, the
horizontal levee’s treatment capacity appears to be limited by the hydraulic conductivity (flowrate per
unit area) of the subsurface treatment zone rather than hydraulic residence time required by the biological
processes. Effective treatment of the wastewater has been limited to flows that pass through the
subsurface treatment zone. Whereas, flows along the surface have had limited treatment efficiencies. The
conceptual design seeks to incrementally increase the hydraulic loading rate by increasing both the
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
11
hydraulic conductivity and the depth of the substrate, as well as, steepening the slope of the treatment
zone.
Seasonality – Treatment removal rates and evapotranspiration rates also have a seasonal component,
with evapotranspiration and, to a lesser extent, treatment efficiency, decreasing with cooler temperatures.
During the wet season, precipitation can deliver enough water that may affect peak conditions,
particularly if it causes above-ground flow of wastewater. For reference, at OLSD, 1 inch of rain/day
approximately matches the daily effluent volume and 4 inches rain/month (wet season average) is 12% of
monthly effluent volume; 8 inches rain/month (wet season extreme) is 25% of monthly effluent volume).
While the native vegetation that would establish on the horizontal levee are adapted shallow surface
flows, the extra water delivered by rainfall could impact treatment efficiencies for polishing treated
effluent within the subsurface.
Design Flowrate – The Palo Alto project would be designed to supply a variable flowrate to the
horizontal levee with lower and upper bounds used to experimentally evaluate performance and advance
the state-of-the-art. The lower bound should be at or above the irrigation demand and the upper bound
should be moderately above the hydraulic conductivity of the treatment media. The flowrate will be a
function of the hydraulic loading rate and the length of the horizontal levee. Additionally, since the
primary goals for the Palo Alto project would be related to creating habitat for special status species and
sea level rise adaptation, delivery of treated effluent should also be tailored to support a complex,
heterogeneous native plant community by fluctuating between saturated and unsaturated conditions in the
upper soil layers.
Water Quality
The water applied to the horizontal levee would need to have a suitable quality for the slope’s vegetation and also
need to comply with effluent discharge requirements set by the regulatory agencies. The water quality criteria will
be determined in collaboration with regulatory agencies, primarily the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as
well as the wildlife agencies. These criteria will consider effluent quality that is tolerable to the ecotone
vegetation and beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
The horizontal levee will receive influent which has undergone tertiary treatment including nitrification, partial
denitrification in the future, dual media filtration, and disinfection within RWQCP’s facilities. Even with this
advanced level of treatment, there are several constituents that could pose a risk to the treatment effectiveness and
vegetation health.
Extremely high nitrate concentrations can impair vegetation growth and may impact the nitrate removal capacity
of the gravel treatment layer. As discussed above, nitrate concentrations up to 30 mg/l have not adversely
impacted either the vegetation communities or the nitrogen removal effectiveness of the system at Oro Loma.
However, higher nitrate levels have only been applied for a limited period during the winter and spring of 2018
and additional monitoring through the summer months are required. We recommend data from Oro Loma be
evaluated and future recommendations be incorporated into the Palo Alto horizontal levee design. RWQCP
effluent currently has average nitrogen concentrations at just over 30 mg/L (HDR, 2016). The RWQCP is
planning an upgrade including partial denitrification to reduce total nitrogen levels to about 15 mg/l. These
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
12
improvements are planned to be implemented as early as 2021 which could align with implementation of a
horizontal levee project. If lower nitrate levels are preferable for the horizontal levee, options to reduce nitrate
concentrations could include: blending with other water sources and/or additional treatment for the effluent
stream routed to the horizontal levee.
While higher salinity levels (as measured by total dissolved solids or TDS), concentrations of 800-900 mg/l, can
damage foliage for a number of native upland plant species (City, 2017), vegetation species intended for the
horizontal levee typically have some salinity tolerance and are not likely to be affected by these relatively low
salinity levels. The RWQCP is planning to upgrades to the treatment facility that may include removal of TDS
through advanced filtration methods.
The recycled water that is delivered to the Shoreline complex adjacent to the Pond A1 alternative (tertiary treated
meeting Title 22 standards) is chlorinated prior to discharge from the RWQCP. While chlorine is not considered
toxic to plants, it does interact with organic matter to form chemicals collectively known as disinfection
byproducts that are known to adversely affect aquatic ecosystems. It is anticipated that recycled water would need
to be dechlorinated prior to application to a horizontal levee. The RWQCP has limited capacity to supply recycled
water which is relatively expensive to produce, and it should be directed to the highest and best use.
Distribution System
The main pipeline will deliver effluent from existing RWQCP piping to the horizontal levee project site(s). As
shown in Figures 1 and 5, two main pipe networks already convey effluent from the RWQCP and could be the
starting point for a connection to the horizontal levee. These networks include:
two existing Bay outfalls and a third proposed Bay outfall heading northeast from the RWQCP
recycled water pipelines, primarily configured to serve the Shoreline area in the City of Mountain View
A new main pipeline to the horizontal levee will need to consider the physical connection to existing pipelines,
pipeline capacity, right-of-way, and potential conflicts with other utilities and infrastructure (such as the proposed
SAFER coastal levee).
Horizontal levee Design
The conceptual design for the Palo Alto horizontal levee integrates the successes and the lessons learned from
experience at the Oro Loma site. There are three sites that are being considered for implementation as shown in
Figure 1 – Embarcadero Road (Figures 2-6), Duck Pond (Figures 7-8), and Pond A1 (Figure 9-12), which are
described in greater detail below. The design elements described in this section are common to each location. The
horizontal levee will consist of 1) a levee (or berm) on the landward side for flood protection, 2) a treatment zone,
and 3) a habitat transition zone. The conceptual design of each of these elements was based on several factors
including tidal inundation and datums, adjacent land use and topography, and proposed future use of the area.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
13
Datums
Using data from the NOAA station at Coyote Creek (NOAA 9414575) and the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, the
following tidal datums were used for the Embarcadero Road Shoreline, Duck Pond and USFWS Pond A1 sites.
Since the Duck Pond experiences a muted tide signal, tidal datums were estimated with professional judgement
for the conceptual design effort. We recommend that a tide gage be set up to measure the tide range and surveys
of existing vegetation at the site be performed if design at the Duck Pond proceeds.
Table 2 – Tidal Datums
Tidal Datum
Embarcadero Road Shoreline/
USFWS Pond A1
(feet NAVD)
Duck Pond
(feet NAVD)
Mean higher high water (MHHW) 7.5 5.5-6.5
Mean high water (MHW) 6.9
Mean tide level (MTL) 3.3
Mean low water (MLW) -0.3
Mean lower low water (MLLW) -1.5 -1.0-0.0
Diurnal Tide Range (MHHW – MLLW) 9.0 5.5-7.5
100-yr flood stage ** 10.8 10.8
10-yr flood stage ** 10.2 9.5
Note: Tidal Datums are from Coyote Creek with the exception of the 10- and 100-yr flood stage,
which are from the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor
The tidal datums were used to set the horizontal levee elevations. The horizontal levee is designed to be a
freshwater transitional zone to the tidal marsh. For the Embarcadero Road and Pond A1 locations, the lower end
of the treatment area is situated between elevation 8.0 and 9.5 feet NAVD, which is 0.5 to 2.0 feet above MHHW.
For the Duck Pond location, the lower end of the treatment area is situated at approximately elevation 7 feet
NAVD to account for the muted tide that this site experiences. These elevations will be refined through the design
process to incorporate appropriate sea-level rise projections and other considerations. For instance, the treatment
zone could be raised or possibly flattened to 30h:1v to raise the lower end further above MHHW depending on
concerns related to salt water impacts on biological treatment efficiency.
Embarcadero Road Horizontal levee
The Embarcadero Road site has been identified by the City of Palo Alto as the preferred location to move forward
for additional study and design to support ultimate implementation. The full build out vision is presented in
Figure 2 which shows the project including three main sections of horizontal levee and irrigated ecotone slope:
1. The preferred Phase 1 project is located in the central portion of the Embarcadero Road site just south of
the Environmental Volunteer’s Center and includes about 800 LF of horizontal levee and irrigated
ecotone slope along the planned SAFER levee alignment.
2. The Harbor Road leg south of the central Phase 1 reach includes about 940 LF of horizontal levee and
irrigated ecotone along the planned SAFER levee alignment.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
14
3. The northeast leg includes about 860 LF of horizontal levee and irrigated ecotone along Embarcadero
Road northeast of the Environmental Volunteer’s Center.
This conceptual alternative includes sections of horizontal levee in areas with wider existing uplands that include
a permeable treatment zone and flatter slopes that can provide wastewater polishing in addition to the transitional
habitat benefits. In areas with a relatively narrow band of uplands, this concept includes irrigated ecotone slopes
which are designed around a steeper 10h:1v slope to provide some habitat benefits while limiting fill in existing
wetlands.
The Embarcadero Road project can be supplied with treated wastewater that could be delivered either directly
from the legacy emergency outfall or with smaller pipe connected to the RWQCP that could be sleeved through
the legacy outfall alignment shown in plan view on Figures 2 & 3.
The preferred Phase 1 project includes about 590 LF of horizontal levee and an additional 210 LF of irrigated
ecotone as shown in more detail on Figure 3. Conceptual cross sections for the horizontal levee portions of the
Phase 1 project are presented on Figure 4. This portion of the Embarcadero Road site offers the widest upland
corridor, which can support a horizontal levee with a relatively flat 20-30h:1v treatment zone and a 30-50h:1v
high marsh ecotone below the treatment zone which would create relatively wide transitional slope along the
adjacent Harbor Marsh. The landward side of the horizontal levee and ecotone slope is bounded by the planned
SAFER levee backed by Embarcadero Road (Figure 4, Sections A-B). In Sections A-B, the full height of the
SAFER levee is shown along with the potential to lower the height of the levee by up to 2 feet accounting for the
wave attenuation from the existing Harbor Marsh and proposed horizontal levee. As the upland band in this area
narrows to the north near the Environmental Engineer’s center and to the south towards Harbor Road the
horizontal levee would transition to a steeper irrigated ecotone designed to provide habitat benefits while forgoing
the wastewater polishing function offered by the horizontal levee. The 590 LF of horizontal levee is anticipated
to be able to polish up to 118,000 gpd of treated wastewater. The irrigated ecotone would require up to about 400
gpd on average to support vigorous plant growth which could be supplied by either treated wastewater or a
separate water source.
The Harbor Road leg of the project as shown on Figure 2 also abuts the planned SAFER levee and includes about
210 LF of horizontal levee with about 730 LF of irrigated ecotone along areas with a relatively narrow band of
existing upland habitat. Conceptual cross sections for this reach of the project are presented on Figure 5, Section
C and D. Section C shows a representation of the horizontal levee along this reach with a lower and steeper
treatment zone at 20h:1v and a steeper transitional slope along the Harbor Marsh to limit fill within the existing
wetlands. Section D provides a representation of the irrigated ecotone slope with a 10h:1v slope extending down
and filling a portion of the Harbor Marsh. Along this reach, the SAFER levee would require fill within the
existing wetlands, and the ecotone would require additional fill in the marsh. However, we anticipate that the
ecotone would allow for the SAFER levee to be built with a lower overall height and section due to the wind
wave attenuation provided by the ecotone slope. The ecotone section would require up to about 2.5 feet of fill in
the existing marsh beyond the steeper proposed SAFER levee section and most of the marsh fill would support
native high marsh transitional vegetation. The 210 LF of horizontal levee along Harbor Road is anticipated to
have a treated wastewater polishing capacity of up to 42,000 gpd and the irrigated ecotone would require up to
about 1,200 gpd of treated wastewater or a separate water source to support vigorous native vegetation.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
15
The northeast leg of the project along Embarcadero Road includes a short 130 LF section of horizontal levee and
about 730 LF of irrigated ecotone as shown on Figure 2. Conceptual sections for this reach are presented on
Figure 6. This reach is north of the proposed SAFER levee alignments in an area of relatively low ground at about
the 10-year water level. The conceptual sections illustrate two potential options to improve flood protection along
this reach including either construction of a low berm along Embarcadero Road or raising Embarcadero Road to
just above the 100-year water level. The short section of horizontal levee would also incorporate relatively steep
slopes of 20h:1v within the treatment zone with a somewhat flatter transitional section to meet the adjacent
Harbor Marsh. Raising Embarcadero Road would allow for the horizontal levee and irrigated ecotone to be
somewhat flatter and could allow for a longer stretch of horizontal levee as areas that would only support a
steeper 10h:1v irrigated ecotone could be expanded to support a horizontal levee allowing for increased habitat
benefits and wastewater polishing. As shown, the 130 LF of horizontal levee could polish up to 26,000 gpd, and
the 730 LF of irrigated ecotone would require up to about 1,200 gpd of treated wastewater or a separate source for
irrigation.
In total, the full build out Embarcadero Road alternative could polish up to 186,000 gpd of treated wastewater
along 930 LF of horizontal levee and require up to 2,800 gpd of treated wastewater or a separate source for
irrigation. Well below the 3 MGD of treated wastewater available from the RWQCP.
The Embarcadero Road alternative would also require relocating existing public access trails. The conceptual
cross sections show the existing trail moved upslope to the upper limit of the ecotone/horizontal levee slope
adjacent to the planned SAFER levee or the berm/raised Embarcadero Road in the northeast leg. Alternatively, it
could be possible to locate the trail along the SAFER levee top or perhaps allow the trail to jog up and down
slope between the levee and upper edge of the ecotone to provide some variation of elevation and views. The
relocated trail is shown as an 8 feet wide corridor that would be paved with aggregate base or a decomposed
granite surface. One concern would be the close proximity of the public access to the habitat supported by treated
wastewater and the potential for the public to go off trail. Public access could be controlled by incorporating
strategic plantings along the trail that would restrict access to the treatment areas and sensitive habitat. Other
projects have also utilized fencing – either a chicken wire fence to limit dog access or a two cable fence to
demarcate the limit of the public access while allowing more open access for endangered species and other
wildlife.
Duck Pond Horizontal levee
The Duck Pond site would allow for a horizontal levee project that could support a nursery for Save the Bay to
provide native plant material for future high marsh and riparian scrub transitional revegetation efforts throughout
the Bay Area.
The conceptual design is presented in plan view on Figure 7 and sections on Figure 8. The site has the capacity to
construct two segments of horizontal levee of approximately 525 linear feet combined, with an anticipated
treatment capacity of up to 105,000 gpd. The horizontal levees were limited to areas that did not impact existing
marsh and could achieve a 50-foot long treatment zone at a 20-30h:1v slope above elevation 7 feet NAVD. The
concept as shown on Figure 7 represents a fairly large project footprint that could be adjusted as needed to avoid
existing buildings or other valuable infrastructure.
To achieve the necessary horizontal levee dimensions, a new berm would be built up to elevation 10 feet NAVD
or possibly higher depending upon revised tidal datums and goals for flood protection in this area. The treatment
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
16
zone would extend from approximately elevation 9.5 down to 7.0 feet NAVD. Below the treatment zone, the
horizontal levee would extend at a 30h:1v slope or flatter to match local MHW or MHHW within the muted tidal
basin (assumed at elevation 6 feet NAVD).
The Duck Pond site could be supplied with treated wastewater routed from either the legacy emergency outfall as
described for the Embarcadero Road alternative or from the proposed primary outfall that will be routed around
the Palo Alto Airport as referenced in the plan view Figure 1.
The existing access trail could be moved to the top of the proposed berm to maintain existing public access.
Pond A1 Horizontal levee
The Pond A1 site is considerably larger than the Embarcadero Road or Duck Pond sites as shown on Figure 1.
Given the current 60% design for the Pond A1 restoration under development by the South Bay Salt Ponds
Project, the site has the capacity to construct two long segments of horizontal levee as shown on Figures 9-11.
The Pond A1 60% grading plans include construction of an ecotone transitional slope up to elevation 9.0 feet
NAVD which would represent the lowest potential elevation to support high tide refugia habitat. The horizontal
levees were limited to areas in the 60% grading plan that included transitional slopes that were 30h:1v or flatter as
shown in the conceptual cross sections on Figure 12. To build upon this design while improving habitat values
and keeping the treatment zone above MHHW, the concept proposes to extend the treatment zone up to elevation
11 feet NAVD. Below the treatment zone, the ecotone would continue at a 20:1 slope until it matches the
proposed ecotone grade. Pond A1 West and East offer a combined horizontal levee of about 1,850 LF with an
anticipated treatment volume of up to 407,000 gpd.
The Pond A1 site has several recycled water pipelines in the vicinity that could supply the horizontal levee as
referenced in the plan view Figure 9. The RWQCP currently supplies water for the City of Mountain View’s
recycled water system (Carollo, 2012). This recycled water is used in buildings and to irrigate a golf course and
other areas of Shoreline Park. Even accounting for other plans to expand recycled water use, both the RWQCP
and the City of Mountain View believe there is unallocated recycled water supply that could be used for the Pond
A1 horizontal levee. The actual amount of unallocated supply, as well as the existing pipeline’s capacity to
deliver this supply will need to be determined. However, since recycled water is relatively expensive to produce
and has a high market value, the RWQCP may want to reserve this water for paying customers. Additionally,
using recycled water would require adding a dechlorination process prior to application to a horizontal levee.
The existing recycled water supply system to Mountain View includes several sections that approach the Pond A1
shoreline, as shown in Figure 9 and briefly described below:
Primary Supply Pipeline – The 24-inch main pipeline follows East Bayshore Road and then Garcia
Avenue. A new extension of approximately 2,500 feet could connect to the west side of Pond A1 (off
Figure 9 to the southeast).
Marine Way Spur – An existing 6-inch diversion from the primary supply pipeline extends to the corner
of Casey Avenue and Broderick Way. A new extension of approximately 1,250 feet could connect to the
west side of Pond A1.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
17
Shoreline Irrigation System – This system, which is pressurized by its own pump and can also draw
from potable and pond storage, includes an existing 10-inch water main that approaches Pond A1. A new
extension of approximately 800 feet could connect to the east side of Pond A1.
Historical Shoreline Pipeline - A historical recycled water pipeline, which is currently de-
commissioned, runs from the primary supply pipeline and then along the Pond A1 shoreline. New
extensions of approximately 100 feet could connect to most of the Pond A1 shoreline.
Further discussion with the City of Mountain View is needed to identify the condition and capacity in these pipes.
An alternative water supply for the horizontal levee could be groundwater pumped from Shoreline Park.
Shoreline Park is constructed on a closed landfill site. Normal operation is for groundwater to be pumped from
the perimeter outside of the landfill footprint. Depending on water quality, the groundwater is either sent to the
RWQCP for processing or discharged to surface water (City of Mountain View, 2013). The City of Mountain
View Department of Public Works is responsible for the landfill operation and could be approached regarding
interest and capacity in supplying groundwater to the horizontal levee.
Wastewater Treatment Zone
All three conceptual alternatives include a similar wastewater treatment zone that has been developed to account
for the lessons learned at Oro Loma to allow for an incremental increase in treatment volumes per linear foot of
horizontal levee. The proposed treatment zone is presented on Figure 13. At this early stage, the proposed
treatment zone incorporates the following elements (described from the highest elevation to the lowest):
A distribution channel & trench offset about 10 feet from the relocated trail or tie in with the levee/berm
core. The offset limits reducing the prism of the levee/berm core to help maintain the flood control
functions of the core. Additionally, the offset provides a buffer between public access and the distribution
of treated wastewater.
A 5-feet wide distribution channel & trench backfilled with drain rock to route treated effluent to the
subsurface treatment layer. The shallow channel (~0.25-foot deep) would allow for treated effluent to be
distributed across the ecotone via open channel and subsurface gravity flow to help limit the need for
perforated distribution pipes which have experienced problems related to clogging at Oro Loma. Oro
Loma utilized a 2-feet wide distribution trench, and the wider trench proposed here would allow for
distribution of increased effluent volumes.
A 1-foot thick sub-surface drain layer separated top and bottom with a geotextile separator fabric to limit
intrusion of fines into the drain layer. The drain layer is anticipated to include a mix of drain rock (or
other highly permeable material) and wood chips to provide a carbon source. The 1-foot thick drain layer
is twice as thick as the drain layer incorporated at Oro Loma, and is anticipated to allow for at least
double treatment volume per linear foot due to the increased thickness and more resilient separation
barrier.
A 1.5-feet thick ecotone soil layer to support native vegetation underlain by a 0.5 feet thick sand filter
layer to further help limit migration of fines into the subsurface drain layer. The ecotone soil and sand
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
18
filter layers would be blended with composted wood fines for labile carbon to help support biological
treatment.
A 5-feet wide discharge trench to allow the subsurface flows to migrate from the drain layer into the
ecotone soils down gradient from the treatment zone and as shallow surface flows.
The subsurface treatment zone is currently shown as 40 feet long plus 5 feet wide trenches at the upper
and lower limits for a total treatment length of 50 feet. Current monitoring results show that the
subsurface treatment reaches maximum efficiencies at 10 feet in total flow length. As we understand
more about the residence time and how the Oro Loma demonstration evolves regarding treatment
efficiency, it’s possible that the length of the treatment zone can be reduced to optimize the design for
cost effectiveness.
Below the treatment zone, the ecotone habitat zone would incorporate a 2 feet thick layer of ecotone soil
blended with composted wood fines to provide a source of labile carbon.
Project Site Grading
To facilitate implementation of a horizontal levee pilot at Palo Alto, the sites considered in this memo avoid or
limit adding fill in existing wetlands. This approach will help streamline implementation by simplifying the
permitting process. Factors to consider when designing grading include:
Where needed for the target vegetation, grading would position the horizontal levee at appropriate
elevations relative to and just above the Bay tide range, and be sloped to provide gravity drainage.
In addition to adjusting the ground surface, grading may include replacing or amending the top two to
three feet of soil. This would provide appropriate substrate conditions (e.g. organic/nonorganic
composition, grain size, hydraulic conductivity) to support the native vegetation and water treatment.
The grading also needs to integrate with current and planned flood management strategies. For example,
the horizontal levee should be planned to not interfere with existing or proposed coastal flood protection
levees (including the SAFER levee and/or Pond A1 levee) nor to impair existing drainage pathways.
Additionally, the grading plans could include some complexity similar to natural upland to tidal marsh transitions.
It could be possible to incorporate coarser soils along wider, higher sections of the ecotone, and finer grained
soils within valleys or coves that drain into swales with depressional wetlands to better mimic natural ecotones
and freshwater seeps.
Ecotone Vegetation Planting
Based on observations at remaining ecotone reference sites on the Bay shoreline, the target plant community is a
mix of wet meadow and riparian scrub/shrub habitat. Eighteen species were planted and have mostly flourished at
the OLSD pilot project. These species can serve as an initial planting palette with demonstrated capacity to
provide the preferred habitat and treatment. In addition, reference sites local to Palo Alto, such as the area just
west of Harbor Point parking lot, may provide additional insight for selecting and propagating plant species. At
OLSD, this vegetation palette has yielded plant heights ranging from two feet to more than twelve feet high, with
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
19
some species likely to grow higher. When placing specific species, the plant layout should consider proximity to
public access, such that taller vegetation does not unduly impact views, space, and safety for recreational users.
These ecotone vegetation species require physical conditions which are largely determined by the water supply
and grading design elements, as discussed in those sections above. In turn, the planting extent and capacity to
process effluent needs to be coordinated with the water supply rate and quantity. To thrive and outcompete
terrestrial non-native species, the wet meadow and riparian species benefit from more water than just
precipitation alone. Along natural transitional slopes, incidental rainfall is augmented by surface runoff and
shallow ground water flow originating in the surrounding watershed. Although initial data from OLSD indicates
that ecotone vegetation thrives at an irrigation rate on the order of 18,000 gpd/acre and 66 gpd/LF, alternate
irrigation rates may be achievable, depending on such factors as site geometry (length, width, slope) and
subsurface hydraulic conductivity.
Since refinements for vegetation planting design are still evolving, the planting may consider different treatments
across the project area. These treatment variations could include different vegetation types and substrates
integrated into a more complex topographic grading plan, such that questions related to water treatment (e.g.
nitrogen removal rates) or habitat (e.g. preferences of special status bird species) could be monitored and
evaluated. Additional monitoring might also assess alternate irrigation cycles, removal rates as a function of flow
path length, slope width, and potential habitat changes in downstream salt marsh due to increased freshwater
discharge.
Thus far, the plantings at Oro Loma have not required significant maintenance. However, the Oro Loma
horizontal levee was planted at a 1-foot on center plant spacing. This high-density spacing was implemented to
allow the Oro Loma experiment to proceed as soon as possible by allowing near complete aerial coverage within
the first year of planting. This high density also allowed for the native plants to generally out compete non-native
species. At Oro Loma, with a continuously saturated hydrologic regime, willow and bulrush/cattail are beginning
to out compete many of the other planted native species, and some non-native species including pampas grass
have begun to colonize the site. With a primary goal to provide critical habitat for special status species, the Palo
Alto horizontal levee may try to target a more varied hydrologic regime with alternating cycles of saturated and
unsaturated surface soils to support a greater variety of native transitional plant species and to help limit non-
native plants. Additionally, occasional inundation with salt water from the Bay during king tides and storm surges
will also help to limit non-native plants along the ecotone.
Planting methods
OLSD was successfully planted using seeds and seedlings collected from wild plants, propagated in nurseries and
raised beds, and then planted with some assistance from volunteers. Assuming sufficient nursery capacity is
identified, these methods should be transferable and scalable to other sites. Possible improvements to these
planting methods which may achieve similar results at greater scale and lower cost include reduced lower
planting density augmented with hydroseeding or drill seeding to infill the remaining area and mechanical
distribution.
Although the planting is anticipated for irrigated areas above regular tidal inundation, the vegetation is close
enough to the Bay to be exposed to salinity, in the form of spray, seepage from saline soils, or infrequent
flooding. So, plants selected for the ecotone should have some tolerance for salt or brackish inundation. Planting
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
20
would be likely limited to elevations above monthly tidal inundation. Below this elevation, the vegetation would
transition to tidal marsh species that can accommodate regular saltwater inundation (e.g. cordgrass, pickleweed).
These species are already present adjacent to the proposed horizontal levee project areas and typically establish
on their own from sources conveyed by the tides and do not usually require planting. To transition between the
lower edge of the horizontal levee and adjacent existing tidal marsh, the planting palette might be expanded to
include high marsh vegetation such as gumplant (Grindelia stricta) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN COST ESTIMATES
Construction cost estimates for each conceptual alternative were prepared based on our experience at Oro Loma
and on other wetland restoration projects. The cost estimates considered critical construction components related
to mobilization, SWPPP (environmental compliance), earthwork (cut, fill, placement, compaction), import of
rock and other materials, infrastructure improvements (pump stations, pipelines, and discharge appurtenances),
trail relocation, and revegetation (seeding and planting). At the conceptual level these costs are relatively rough
“ball park” estimates as many details related to each conceptual alternative are not well defined, and as designs
are further developed unanticipated constraints and requirements could significantly change (usually increase)
potential project construction costs. In particular, details related to connections to the RWQCP including required
turnouts, pump stations, controls, etc. and pipelines to potential horizontal levee sites are roughly estimated, but
the actual details of the work required are not known at this conceptual level.
Additionally, the cost estimates include projected construction costs and do not include engineering (restoration
design, geotechnical, MEP), permitting and CEQA related costs or costs related to staff time by a project
proponent. Finally, operation and maintenance costs for RWQCP staff to operate the treated wastewater
distribution system, parks staff for trail maintenance, and revegetation maintenance are not included at this stage.
These costs should be mainly used to compare alternatives with the understanding that the costs will likely
change as designs progress.
The estimated costs are provided in 2018 and 2021 dollars in summary in Table 3 below and in detail on the
attached Table 4.
Table 3 – Estimate Construction Costs for Conceptual Alternatives
Conceptual Alternative
2018 Construction Costs
2021 Construction Costs
Embarcadero Road – Phase 1 $1,465,000 $1,650,000
Embarcadero Road – Build Out (including Phase 1) $2,869,000 $3,230,000
Duck Pond $2,306,000 $2,590,000
Pond A1 $3,231,000 $3,630,000
Notes: Cost Estimates include a 35% contingency.
2021 estimate includes a 4% per year escalation over the 2018 estimate.
Cost estimates should be considered as a +/-30-50% level of accuracy at this conceptual stage.
Pond A1 costs reflect tie in to the existing recycled water supply lines and does not reflect the costs of recycled water
or dechlorination. If a dedicated line is required, the costs for Pond A1 would increase significantly.
PERMITTING STRATEGY
As noted in the 2018 Basin Plan Triennial Review, the receiving waters downstream of many Bay Area
wastewater treatment plants include recently restored wetlands or areas that will be restored to wetland habitat in
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
21
coming years. In many circumstances, using the treated wastewater as a source of freshwater for restored
wetlands and ecotone transitional areas would provide a net environmental benefit by increasing the amount of
freshwater and brackish wetlands and supporting vigorous native transitional vegetation for birds and wildlife
dependent on such habitats. Using treated wastewater in this fashion as a source of freshwater was identified as an
important climate change response strategy in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals 2015 Science Update to
“restore estuary-watershed connections that nourish the Baylands with sediment and freshwater” (2018 Basin
Plan Triennial Review - San Francisco Bay Region Brief Issue Descriptions April 2018, pp. 10-11).
As part of the review, RWQCB staff are exploring an update of Regional Board Resolution No. 94-086 “Policy
on the Use of Wastewater to Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetlands.” The current Resolution 94-086 policy is
now over 20 years old. Much has been learned about wetland restoration over the intervening years and the
hydrology and topography of the San Francisco Bay has been changing as vast areas of former salt evaporation
ponds are being restored to marsh under the San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.
This review is anticipated to also clarify permitting requirements for wastewater discharges into wetlands,
develop near-shore permitting strategies for discharges to wetlands and sloughs. RWQCB would also evaluate
and provide guidance about what level of treatment is appropriate for effluent discharged into wetland habitats,
including consideration of contaminants of emerging concern (e.g., flame retardants, personal care products,
microbeads and nano particles).
Establishing NPDES permits for discharging wastewater in wetlands is complicated by a variety of regulatory
issues; RWQCB would explore those regulatory issues and identify policy options, and potentially evaluate issues
associated with discharge prohibition exemptions in the Basin Plan and could address Beneficial Use designation
associated with creation of new wetlands. A discussion of regulatory interpretations to be explored with RWQCB
is provided below, as well as a specific discussion of key issues to be addressed for amending existing wastewater
treatment plant NDPES permits to accommodate horizontal levee projects.
Regulatory Interpretations
From a regulatory standpoint, it would be most conservative to assume that an NPDES permit (or amendment to
an existing NPDES permit) would be required. However, the issue of Clean Water Act (CWA) applicability to
pollutant discharges to groundwater that ultimately reach surface water, in more that de minimis quantities, is
currently being litigated and being investigated by USEPA (see excerpt below):
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting comment on the Agency’s previous
statements regarding the Clean Water Act (CWA) and whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach
jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow that has a direct hydrologic connection to
the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to CWA regulation. EPA is requesting comment on whether the
Agency should consider clarification or revision of those statements and if so, comment on how clarification or
revision should be provided.
A more creative permitting interpretation would be that application of secondary effluent to a horizontal levee is
simply a land application or land disposal project, subject to simple water reclamation or waste discharge
requirements. The discharge may just be subject to various BMPs, such as: how much flow can be applied,
where, and when. This approach would need further investigation and discussion with RWQCB, as Title 22
prohibits the discharge to receiving water of recycled water use for irrigation (other than “incidental” runoff as
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
22
can occur with other irrigation systems). Another approach could be the establishment of a Low Threat Discharge
General Permit within San Francisco Bay Region 2; several other RWQCBs have this General Permit in place,
and it could be applied to horizontal levee projects. Finally, one could potentially make a case that the secondary
or tertiary treated effluent, applied at specified rates and conditions, after a period traveling through the
subsurface environment, contains de minimis levels of constituents of concern, and does not need further
monitoring and/or permitting (like a septic tank and leach field). These potential regulatory interpretations should
be explored with RWQCB.
Existing NPDES Permit Amendment: Key Issues and Approaches
The most expedient permitting approach would be the modification of a wastewater treatment plant’s existing
NPDES permit to accommodate releases via the horizontal levee slope. There are several approaches or key
issues that would need to be addressed for successful permit modification, and these would be negotiated with
RWQCB on a case by case basis. However, central to permit modification would be the use of the Basin Plan’s
exemption to the shallow water discharge prohibition. RWQCB’s review should focus on: 1) the overall
environmental benefits of these projects, and 2) review of potential incremental impacts (if any) that could occur
to beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan related to shifting from an existing shallow water discharge to
discharge to a horizontal levee. The treated effluent will continue to meet the requirements associated with the
RWQCP’s permitted shallow water discharge prior to application to the horizontal levee.
The regulatory issues would revolve around what if any additional limitations would be required to allow for a
near-shore shallow water seepage type discharge. As such, the applicant would need to work with RWQCB to
demonstrate that water quality released to/from horizontal levee slope would continue to: 1) meet California
Toxic Rule (CTR) requirements; 2) meet applicable toxicity requirements; 3) meet Basin Plan Anti-Degradation
requirements; 4) provide an equivalent level of protection; 5) and/or provide a net environmental benefit.
Horizontal Levee projects at Palo Alto can expect to go through similar review and negotiations with RWQCB
about application of the exception to the Basin Plan Discharge Prohibitions. It would appear that framing a
holistic description of a horizontal levee type project should qualify for an exception given that it should truly
provide a “net environmental benefit.” A net environmental benefit (NEB) is probably the broadest and most
highly regarded exemption. Demonstrating a NEB may also help minimize/offset the need for other
regulatory/permitting requirements. Once more data are available on the Oro Loma Horizontal Levee effluent
quality, it can likely be demonstrated that in general horizontal levees would provide a higher level of treatment,
and therefore an equivalent level of protection, which would comply with the lowest hurdle: an exemption from
the Basin Plan discharge prohibitions.
It is anticipated that monitoring data from Oro Loma will demonstrate that that nitrate can be treated with
exceptionally high efficiencies and that other constituents are similarly reduced in concentration compared to
those in the secondary effluent applied to the Horizontal Levee. Soil microbes would probably degrade many of
the other organics in the secondary effluent before it would reach the Bay, again reducing loadings compared to a
direct discharge of secondary effluent at the currently permitted levels for a shallow water discharge. There is
also the argument to be made that the mass of pollutants discharged via the horizontal levee slope is at most the
same, and almost certainly lower, than the mass that would have been discharged to the Bay via a direct
secondary effluent shallow water outfall discharge.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
23
With respect to the need for effluent limits, potentially mass limits or de minimis mass loading findings could be
applicable to address the Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBEL) issues. Due to the dispersed nature
of the discharge from horizontal levee slopes, it is anticipated that mixing zones/initial dilution approaches would
not be appropriate. For the first few horizontal levee projects, it is likely that RWQCB would require a
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) to be completed to confirm that remaining concentrations are below
California Toxic Rule (CTR) Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) such that effluent limits would not be required.
These key issues would need to be reviewed with RWQCB staff as part of the case-by-case review and permit
negotiation previously noted.
Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
24
REFERENCES
Carrollo, 2012. Long Range Facility Plans Report. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Palo Alto,
CA.
City of Mountain View, 2013. Shoreline Landfill Master Plan Study Session Memo. Public Works Department,
Mountain View, CA.
City of Palo Alto, 2017. 2017 Pretreatment Program Annual Report. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control
Plant, Palo Alto, CA.
ESA PWA, 2012. Oro Loma Wet Weather Equalization, Treatment Wetland, and Ecotone Demonstration
Project, Initial Feasibility Study. (with Dr. Peter Baye). Oro Loma Sanitary District, San Lorenzo, CA.
ESA PWA, 2013. Oro Loma Demonstration Project, Preliminary Design Report. Oro Loma Sanitary District,
San Lorenzo, CA.
SFEI, 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals. SFEI Contribution No. 330. US Environmental Protection
Agency, San Francisco, CA. S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.
SFEI, 2015. The Baylands and Climate Change. Baylands Ecosytem Habitat Goals Science Update 2015.
California State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Embarcadero Road Overview
Figure 3 Embarcadero Road Phase 1 Plan View
Figure 4 Embarcadero Road Phase 1 Cross Sections
Figure 5 Embarcadero Road South Cross Sections
Figure 6 Embarcadero Road North Cross Sections
Figure 7 Duck Pond Plan View
Figure 8 Duck Pond Sections
Figure 9 Pond A1 Overview
Figure 10 Pond A1 West Plan View
Figure 11 Pond A1 East Plan View
Figure 12 Pond A1 Sections
Figure 13 Treatment Area – Typical Section
Table 3 Conceptual Cost Estimates
PALO ALTO
AIRPORT
PALO ALTO REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANT
MA
Y
F
I
E
L
D
HARBOR
MARSH
EXISTING OUTFALL
PROPOSED OUTFALL
SAFER LEVEE
REACH 10 OPTION 1
HISTORIC SHORELINE
PIPELINE
MARINE WAY
SPUR PIPELINE
SHORELINE
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
EXISTING 2" RECYCLED
WATER LINE (APPROX)
CHARLESTON
SLOUGH SOUTH BAY
SALT PONDS
POND A1
SHORELINE LAKE
COAST CASEY
FOREBAY
BYXBEE PARK
HILLS
EMILY RENZEL
WETLANDS
BAYLANDS NATURE
PRESERVE
BAYSHO
R
E
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
(
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
1
)
S
L
O
U
G
H
SAFER LEVEE
REACH 10 OPTION 2
EXISTING RECYCLED
WATER PIPELINE
RW
RW
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
RW
R
W
R
W
R
W
RW
RW
RW
RW
R
W
RW
RW
IR
R
IR
R
IRR
IRR
RW
RW
R
W
R
W
RW
RW
RW
FIGURE 2
EMBARCADERO ROAD
LEGACY EMERGENCY
OUTFALL (APPROX)
FIGURE 3EMBARCADERO
PHASE 1
FIGU
R
E
9 PO
N
D
A
1
FIGU
R
E
10
FIGU
R
E
11
FIGURE 7
DUCK
POND
REDWOOD CITY
OAKLAND
SAN FRANCISCO
MILL VALLEY
LARKSPUR
ALBANY
BERKELEY
EL CERRITO
RICHMOND
SAN PABLO
LAFAYETTE
ORINDA
PLEASANT HILL
CLAYTON
CONCORD
WALNUT CREEK
HALF MOON BAY
SAN CARLOS
BELMONT
ALAMEDA
PIEDMONT
MENLO PARK
NORTH FAIR OAKS
DALY CITY
PACIFICA
HILLSBOROUGH
BURLINGAME
MILLBRAE
SAN BRUNO
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
FOSTER CITYSAN MATEO
HAYWARD
SAN LEANDRO
UNION CITY
CASTRO VALLEY
SAN LORENZO
MORAGA
DUBLIN
DANVILLE
SAN RAMON
PLEASANTON
EAST PALO ALTO
MOUNTAIN VIEW
PALO ALTO
STANFORD
NEWARK
SUNNYVALE
FREMONT
MILPITAS
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
N Scale
0
Feet
400 200 400 800
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
1
1
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
PROJECT SITE
NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015.
PALO ALTO REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PLANT
HARBOR MARSH
BYXBEE PARK
HILLS
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW RW RW RW RW
LEGACY EMERGENCY
OUTFALL (APPROX)
EXISTING 2" RECYCLED
WATER LINE (APPROX)
(N) SAFER LEVEE TOP, TYP
ENVIRONMENTAL
VOLUNTEERS
ECOCENTER
EXISTING TRAIL, TYP
EMBARCADERO PHASE 1 PROJECT
803' (SEE FIGURE 3)
SAFER LEVEE CONTINUES
SAFER LEVEE CONTINUES
CONSTRUCT
BERM TO EL 11
TREATMENT AREA, TYP
SLOPE 20:1
127'
589'
210'
MATCH SAFER LEVEE GRADE AT EL 13
MARSH, TYP
EL 7 TO 9
ECOTONE, TYP
EL 9 TO 12
20:1
20
:
1
A
4
E6
B
4
C
5
F6
EM
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
(
H
A
R
B
O
R
R
O
A
D
)
EMBARCADERO ROAD
10:1
10:1
10
:
1
10
:
1
D
5
RELOCATE EXISTING TRAIL
RELOCATE EXISTING TRAIL RELOCATE EXISTING
TRAIL TO NEW BERM
RELOCATE
EXISTING TRAIL
TO NEW BERM
FIGURE 2
EMBARCADERO
ROAD OVERVIEW
N Scale
0
Feet
100 50 100 200
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
E
M
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
2
2
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
CULVERT
NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015.
HARBOR MARSH
EXISTING 2" RECYCLED
WATER LINE (APPROX)
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
R
W
A4B4
LEGACY EMERGENCY
OUTFALL (APPROX)
EMBARCADERO ROAD
E
M
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
R
O
A
D
NEW SAFER LEVEE TOP
N
E
W
S
A
F
E
R
L
E
V
E
E
T
O
P
SAFER LEVEE
REACH 10 OPTION 2
SAFER LEVEE
REACH 10 OPTION 1
EXISTING TRAIL
NEW TRAIL, TYP
50
:
1
30
:
1
30
:
1
30
:
1
3:
1
3:
1 3:1
3:1
3:1
3:13:
1
3:
1
TREATMENT AREA, TYP
SLOPE 20:1
RELOCATE EXISTING TRAIL
TO NEW SAFER LEVEE
ECOTONE, TYP
EL 9 TO 12
MARSH, TYP
EL 7 TO 9
FIGURE 3
EMBARADERO ROAD
PHASE 1 PLAN VIEW
N Scale
0
Feet
30 15 30 60
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
E
M
B
A
R
C
A
D
E
R
O
D
E
T
A
I
L
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
3
1
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015.
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80
EMBARCADERO ROAD 15'
S = 43:1
S = 30:1
APPROX EDGE
OF MARSH
MATCH SAFER
LEVEE AT EL 13
MATCH GRADE AT EL 7.5±
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80
S = 34:1
S = 30:1
APPROX EDGE
OF MARSH
EMBARCADERO ROAD 15'
MATCH SAFER
LEVEE AT EL 13
MATCH GRADE AT EL 7.5±
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
38'
LANDSIDE MARSHSIDE
20'
EL 18 - SAFER LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT WITH
2' WAVE RUN-UP + 3' SEA LEVEL RISE, TYP
EL 13 - MIN LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT
WITH CURRENT SEA LEVEL, TYP
EL 16 - REDUCED LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT
WITH ECOTONE + 3' SEA LEVEL RISE, TYP
3
1
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
EXISTING GRADE, TYP
ECOTONE DESIGN GRADE, TYP
SUBSURFACE TREATMENT LAYER, TYP
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
Scale
10 5 0
Feet
10 20
FIGURE 4
EMBARCADERO PHASE 1
CROSS SECTIONS
A
2.3
SECTION
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
B
2.3
SECTION
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
NOTE: EXISTING GRADE SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC LIDAR (USGS, 2010), AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE NOAA OFFICE
FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ELEVATIONS ARE PRESENTED IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
DW
G
:
K
:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
M
a
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8
/
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
3
4
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+50
LANDSIDE MARSHSIDE
EXISTING GRADE, TYP
S = 21:1
S = 20:1
EMBARCADERO ROAD 15'
20'
(E) TRAIL
EL 18 - SAFER LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT WITH
2' WAVE RUN-UP + 3' SEA LEVEL RISE, TYP
ECOTONE DESIGN
GRADE, TYP
MARSH CHANNEL
APPROX EDGE OF MARSH
(NO MARSH FILL)
MATCH SAFER
LEVEE AT EL 13
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
EL 13 - MIN LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT
WITH CURRENT SEA LEVEL, TYP
1
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
38'
EL 16 - REDUCED LEVEE DESIGN HEIGHT
WITH ECOTONE + 3' SEA LEVEL RISE, TYP
3
SUBSURFACE TREATMENT LAYER, TYP
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+31
MARSHSIDELANDSIDE
EMBARCADERO ROAD 15'
MATCH SAFER
LEVEE AT EL 13
3
1
APPROX EDGE OF MARSH
S = 10:1
ECOTONE SLOPE
36'
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
Scale
10 5 0
Feet
10 20
C
2
SECTION
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
NOTE: EXISTING GRADE SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC LIDAR (USGS, 2010), AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE NOAA OFFICE
FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ELEVATIONS ARE PRESENTED IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
FIGURE 5
EMBARCADERO SOUTH
CROSS SECTION
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
3
6
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
D
2
SECTION
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
0+10 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+50
EMBARCADERO ROAD 8'16'
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
S = 10:1
ECOTONE SLOPE
38'MARSHSIDELANDSIDE
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+50
EMBARCADERO ROAD
S = 20:1
S = 24:1
15'16'
BUILD BERM TO EL 11
APPROX EDGE
OF MARSH
MATCH GRADE
AT EL 7.5±
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
NEW TRAIL
6' - 8'
MARSHSIDELANDSIDE
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
0+10 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+50
EXISTING
EMBARCADERO ROAD
S = 20:1
RAISE EMBARCADERO
ROAD TO EL 12
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
MARSHSIDELANDSIDE
Scale
10 5 0
Feet
10 20
F1
2
SECTION (WITH BERM)
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
NOTE: EXISTING GRADE SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC LIDAR (USGS, 2010), AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE NOAA OFFICE
FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ELEVATIONS ARE PRESENTED IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
FIGURE 6
EMBARCADERO NORTH
CROSS SECTIONS
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
3
9
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
E
2
SECTION
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
F2
2
SECTION (RAISE ROAD)
EMBARCADERO ROAD
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
EMBARCADER
O
R
O
A
D
DUCK POND
SAFER LEVEE
REACH 10 OPTION 1
EXISTING 2" RECYCLED
WATER LINE (APPROX)
RW RW RW RW RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
RW
EXISTING TRAIL, TYP
CONSTRUCT
BERM TO EL 10
CONSTRUCT
BERM TO EL 10
TREATMENT AREA, TYP
SLOPE 30:1
MARSH, TYP
EL 6 TO 8
ECOTONE, TYP
EL 8 TO 10
RELOCATED EXISTING
TRAIL TO NEW BERM
RELOCATED EXISTING
TRAIL TO NEW BERM
G8
H8
30
:
1
30:1
30:1
50
:
1
30
:
1
30
:
1
30
:
1
30:
1
40
:
1
NEW TRAIL, TYP
N Scale
0
Feet
50 25 50 100
FIGURE 7
DUCK POND
PLAN VIEW
DW
G
:
K
:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
D
U
C
K
P
O
N
D
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
M
a
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8
/
7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
4
8
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015.
SAVE THE BAY NURSERY AND RANGER SHOP
COULD BE MAINTAINED IN FUTURE DESIGN IF
NECESSARY
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80
S = 32:1
S = 30:1MATCH GRADE
AT EL 6±
BUILD BERM TO EL 10
16'
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
DUCK POND
EXISTING GRADE, TYP
MARSHSIDE
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 13
50'
ECOTONE DESIGN GRADE, TYP
(E) TRAIL
SUBSURFACE TREATMENT LAYER, TYP
NEW TRAIL
6'-8'
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80
S = 49:1
S = 30:1
BUILD BERM TO EL 10
16'
MATCH GRADE AT EL 6±
SLOPE VARIES;
20:1 OR FLATTER
(E) TRAIL
LANDSIDEMARSHSIDE
TREATMENT AREA, SEE FIGURE 7
50'
NEW TRAIL
6'-8'
Scale
10 5 0
Feet
10 20
G
7
SECTION
DUCK POND
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
H
7
SECTION
DUCK POND
VERT: 1" = 10'
HORIZ: 1" = 20'
NOTE: EXISTING GRADE SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON USGS TOPOGRAPHIC LIDAR (USGS, 2010), AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE NOAA OFFICE
FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ELEVATIONS ARE PRESENTED IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
FIGURE 8
DUCK POND
CROSS SECTIONS
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
5
2
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
HISTORIC SHORELINE
PIPELINE
MARINE WAY
SPUR PIPELINE
SHORELINE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
CHARLESTON
SLOUGH
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS
POND A1
SHORELINE LAKE
COAST CASEY
FOREBAY
BAYLANDS NATURE
PRESERVE
RWRWRW
RW
RW
IR
R
IR
R
IR
R
IR
R
IR
R
FIGURE 10
POND A-1 WEST
FIGURE 11
POND A-1 EAST
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
E
C
R
E
E
K
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION
PROJECT GRADING BOUNDARY, TYP
N Scale
0
Feet
150 75 150 300
FIGURE 9
POND A-1 OVERVIEW
NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015. SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION (60% DESIGN) BY
DUCKS UNLIMITED (2017).
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
B
S
P
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
7
:
5
8
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
HISTORIC SHORELINE
PIPELINE
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS
POND A1
J12
MATCH NEW HTZ
GRADE AT EL 6±
MATCH EXISTING
GRADE AT EL 12
MATCH NEW LEVEE
GRADE AT EL 12
MARSH, TYP
EL 6 TO 9
TREATMENT AREA
SLOPE 20:1
ECOTONE, TYP
EL 9 T O 12
20:
1
20
:
1
20
:
1
COUNT CASEY FOREBAY
CHARLESTON SLOUGH
NE
W
L
E
V
E
E
T
O
P
NEW
L
E
V
E
E
T
O
P
NEW LEVEE TO
P
3:
1
2:
1
30:
1
30
:
1
3
0
:
1
30
:
1
20
:
1
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION
PROJECT GRADING BOUNDARY, TYP
2:1
2:1
3:
1
3:
1
3
:
1
3:
1
N Scale
0
Feet
40 20 40 80
FIGURE 10
POND A-1 WEST
PLAN VIEW
NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015. SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION (60% DESIGN) BY
DUCKS UNLIMITED (2017).
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
B
S
P
D
E
T
A
I
L
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
8
:
0
5
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS
POND A1
HISTORIC SHORELINE
PIPELINE
K12
L
12
20:
1
20
:
1
MATCH NEW HTZ
GRADE AT EL 6.5±
MATCH EXISTING
GRADE AT EL 12
MATCH EXISTING
GRADE AT EL 11
ECOTONE, TYP
EL 9 TO 12
MARSH, TYP
EL 6.5 TO 9
TREATMENT AREA, TYP
SLOPE 20:1
SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION
PROJECT GRADING BOUNDARY, TYP
2
8
:
1
40
:
1
4
0
:
1
24
:
1
PER
M
A
N
E
N
T
E
C
R
E
E
K
FIGURE 11
POND A-1 EAST
PLAN VIEW
NOTE: AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY FROM NORTHROP GRUMMAN (2015), AS DOWNLOADED FROM USGS EARTH EXPLORER DATABASE. IMAGERY WAS
COLLECTED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20 TO FEBRUARY 24, 2015. SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION (60% DESIGN) BY
DUCKS UNLIMITED (2017).
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
B
S
P
D
E
T
A
I
L
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
8
:
0
7
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
N Scale
0
Feet
40 20 40 80
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40
S = 20:1
POND A1
IMPROVED COAST CASEY
FOREBAY (CCF) LEVEE, TYP
(N) HABITAT TRANSITION
ZONE (HTZ) GRADING, TYP;
SLOPE 30:1
ECOTONE DESIGN GRADE, TYP
(E) LEVEE
COAST CASEY FOREBAY
MATCH CCF LEVEE AT EL 12
MATCH HTZ
AT EL 6±
EXISTING GRADE, TYP
TOP OF HTZ GRADING
EL 9.0
24'
TOP OF NEW LEVEE
EL 17.02
1
SUBSURFACE
TREATMENT LAYER, TYP
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+00 4+20 4+40
S = 20:1
MATCH (E) GRADE AT EL 12
MATCH HTZ AT EL 6.5±(N) HTZ GRADING, TYP;
SLOPE 40:1
POND A1 LANDFILL
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0+00 0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 1+80 2+00 2+20 2+40 2+60 2+80 3+00 3+20 3+40 3+60 3+80 4+004+04
POND A1 LANDSIDE
(N) HTZ GRADING, TYP;
SLOPE 40:1
MATCH HTZ AT EL 7.3±
S = 20:1
MATCH (E) GRADE AT EL 11
Scale
0
Feet
15 7.5 15 30
J
10
SECTION
POND A1
VERT: 1" = 7.5'
HORIZ: 1" = 15'
K
11
SECTION
POND A1
VERT: 1" = 7.5'
HORIZ: 1" = 15'
NOTE: EXISTING GRADE SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON DUCKS UNLIMITED (2017) 60% DESIGN FOR SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS RESTORATION
PROJECT. ELEVATIONS ARE PRESENTED IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988.
L
11
SECTION
POND A1
VERT: 1" = 7.5'
HORIZ: 1" = 15'
FIGURE 12
POND A-1 CROSS
SECTIONS
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
8
:
1
1
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
LEVEE CREST
SAFER LEVEE AT EL 16-17
(N) BERMS AT EL 11
MATCH LEVEE
AT EL 12-13
LEVEE OR
BERM CORE
50' TOTAL TREATMENT AREA
13'± OFFSET
5'
DISTRIBUTION TRENCH/CHANNEL 5'
COLLECTION TRENCH/CHANNEL40'
SUBSURFACE TREATMENT ZONE
ECOTONE HABITAT ZONE
20 TO 30
1
20-50
1
1
3
EXISTING GRADE VARIES
EL 8-9
18"-THICK ECOTONE SOIL LAYER
6"-THICK SAND FILTER LAYER
1'-THICK GRAVEL DRAIN LAYER
GEOTEXTILE SEPARATION FABRIC
NATIVE SOIL, TYP
EL 10.25 - 11.25OPTIONAL TRAIL
6' - 8'
Scale
0
Feet
4 2 4 8
1
-
TYPICAL SECTION
ECOTONE TREATMENT AREA
VERT: 1" = 8'
HORIZ: 1" = 8'
2' ECOTONE SOIL
FIGURE 13
ECOTONE TREATMENT
AREA TYPICAL SECTION
DW
G
:
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
_
2
0
1
2
\
D
1
2
0
0
4
2
.
0
3
-
O
r
o
L
o
m
a
I
R
W
M
P
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
\
0
9
C
A
D
\
D
w
g
s
\
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
.
d
w
g
U
S
E
R
:
Ma
r
i
s
a
L
a
n
d
i
c
h
o
P
L
O
T
D
A
T
E
:
8/7
/
2
0
1
8
1
:
5
8
:
1
2
P
M
ORO LOMA IRWMP SUPPORT . D120042.03
Phase 1
Embacadero
Embarcadero
Build‐Out
South Bay Salt
Ponds Duck Ponds
Phase 1
Embacadero
Embarcadero
Build‐Out
South Bay Salt
Ponds Duck Ponds
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED UNIT OF UNIT
NO. QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY MEASURE PRICE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
0 Treatment Length 590 930 1,845 820 LF ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
1 Mobilization & Demobilization (7%)1111LS10% $ 98,700 $ 193,200 $ 217,600 $ 155,400
2 SWPPP Implementation 2.3 4.3 5.4 3.6 AC $ 10,000 $ 23,000 $ 43,000 $ 54,000 $ 36,000
Clearing & Grubbing
3 Disc Grading Area 2.3 4.3 5.4 3.6 AC $ 1,000 $ 2,300 $ 4,300 $ 5,400 $ 3,600
Earthwork
4 Remove & Stockpile Topsoil (Upper 1') 3,700 7,000 8,700 5,800 CY $ 15 $ 55,500 $ 105,000 $ 130,500 $ 87,000
5 Excavation to Ecotone Subgrade 9,700 22,600 0 10,900 CY $ 10 $ 97,000 $ 226,000 $ ‐ $ 109,000
6 Furnish & Install Geotextile Fabric 6,700 10,500 16,400 9,900 SY $ 5 $ 33,500 $ 52,500 $ 82,000 $ 49,500
7 Import & Place Gravel 1,400 2,100 4,200 1,900 CY $ 50 $ 70,000 $ 105,000 $ 210,000 $ 95,000
8 Import & Place Sand 440 690 1,370 610 CY $ 50 $ 22,000 $ 34,500 $ 68,500 $ 30,500
9 Import, Mix, & Place Blended Ecotone Soil 6,800 13,000 16,000 10,800 CY $ 30 $ 204,000 $ 390,000 $ 480,000 $ 324,000
Revegetation
10 Drill Seeding 2.3 4.3 5.4 3.6 AC $ 8,000 $ 18,400 $ 34,400 $ 43,200 $ 28,800
11 Plantings (per acre, assuming 2' O.C.) 2.3 4.3 5.4 3.6 AC $ 40,000 $ 92,000 $ 172,000 $ 216,000 $ 144,000
Infrastructure
11 WWTP Connection (pump station, turnout, controls, etc.)1111LS $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000
13 Pipeline Connection to WWTP or Ex Irr Line 660 660 2,850 2,210 LF $ 175 $ 115,500 $ 115,500 $ 498,750 $ 386,750
14 Distribution Line to Treatment Area 700 2,500 1,450 670 LF $ 150 $ 105,000 $ 375,000 $ 217,500 $ 100,500
15 Discharge (box, valves, flow meters, etc) 4 13 8 4 EA $ 10,000 $ 40,000 $ 130,000 $ 80,000 $ 40,000
Public Access
16 New Trail (8' Wide) 900 2,710 0 1,420 LF $ 20 $ 18,000 $ 54,200 $ ‐ $ 28,400
$ 1,085,000 $ 2,125,000 $ 2,393,000 $ 1,708,000
35% $ 380,000 $ 744,000 $ 838,000 $ 598,000
$ 1,465,000 $ 2,869,000 $3,231,000 $2,306,000
4%/yr $ 1,650,000 $ 3,230,000 $3,630,000 $2,590,000
1
2 These estimates are subject to refinement and revisions as the design is developed in future stages of the project.
3 This table does not include estimated project costs for permitting, design, monitoring, or ongoing maintenance.
4 Estimated costs are developed in 2018 dollars, and escalated to 2021 dollars assuming a 4% annual escalation.
5 This opinion of probable construction cost is based on ESA's previous project experience and bid prices from similar projects.
6
For planning purposes we have provided order of magnitude estimates to allow cost comparison of alternatives. These cost estimates are intended to provide an approximation of total projects
construction costs appropriate for the conceptual level of design. These cost estimates are considered to be approximately ‐30% to +50% accurate and include a 35% contingency to account for project
uncertainties (such as final design, permitting restrictions and bidding climate).
This estimate does not include earthwork associated with building levees designed by others (i.e. SAFER levee or the South Bay Salt Ponds restoration). We assume excess material will be mixed within
the ecotone soil, or used for levee construction. Earthwork units costs assume no off‐haul.
TABLE 4
PALO ALTO
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ‐ OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY:
TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (2018 DOLLARS):
ESCALATED TOTAL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (2021 DOLLARS):
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PETER JENSEN, PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: November 27, 2018
SUBJECT: PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN –
REVIEW OF MASTER PLAN GOALS AND STATUS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will present the scope of work for the Cubberley synthetic turf replacement project and the
addition of a new restroom facility adjacent to the synthetic field. No action will be taken.
BACKGROUND
The proposed renovation work to the Cubberley Play Field area encompasses two separate Capital
Improvement Projects focused on and within the area of the existing synthetic turf field.
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) CB-19001 for an amount of $1,851,708 to replace the synthetic field,
which is at the end of its lifecycle of 8-10 years, previously being installed in 2009. The scope of work
also identified in the CIP includes changing the current decomposed granite athlete track around the
synthetic field to a rubberized all-weather track and the installation of a defined multi-generational
work out area of rubberized surfacing for open use and group activities.
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) CB-17002 for approximately $430,000 to add a new prefabricated
restroom facility adjacent to the existing synthetic turf field.
Both projects are funded by the City’s Cubberley Property Infrastructure Fund.
DISCUSSION
Synthetic Field Replacement
The useful life of a synthetic turf field is 8 – 10 years. Heavy use of synthetic turf breaks down the length
of the synthetic turf blade. The reduced length of the blade, as the synthetic becomes worn, cannot
maintain the in fill material used to keep its required attenuation or padding. This infill material, usually
a mix of sand and a rubberized pellets, gives the field its cushion and helps maintain an overall even
surface. When the synthetic turf blade becomes too short as is the case with the current Cubberley field
then the synthetic turf is required to be replaced.
The proposed replacement of the synthetic turf at Cubberley will match the turf used at the recently
replaced Stanford Play Fields on the Corner of El Camino and Page Mill, as well as the material used on
the field at El Camino Park. Upon replacement of these existing turf fields the city required testing to be
performed on turf types recommended by different suppliers. The test performed was to identify a turf
and infill material that were the most environmentally sensitive, reducing run off of contaminants that
was associated with older synthetic turf types and infill; especially those using recycle tires as a part of
the infill mix. The synthetic turf type and in fill material used on the Stanford and El Camino Fields meet
or are below federal standards of the identified pollutants, and were the selected materials to be
iinstalled. As is the case with any bid project a contractor can propose using another turf and infill
material, but would have to submit the results of the product testing to gain approval to use. More
discussion is planned with the field user stakeholders to determine how the field will be stripped, but it’s
anticipated it will match the layout of the Stanford Play Fields.
Another aspect that will be added to the field design and bid out as a bid alternate is the addition of a
pad under the new turf field. The current Cubberley field has no pad underlayment. A pad provides for
greater attenuation and a softer overall surface. The pad will be included if funding is available to do
so.
Two other bid alternate items will also be added to the project scope if funding is available. These two
items include the replacement of the decomposed granite pathway with a rubberized all-weather track
and the addition of an approximate 20’ by 20’ area of rubberized surfacing for multi-generational
activities including yoga and stretching that can be used by individuals or groups. These items are being
bid as bid alternatives due to their high costs. As a bid alternate item the city has the opportunity to
select which of the bid alternatives are going to be included in the actual installation depending on
overall budget. If these items were included as part of the base bid and went over the project budget
amount then a second round of bidding would need to be performed. Due to the escalation in the
current construction market staff is concerned that the proposed track and work out space will put the
project budget over the available funding and recommends these items as bid alternates for flexibility
purposes. If current funding is not adequate to install the all-weather track the current decomposed
granite track will remain and be repaired with the addition of a binder sprayed onto the surface to
make it more useable surface in wet weather. A future standalone project to install the all-weather
track would also be proposed to install at a later date.
A community meeting was held in the evening on Thursday November 15th to review the scope of the
project and to provide an opportunity for input. Seven community members attended the meeting as
well as a few who provided comments via. email. It was unanimously agreed that the turf needs to be
replaced. Meeting participants were also in favor of the addition of the all-weather track and the work
out area. There was concern from the community about the addition of lighting to the field, which is
not part of this current field replacement CIP. Current field lighting needs are being meet by the field
lighting pilot program, but no further conversations have been had about adding permeant lighting and
no funding has been identified.
New Restroom Facility
The proposed new restroom is a much needed facility to the heavily programed Cubberley synthetic
field. Currently portable restrooms are used on site to meet the users demand, but these are not ideal
for the many users groups and the community’s needs.
The city has identified a location on the east side of the existing main bleachers on the north side of the
field adjacent to the main access walk to the parking lot and surrounding neighborhood as well as the
two turf fields that also exist.
The City is proposing using a prefabricated restroom unit like previously installed at Juanas Briones Park
and the new renovated golf course. Prefabricated restroom units are cost effective and insure that all
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement have been meet. The City is specifying an Exeloo
brand restroom. Providing durable amenities along with automated security features the Exeloo
restroom is recommended by staff, and is currently being specified and used by surrounding cities. As
stated previously a bidding contractor is allowed to submit another prefabricated restroom type but it
would need to be approved by staff and provide similar features of the Exeloo restroom.
Key features associated with the Exeloo restroom include: Ease of installation, reduced concrete pad for
installation, anti-graffiti exterior, multiple paint color options, accessible service area, a supply/storage
area, changing tables(adult size), timed locking doors (park hours only), timed limit door locking control
(10 minutes max. per use), in wall sink, stainless steel amenities, ease of cleaning (can be washed out),
Interior security motion detector lighting, vandal proof exterior lighting and ample venting. Refer to
Exhibit ‘A’ for the restroom layout. Staff is recommending the ‘Jupiter’ style of restroom with two ample
sized universal ADA stalls. The installation of the sewer line to the new restroom location from Nelson
Drive will have the biggest impact on field users. It’s currently being proposed to be trenched along the
edge of the current asphalt path, but may need to be trenched under the path depending on other
utilities. In either condition a portion of the pathway will remain open for access to Cubberley by the
adjacent neighborhood to the south. The scope of work will include repaving the existing asphalt path.
As with the synthetic turf field the restroom was reviewed by the community at the November 15th
meeting. All attendees were supportive of adding a restroom to the site. The restroom will go through
the Architectural Review Board process where a choice of natural colors will be discussed and selected.
Cubberley Master Planning Process
Currently a community master planning process is underway for the entire Cubberley site. In early
community meetings no suggestion of eliminating or relocating the current synthetic turf field have
been proposed. Staff is confident that the replacement of the current synthetic field and the installation
of a new restroom will not have any conflict with the final recommendations of the master planning
process. As mentioned previously the life span for a synthetic turf field is 8 - 10 years. If any relocation
of the field was to occur it’s unlikely to be done prior to the field needing replacement. A benefit of
using a prefabricated restroom is the ability to pick it up and move it if necessary. Due to the time line
of the master planning process and the flexibility to replace or relocate the proposed improvements
staff recommends moving forward with each project, as they are both needed and supported by the
community.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element
of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community
assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure
adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
ATTACHMENT
A. Prefabricated Restroom Exhibit ‘A’