HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-18 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 Special Meeting December 18th, 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 November 27th, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
PRC Chair McDougall – Action (20 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Aquatics Annual Report – Stephanie Douglas - Discussion (40 min) ATTACHMENT
3.Pickleball Update – Adam Howard – Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
4. Presentation from Grassroots Ecology – Alex Von Feldt - Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
5. Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Update – Daren Anderson - Discussion (40 min)ATTACHMENT
6.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min)
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 22nd, 2019 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
November 27, 2018 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, Don McDougall, and 13
Keith Reckdahl (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) 14
Commissioners Absent: Anne Cribbs, David Moss 15
Others Present: 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane, Natalie Khwaja 17
I. ROLL CALL 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19
Chair McDougall: Are there any Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions from any of the 20
Commission members? I will note that I think we can move through the agenda pretty 21
much on schedule. We do have an offer that if we get to Number 5, the Cubberley 22
Community Center, that could be either done very briefly or moved to another time. I'm 23
determined that we do the rest of the agenda well enough that we get to that item. I think 24
it's an important item for the members here. If there are no other proposals to change the 25 agenda, I'd like to invite comments, Oral Communications, from members of the 26 community on topics other than the topics we have here. 27
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 28
Chair McDougall: The first card I have is from Monica Williams. 29
Monica Williams: Good evening, Chair McDougall and Commissioners. I'm Monica 30
Williams, President of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. On behalf of our members, I'd like 31
to give you an update on the growth of pickleball in Palo Alto. We play every weekday at 32
Mitchell Park. Yesterday, one of our volunteers, Kathy Levinson, offered a free pickleball 33
clinic. Forty-four people showed up. We also had ten people playing on the two new 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
pickleball courts, a total of 54 people, and that was on a Monday morning. The National 1
Championships have just been held in Indian Wells, which is the home of the second largest 2
tennis stadium in the world. Over 2,000 participants played on 40 pickleball courts. We're 3
very proud that some of our members of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club won two gold medals 4
and three silver medals competing against the very best players in the nation. Every 5
weekday, weather permitting, we are inundated by many residents coming to Mitchell Park 6 to play or to learn how to play pickleball. This is a community feast for friendship, 7
exercise, and camaraderie. Unfortunately, the two new pickleball courts can accommodate 8
only eight people. The City of Santa Cruz has four permanent pickleball courts. Foster 9
City has four. Walnut Creek has eight. Sunnyvale has just installed four permanent courts, 10
and Concord has 14. Clearly, Palo Alto Parks and Recreation is lagging far behind its 11
neighbors. Just a year ago, we were presented with a Proclamation for the health benefits 12
pickleball provides the community. However, we're still playing pickleball every weekday 13
morning on three dilapidated and filthy tennis courts next to the Magical Playground. Each 14
day we have to get out of storage and set up 11 portable nets, whilst four just recently 15
resurfaced and beautiful tennis courts are mostly empty. We have given you all the 16
pickleball data you could possibly need, so our question is what can we do to actually make 17
something happen. Thank you. 18
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Monica. Mark Wiesel [sic]. 19
Mark Wiess: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Mark Weiss. I live in Palo Alto. 20
I was one of 40 or so local residents who came out on November 10th for a glorious 21
morning up at Foothills Park. I saw Commissioners Greenfield, Reckdahl, and McDougall 22
there as well as staff, Daren. I want to give kudos to staff, Commissioners, the grand jury, 23
and activists for helping us finally dedicate the 7.7 acres of park. I look forward to seeing 24
what else we can do with that spot. What I'm here for tonight actually is Rinconada Pool. 25 I have been quite disturbed from what I have seen in the press. I've read the staff report, 26 and I've had a few conversations with this, including some ad hoc time running into staff 27 in the lobby or at the café. I've lived here quite a while. I'm kind of a duffer as a lap 28
swimmer. My sense is that this isn't quite right, so I'm really glad staff and Council pushed 29
it back to December 10th. I apologize that I did not come to the meeting when it was on 30
the agenda. I know you did adjudicate it or discuss it, deliberate it. I know we have an 31
Olympic swimmer as a Commissioner. My sense is we can get a better deal. If we're going 32
to privatize an asset like that, I think we can get a much, much, much, much, much better 33
deal in comparison. I've been doing events in Palo Alto for 25 years, not quite a PPP, but 34
I have rented the Cubberley theater for a number of times and produced events in the parks, 35
including as recently as October 18th I rented Mitchell Park for a jazz concert with Alison 36
Miller, who was on tour. I paid $1,000 for one night. It ended up being more than 50 37
percent of my budget. I cannot believe that the best we can do is 1 percent for an asset like 38
that. Of the first $1 million, we're getting $10,000. That seems abominable. I'm sorry if 39
that's disrespectful. I think we have to look harder at this. I have a hard time believing that 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
out of 60 RFPs the only person that responded was the ad hoc incumbent. If we can't stop 1
it dead in its tracks and rethink this, maybe just give them a year. As an externality, Carol 2
MacPherson and Terri Baxter are very well known in the community. It's a smallish group, 3
but I really don't think you want to displace our Masters either. Thank you. 4
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Mark Weiss. 5
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 6
Chair McDougall: The next item on the agenda is the Department Report. 7
Kristen O'Kane: Thank you. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. I have a few things, 8
and then I'll turn it over to Daren Anderson, who has some additional items to report on. 9
The first is I did want to let you know and Monica know too that we will be bringing 10
pickleball to the December meeting. It will be on the agenda, and we're hoping to have a 11
little bit more movement on a plan for some additional pickleball courts. We're still 12
working out some details. I just wanted to let everyone know there will be something. 13
That meeting is December 18th, not the normal fourth Tuesday. We are making some 14
progress. As you know, things just take some time. There's a lot of little details to work 15
out. We're working on that. A reminder. Everyone knows that the aquatics item did get 16
moved from last night's Council meeting to the December 10th Council meeting. We don't 17
have it on the agenda tonight, so we aren't discussing it. I just wanted to remind everyone 18
of that and just say that we're continuing to communicate with the different parties. Our 19
City Manager will be meeting with Carol MacPherson and will also be meeting separately 20
with Tim Sheeper. We're continuing to have dialog on the issue. We'll go from there. 21
Finally, an event coming up this Friday is our annual Holiday Tree Lighting event in Lytton 22
Plaza at 6:00 p.m. There are lots of performances by youth and adults, all holiday-themed. 23
I hope some of you or all of you can come out and enjoy the tree. Thank you. I'll turn it 24
over to Daren now. 25
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf. I wanted 26 to thank the Commissioners that were able to attend that Saturday, November 10th, grand 27 opening and ribbon cutting for the 7.7-acre area. That went really well. Once again, I want 28
to thank all the Commissioners and ad hoc members who attended and helped make it 29
happen, especially Chair McDougall for helping emcee. He did a really nice job. Thank 30
you for that. I want to remind people that there's a Baylands Comprehensive Conservation 31
Plan meeting this Thursday, 6:30 p.m., at the Mitchell Park Community Center, Adobe 32
Room. We'll be covering the preferred ITT/Renzel Wetlands concept. This is something 33
the Commission weighed in heavily. There's the revised plan that reflects all the feedback 34
that we presented. We'll also discuss the draft action plan, which has the elements, goals, 35
methodology, and maps, and then a draft Byxbee Park conceptual plan and get input from 36
our stakeholders. We'll be bringing that back to the full Commission soon. The Baylands 37
Boardwalk project, I just wanted to give you an update. The project is progressing well 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
now. However, there were some delays in getting the wood necessary for the project, much 1
later than we thought. It will mean missing the original date that they had targeted 2
completion, which was January 6th. However, the contractor is still confident that they'll 3
meet the deadline of their permit, which is January 31st. They still believe they'll meet it, 4
but just wanted to apprise you due to the delay. We think the project will be a little longer 5
than anticipated. In about 4-6 weeks, we'll be adding a bike rack to the golf course, 6 something we've talked a little bit about in the past and decided to finally make that happen. 7
It should have been included in the original design, but we're going to make it right now. 8
It'll be located near the front door to the café. I wanted to also update you on the Foothills 9
Park trails. We had 2.1 inches of rain this month at Foothills Park. I was concerned about 10
how those new rerouted trails would fair. It's uncompacted soil. As you know, the previous 11
areas had been washed out with rain. So far they've held up really well, and we'll be 12
monitoring it with the next significant rain event. That concludes the Department Report. 13
Chair McDougall: Are there any questions or comments for Daren or Kristen? 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Regarding the Baylands Boardwalk, does that mean it will be open 15
by the end of January? 16
Mr. Anderson: I believe so unless there's some last-minute button-up work that's 17
unaffiliated with or doesn't interfere with the permit regulations, things that wouldn't cause 18
any noise, that kind of thing, small punch list items. Other than that, I believe it would be 19
at the end of January we'd open. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Would we want to consider some kind of soft opening for the 21
Boardwalk similar to what we did at the 7.7 acres at Foothills Park? 22
Mr. Anderson: I think that's very appropriate. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: Finally, great work on the trails. I was out on all the new trails on 24
Friday just after it had rained. Things were in good shape. 25
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 26
Chair McDougall: Any other questions or comments? 27
Commissioner McCauley: Kristen, not to go into the substantive negotiations, is the staff 28
anticipating for the aquatics program to make a different recommendation than they 29
presented to the Commission last month? 30
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you for that question. The item was moved because the agenda was 31
very full last night. The last item finished at 11:00. They were anticipating that the aquatics 32
item wouldn't start until 10:45, 11:00. In anticipation of that, that's why it was moved to 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
December 10th. The exact same staff report will be posted this Thursday that was posted 1
for last night's meeting. 2
Commissioner McCauley: Do you anticipate any resolution of the issue between 3
Rinconada Masters and Team Sheeper? 4
Ms. O'Kane: When you say resolution—I'm a little hesitant to go into too much detail just 5
because this isn't an item on our agenda tonight. Could you clarify what you mean by a 6 resolution? 7
Commissioner McCauley: We obviously at our last meeting heard from lots folks who 8
expressed concern about the staff recommendation as it stood in October. It principally 9
dealt with the Rinconada Masters program and the perception that it wouldn't be renewed. 10
At that time, there was still negotiations going on between the City and Team Sheeper. I 11
don't know if those negotiations have concluded or not. If they have, do you anticipate that 12
that issue is resolved? 13
Ms. O'Kane: The contract was negotiated, and the contract signed by Team Sheeper is 14
included in the staff report. We expect to have the same staff recommendation going 15
forward on December 10th. 16
Commissioner McCauley: Forgive me. I haven't seen the staff report that went to the 17
Council. What is that recommendation? 18
Ms. O'Kane: To approve the contract. 19
Commissioner McCauley: Including a subcontract with Rinconada Masters? 20
Ms. O'Kane: No. It's a contract with Team Sheeper just as Jazmin presented to you on 21
October 23rd. 22
Commissioner McCauley: There isn't a resolution at this time concerning any subcontract 23
with Team Sheeper and Rinconada Masters? 24
Ms. O'Kane: It's not part of the staff recommendation. 25
Commissioner McCauley: I understand that the staff recommendation is limited to the 26 other piece. I'm just wondering is the other component resolved, we think it will be 27 resolved, or is it still something that is outstanding and unlikely to be resolved. 28
Ms. O'Kane: I'm hesitant on what to say in this venue, again because this isn't an agendized 29
item. I feel like we're getting into the weeds on this item. As I said, we're presenting the 30
contract to Council. It's a contract between the City and Team Sheeper. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Chair McDougall: I would agree. With due respect to Commissioner McCauley's interest 1
and questions, because it's not agendized, we're on shaky ground. I would prefer that we 2
move on to the next item. Thank you. I do want to add a couple of comments. Relative 3
to the 7.7 acres and that opening, it's really important that we recognize the work that Daren 4
and his crew did and particularly the work that Kathleen and her crew did. They were up 5
there doing all sorts of stuff the day before, when I went up and checked over there. The 6 Rangers just did a wonderful, wonderful job in the event and in preparation for the event. 7
Please pass on our thanks to them. You mentioned the Baylands Comprehensive Plan. I 8
plan on attending, and I want to encourage the other Commissioners to attend. That's 9
getting to a really interesting point where we can make contributions. I agree with the 10
comment about soft opening. I would go so far as to say in this particular case we don't 11
need to do a soft opening like we did. We could just do an official reopening or whatever. 12
The kind of reaction we got from Council Members for the 7.7 acres—any Baylands 13
publicity and any publicity that we can get for the kind of work that's being done would be 14
useful. I know you can't pick a date to have that opening yet. It doesn't even necessarily 15
need to be on that exact date or something, but I would encourage that. I'd like to echo the 16
work you did with the trail and the follow-up work with the trails. With that, I'd like to 17
move on to the next agenda item, which is the approval of the draft minutes from 18
October 23rd. 19
V. BUSINESS 20
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 23, 2018 Parks and Recreation 21
Commission meeting. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield requested "rule" on page 37, line 5, be revised to "role." 23
Approval of the draft October 23, 2018 Minutes as amended was moved by Vice Chair 24
Greenfield and seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl. Passed 5-0, Cribbs and Moss absent 25
2. Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan 26
Ms. O'Kane: Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. I just wanted to introduce two of our 27 Public Works staff, Karin North and Pam Boyle-Rodriguez. Tonight, we have a Public 28
Works-focused agenda, which is great because we don't hear from them that often. The 29
first item is on the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. I'll go ahead and turn that over 30
to Karin and Pam. 31
Karin North: Hi, Commissioners. This is Karin North, the Watershed Protection Manager. 32
Pam Boyle-Rodriguez is my fantastic stormwater manager, and she's been working fast 33
and furious as well as Sarcart Suk [phonetic]. Our staff has been working fast and furious 34
on this Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan. Pam's actually going to be the one giving 35
the presentation. I just wanted to introduce her since you have not met her yet. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Pam Boyle-Rodriguez: Today, we wanted to share with you some information about what 1
we've been doing to develop our Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan or GSI Plan. We're 2
going to talk about what GSI is, a little bit of background about the plan and the stormwater 3
permit that requires the plan, and some challenges that we ran into while we've been 4
developing the plan and proposed solutions, and our next steps. First of all, what is GSI? 5
GSI, as I mentioned, is green stormwater infrastructure. Traditionally, we've been 6 managing stormwater by trying to get it from our driveways into the street and down the 7
gutter into the storm drain inlet. Unfortunately, that alleviates a lot of ponding and 8
flooding, but it picks up a lot of pollutants along the way from a lot of paved surfaces. 9
Those pollutants go into our storm drain system, straight into our creeks and our Bay 10
without getting treated. We're trying to look at how we integrate GSI, which uses more 11
natural processes. Right here on the right, you have what's called a bioretention area or 12
bioretention basin that has soil mix that has mostly compost and sand. It allows the water 13
to infiltrate. It has a particular plant palette there with plants that can uptake pollutants. 14
As you can see over here, there's a curb opening that is taking the stormwater runoff. If 15
there's too many storms in a row, there's something right here called an overflow, so it will 16
overflow into here, and it goes into the storm drain system. It doesn't go back onto the 17
street. What we're doing with this plan is trying to figure out, looking at our public 18
facilities, our right-of-way areas, how we can integrate GSI back into our system so that 19
it's a combination of the traditional approach and a newer approach with GSI. Here's an 20
example of a three-way intersection from the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project that 21
is being constructed right now. This is what it looks like now. The artist rendering here 22
shows that it's going to have much safer pedestrian and bike safety components. There's 23
going to be a lot of medians, a lot of increasing canopy along the corridor. Right here, 24
here's a bioretention area. You can see that there's curb openings to capture the runoff from 25 the street. It's, as you can see compared to here, sometimes called the bump-out. It allows 26 for cars that are approaching this pedestrian area and this intersection—they're forced to 27 slow down. Not only does this area help to treat stormwater, help infiltrate rain, but it also 28
provides some safety features to the street. It basically changes the name of this type of 29
street from a complete street, which has a lot of bike/ped safety, to what's called a 30
sustainable street. I want to go back to the top just to point out that—as you all know, this 31
is Mitchell Park. It has a green roof. It has some pervious parking, and it has medians that 32
receive the stormwater runoff from the parking. All those are types of GSI features 33
sometimes called stormwater treatment measures. This is from the Southgate 34
neighborhood. The bottom here is from our pump station at Matadero Creek that we just 35
finished. It has pervious pavement. This is a Middlefield-Kellogg project for bike safety. 36
Going back to the presentation over here, all the counties in the Bay Area have to meet 37
some requirements from the Regional Water Board that write a permit called a Municipal 38
Regional Permit or the MRP. One of the many requirements in there are that all cities in 39
the Bay Area have to submit to the Regional Board by the end of September 2019 a GSI 40
plan that identifies GSI project potential for all planned and future CIPs on City property 41
or on the right-of-way. They may or may not have projects or incentives, requirements for 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
private property but definitely have to identify potential for public property. That's why 1
we're working on this GSI plan, to submit it by September 2019. Last year, we had a 2
framework or an outline signed by our City Manager and submitted to the Regional Water 3
Board. A couple of other things we have to do is show as a county that the GSI 4
implementation does equal to pollutant load reductions to the Bay. That's done with a lot 5
of very calculated calculations that I'm not going to go into right now. This other bullet 6 about conduct early implementation, because the GSI plan takes a while to develop, the 7
Regional Board wanted us to make sure that we are identifying potential—to put GSI in 8
projects that are going in the ground now. A lot of large CIPs that have been identified, 9
Fire Station 3 that's going in now, are required because of the size of the project to have 10
GSI on the property. These are some of the basic components that are going to be in the 11
GSI plan. It's a pretty thick document. In general, we've identified various project 12
locations. These are all public properties owned by the City. Project locations, not project 13
concepts. We've prioritized those according to particular criteria that we think works for 14
the City. We have to have a system to track these projects, whether they're going to have 15
GSI or not. We have to show the Regional Water Board that we're really vetting these 16
projects as a City. We have to have guidelines and specifications for the construction of 17
these features. We have to integrate the concept of GSI in all our City plans, so we need 18
to update our Pedestrian and Bike Safety Plan; we need to update our Comp Plan. Luckily, 19
the Comp Plan was just updated, and it does have sufficient mention of it. The North 20
Ventura Coordinated Area Plan that is going on right now, we're working to integrate GSI 21
into that. Any future plans that come up, any future policies, we have to not only 22
acknowledge GSI but really integrate that concept into our work from now on. We have 23
to evaluate how we're going to fund the implementation of this plan. A lot of times plans 24
have to be created, and then they might get put on a shelf. The Regional Board is taking 25 this seriously, and they're making us really figure out how we're going to pay for these 26 projects. We have to come up with a plan, a schedule, basically all our next steps of how 27 we're going to make this plan happen. The next permit that's currently being negotiated 28
and going to be in play in a couple of years will probably have a lot of new requirements 29
about how we have to implement the plan. While we've been for several months working 30
to develop this plan and meeting with staff and doing a lot of research, we've identified 31
some challenges that we know we need to solve or find a solution to, so that we can 32
implement this plan successfully. One of those things is public and private properties aren't 33
using standard specifications for these GSI features, which can result in some issues. We're 34
inspecting these sites to determine how effective they are. There is also a related issue with 35
some of these things not being constructed according to design. We're going to be 36
contracting with a consultant to create some very specific engineering guidelines and 37
specifications that meet all the Public Works and Utilities requirements, so that we also 38
know how to deal with utilities that are in the street, whether they're existing or planned 39
updates. Another thing is the stormwater management fee passed last year. There is a 40
limited allocation to GSI. Most of that stormwater fee is going to our more traditional 41
storm drain system upgrades, which we also need. We need to identify some additional 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
funding. After the plan is accepted by City Council, one of our next steps is to work on a 1
very comprehensive funding needs and opportunity study, so that we can figure out how to 2
fund these projects, both construction and perhaps more importantly maintenance. We also 3
realized that we need to update our stormwater Muni Code. It just so happens that we're 4
also doing that right now. We're putting adequate language in there so that we have 5
sufficient authority to implement this plan per the permit and to enforce it. Probably one 6 of the most important things is we're working internally with a lot of staff and trying to 7
figure out what tools we need to put in place, so that we can now assess GSI potential in a 8
very standardized way. We're hoping to use a map-based process with GIS and criteria 9
that we all can agree on at least as a first step. We'd be doing field tours, site visits, and 10
things like that. We have to come up with that process so that we're considering it 11
consistently internally and we can present that to the public in a consistent manner. As you 12
know, we have a lot of facilities that already have GSI, Rinconada Library, Mitchell Park, 13
a couple of pump stations with pervious pavement, the Southgate neighborhood. We know 14
now that we're not maintaining these consistently, and we need more information about 15
how well they're doing, how well they're being maintained over time, are they being as 16
effective as they should be, as how they were designed. We need to monitor these better. 17
We need to maintain them more consistently. Staff needs to be trained, and contractors 18
need to be trained as well. We're also going to be hiring a consultant to help us with a 19
maintenance and monitoring plan, to assess our current features and to help us create 20
something for the future. As you probably know, there's mixed emotions about GSI, 21
especially when they're in certain parks and in neighborhoods. Not everybody might 22
appreciate all the benefits that a community can have from GSI. One thing we're going to 23
work on is an outreach strategy to try to share all the multiple benefits that GSI can bring. 24
When it's integrated with all the plans, I think that will also help. I don't know if any of 25 you saw this. Last summer, I think in August, there was this handout with our utility bill 26 insert. One thing that we tried to do was try to get people to think beyond a small-scale 27 cistern on a site or a pervious driveway. We're trying to get people to realize that we can 28
do this at a street level. There's a stormwater planter receiving roof runoff. There's 29
permeable pavement along the sidewalk. Here's a bioretention. There are two or three 30
here that are receiving runoff from the street. Here's a tree-well filter. They're called 31
suspended pavement systems, but they're basically like plastic crates that allow roots to 32
grow, allow the trees to grow tall, meet urban forestry guidelines with soil volume 33
requirements. Also, we can mix in soil that can infiltrate stormwater as well, the particular 34
soil mix that we use in the bioretention area. This was one of our first major steps to the 35
public to get folks to understand how large we can get Citywide. Our timeline. Here's a 36
general timeline. We over the summer completed what we call a 50-percent plan. We've 37
been meeting for over a year with the Stormwater Oversight Committee, which was 38
appointed to oversee the expenditures of the stormwater fee. We also met with the City 39
sustainability board, which has a lot of executive leadership on it. We're going to continue 40
working with the Stormwater Oversight Committee. Next month, we're presenting to the 41
Planning and Transportation Commission as well. Next month, we're hoping to have an 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
85-percent plan that we'll make available to everyone for review. Around February—it's 1
not in this timeline because it came about after we finished this—we're going to have a 2
public meeting and hope to have a 100-percent plan ready around March. We have some 3
time between April and June allotted in case we need to go to Council more than once, but 4
we're hoping to go to Council around April and get it accepted by June. As I mentioned, 5
it has to be submitted to the Regional Board with our annual report in September. For next 6 steps, we're really going to be digging even further into how we're going to implement this 7
internally. We have a website; we're going to improve our website. We're going to be 8
working on scopes of work and put out RFPs next year for those consultant products and 9
hopefully get our plan accepted next year, so we can really jump into implementation. 10
Thank you. 11
Chair McDougall: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? Jeff, I'll start with 12
you at that end. 13
Commissioner LaMere: Sure. I appreciate all your work with this. I think it's a great 14
environmental benefit to us, both getting pollutants out of the Bay and recharging 15
groundwater. Although slightly off topic, I always find it interesting to see what is put into 16
the stormwater drains. I'll walk by a house that's building a basement, and they're pumping 17
out millions of gallons of water into our storm drain, which is not on this topic but just 18
something that came to my mind. Will we be trying to do some projects that would affect 19
existing infrastructure, for example, Ross Road which already has bump-outs from when 20
they constructed the bicycle lane, the bicycle area? That seems like maybe low-hanging 21
fruit for that. Is that correct? 22
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: Yes. In front of the YMCA, it has one stormwater feature. To be 23
honest, it wasn't designed as best as it could be. I agree we should look at how to retrofit 24
some of those areas. Once we do the main monitoring plan and get a better sense of what 25 is not working well, then we should look at retrofitting. We'd have to talk to an engineer 26 about how easy it is to retrofit some of those areas. 27
Commissioner LaMere: It's interesting that we're also potentially talking about synthetic 28
turf tonight. That would seem to be a great project where we're worried about runoff from 29
the synthetic turf and how this could partner with that in capturing some of that runoff, 30
whether it's the pellets or whatever is on that artificial turf that we choose. Thank you very 31
much for your work with this. 32
Commissioner Reckdahl: I do think it's a very good thing to work on. Raising the water 33
table around a park is going to help the vegetation, help the trees. There's a lot of beneficial 34
aspects for the whole community. Big picture, is your plan, like best practices, just 35
recommendations or is it mandatory requirements for all these? 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: It's mandatory. We're requiring that all the plans be updated. We 1
can't necessarily require GSI at every single CIP or every single project because there's no 2
funding at the moment. That's the largest obstacle right now. What we are doing is 3
requiring that it become more of a standard operating procedure. When staff is considering 4
a project, one of the number one things is can you integrate GSI. It doesn't have to be 5
something like a major project; it could just be thinking about "I'm not going to let the roof 6 runoff go to the pavement. It's going to go to landscaping." How can we design this project 7
so that we minimize impervious surfaces? It can be just from looking at different ways to 8
design the site to doing more. What we've been talking about with the Public Safety 9
Building is there's going to be trees all along that area. I mentioned the trees with the 10
suspended pavement system, those plastic crate things. We're trying to see if we can 11
capture additional runoff from surrounding streets because those trees are going to be in 12
the sidewalk there anyway. They're being put in as part of the project. Can we leverage 13
that? Can we do a little bit more? We've done a rough calculation that for maybe $20,000 14
extra we can treat about 12,000 extra square feet of impervious surface. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is the hope that there will be a separate fund that would pay for 16
this or that the incremental cost would have to be absorbed by the project itself? 17
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: I think partly it's going to be absorbed by the CIP. The maintenance 18
for the item we're not sure how we're going to deal with. Like I said, to construction the 19
bioretention area is $20,000, but we have to maintain it for the life of the project. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: Would you anticipate that these requirements would be in the 21
form of like 10 percent of your budget has to go to this or you have to have these features? 22
How would you regulate this? 23
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: I would say we're not sure yet. I think we're wanting to hear 24
feedback from management and City Council. Do you have anything to say, Karin? 25
Ms. North: As we go through the plan development, we're going to have some options 26 available. The decision will need to be made. Our ultimate goal is that GSI and stormwater 27 treatment will become integrated and integral in the system in the City and how we 28
maintain and manage our landscape because it's a benefit to the community. Rather than 29
it's a requirement or a mandate, it just becomes business practice that we look at a project 30
and see how we can improve it and how to get more. It basically complements all of our 31
Comp Plan, our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals, our urban forestry goals. 32
Everything is integral, and that's where we're going to try and see if we can just change the 33
mindset. The key for us is really going to be funding. That's a second piece that a 34
consultant's going to be used, how can we be creative about maybe trying to get another 35
funding source in. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Talking to people around what they would think of these 1
retention ponds, I think there's generally a positive attitude towards them. People do 2
wonder about mosquitos, weeds since it's going to be very wet. What about the mosquito 3
issue? 4
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: The bioretention areas, for example, have to be designed so that 5
they infiltrate within 48 hours. It's not a mosquito issue. We don't really have any plan to 6 put in retention ponds, large ponds, because we don't have room for that in our City. If that 7
came about, sometimes they do things to aerate the water. The Mosquito Abatement 8
Control District is very involved with our permit as well, and they actually go out annually 9
and inspect all these features that we have. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: The vegetation that's in these areas has to be able to absorb all 11
this water or tolerate all this water. What about during the summer? Do you have to irrigate 12
that? 13
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: It does have to be irrigated. They are drought-tolerant plants, most 14
of them. They're not a type of plant you might see in a wetland or something like that. The 15
soil has a lot of sand, so it doesn't necessarily have standing water. Some of these features 16
do have to be watered in the summer, at least for maybe three years until well established. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: The other thing was Bol Park. We had that plan that was 18
proposed where we actually would be capturing water and treating it and retaining it. Can 19
you talk about that? 20
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: Sure. That was a very preliminary concept that was part of a larger 21
countywide stormwater resource plan. It's a plan … 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we anticipate projects like that going forward or was that 23
just … 24
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: I'm sorry? 25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we anticipate projects like that going forward? 26
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: Perhaps in other locations we could consider that, but we don't have 27 any plans for a project like that. It's basically like an underground tank. Something like 28
that can only be installed in parks that have a pretty large field. There would definitely be 29
some compromises to be made by the public because the fields would have to be out-of-30
play for a year or less. In areas where we have a lower water table, it could very much 31
make sense, especially as we have more and more droughts. We have a lot of impacts from 32
climate change. It makes sense that if folks need to water the parks we're reusing the water 33
that's coming out of the sky. The treatment system underground includes a lot of pre-34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
filtration so that whatever is used to irrigate is very high quality. You can build monitoring 1
stations there, and you test that water over months until you're sure that it's the quality that 2
you need. It's not dangerous in any way. We would regularly monitor that water. We 3
have a sampling team that does regular sampling from our group anyway that could be 4
involved. Outside of the Bay Area, it's done in a lot of other cities. There's a project right 5
now in south San Francisco that is going to be built with a lot of Caltrans funding. It's not 6 a novel idea, and it hasn't been shown to be dangerous anywhere it's been done. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would think the price tag may be pretty high. 8
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: It's very high. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Would it be cheaper to run purple pipe to every park? 10
Ms. North: Purple pipe is actually really expensive. We've been working since 2007 to 11
look at doing a purple pipe expansion project up to Stanford Research Park, and it's around 12
$45 million. We just had a study session with Council last Monday, the 19th, where we 13
were discussing different options of what do we want to do with recycled water. That's a 14
whole other discussion. Basically right now, it looks like Council has—they each had their 15
own opinion. We didn't actually ask for an action item because this was a study session. 16
They all sounded like they want us to look at doing direct potable reuse rather than purple 17
pipe, nontraditional non-potable, and utilize maybe our groundwater basin or other water 18
sources within Palo Alto versus running purple pipe projects throughout our City because 19
of the price tag. There's more to come on that. We're spending a lot of time looking at 20
basically purified water, enhanced recycled water, lots of fun stuff. If you ever want us to 21
come back and talk to you guys about that, I'd be more than happy to. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Actually I would love that going forward. Thank you. 23
Commissioner McCauley: Thanks very much for the presentation. That's great. One 24
question just out of curiosity. Do these GSI features, particularly the streetscape-like 25 features, have a lifespan where you expect you have to go in and replace the GSI features 26 after some period of time? 27
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: It does vary between pervious pavement or a bioretention area. A 28
bioretention area has a lifespan of about 20, 25 years. You do have to go in there depending 29
on the land use maybe after eight years to replace the soil. There's typical landscaping-30
type maintenance, like it should be composted every year. You have to replace plants. We 31
have to make sure the pipes don't get clogged yearly. All that maintenance is done by our 32
staff. Other than that, they maintain pretty well. The pervious pavement has to be 33
vacuumed regularly. Ideally, you wouldn't put it in a place where you might expect a lot 34
of fine sediment to blow over it. It probably wouldn't make sense to put it next to a beach 35
or something like that. The roof gardens, I don't know if you know that the green roof on 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Mitchell Park has been really tough to maintain. They're very complicated, very expensive 1
to maintain. That is one feature that we're shying away from right now. Once everything 2
is established, folks are adequately trained to maintain it, it's not necessarily harder to 3
maintain than any other asset that we have and probably easier and cheaper to maintain 4
than a traditional storm drain system. 5
Commissioner McCauley: Forgive me. You just sparked a follow-up out of curiosity again. 6 Green roofs seem like a great thing. What's the difficulty and why that move away from 7
them? 8
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: There's a limited amount of soil. The type of plants that can live 9
up there, sometimes it's tough to get them established. You have to run irrigation up there. 10
Sometimes it can be a lot of energy cost to run the irrigation up there. If something goes 11
wrong with the irrigation, it can be more expensive to fix. We had an issue with a lot of 12
agricultural bugs on the Mitchell Park roof. I don't think they ever figured out where that 13
came from. There are some places like the City of Chicago that have big green roof 14
programs. It obviously makes a big difference in reducing climate change impacts as well. 15
We just need to learn more in the Bay Area at least for City projects. It's being done by 16
big private companies. At the municipal level, we haven't figured out how to do it a little 17
bit cheaper. It costs a few thousand a month to maintain right now the one on Mitchell 18
Park. 19
Chair McDougall: Jeff. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you for the presentation. Getting some education on this is 21
very welcome and useful. The first question I have is what is the requirement or impact 22
regarding private properties or is there any requirement in both business and residential? 23
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: It just so happens, because we're updating our stormwater Muni 24
Code, we are proposing an update that all properties—let me back up and provide a little 25 bit of background. Properties that are new or redeveloped and that create at least 10,000 26 square feet of impervious surface have to have stormwater treatment onsite. That's 27 relatively common. That's, for example, the size of Mitchell Park or something like that. 28
Fire Station 3 met that requirement. Now, between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet 29
impervious surface, there has to be something called low-impact development. It's 30
basically site design, like I mentioned before, catching roof runoff, catching it in a cistern, 31
putting it to landscaping, using pervious pavement. It's smaller scale, and it doesn't fit an 32
engineering design like the GSI features. We are changing that requirement so that 33
basically any project that gets developed or redeveloped has to do that, which means they'd 34
have to capture the roof runoff or use pervious pavement or use a cistern, whatever they 35
wanted. They basically have to design their site as much as possible to reduce impervious 36
surface and then capture that stormwater runoff onsite. We are proposing that as part of 37
our Muni Code update. As part of the GSI plan, we're mentioning some ideas and some 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
incentives. We're hoping to get our plan accepted, meet the permit requirement deadline, 1
and then dig a little further into private projects. Part of that is somewhat related to our 2
funding options. If we require GSI at a project that is lot line to lot line and they have no 3
room to put in a bioretention area, perhaps they could pay a fee that goes into a fund that 4
helps to fund public GSI, in a street for example. Maybe they're going to put bioretention 5
on their sidewalk for the parking lot, but maybe we come up with a compromise so that 6 they put it on the street and capture some of the street runoff and the parking lot runoff. 7
These are just ideas, and we're not requiring anything through the GSI plan because we do 8
also need to meet the permit requirement. We don't want to get caught in too much 9
negotiation. 10
Ms. North: That's Phase II. You can tell our staff is very excited about the next phase. 11
That's part of what Pam had alluded to, that we need to get consultant help on funding 12
strategies. These are some of the brainstorming ideas. We welcome your ideas as well. 13
We'll have to come back to you guys when we get a better sense of what Phase II is about, 14
how we fund all these projects. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: There will be guidelines for business developments with the larger 16
acreage. Presumably you're working in conjunction with the Planning and Transportation 17
Department to get these Code changes put in for the permitting process. As far as the 18
average 5,000-7,000-square-foot residential lot, minimal impact, I assume there's some 19
guidelines and recommendations that people can help with. Moving further, you're 20
planning to add enforcement authority. Will there be enforcement that will impact 21
residents? 22
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: Perhaps. Our team is very involved in plan review. What we try 23
to do is identify opportunities or even requirements that have to be met during the plan 24
review stage, and then we talk to a lot of architects on the phone about how to meet those 25 requirements. We haven't run into any issues in terms of site design enforcement. Between 26 the 5,000 and 7,000 is going to be that requirement in the Muni Code update to have to 27 keep the runoff onsite. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm talking about lot size as opposed to impervious. You're talking 29
about if there's asphalt or cement covering 5,000-7,000 … 30
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: That's correct. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: … or 2,500, which wouldn't likely be the case or may be the case. 32
Ms. North: We are trying to update our ordinance Code so when someone does a remodel 33
on their house, they are taking those (inaudible) and not just hard piping them into the 34
street. They have to be captured to irrigate your property. There are some things that we're 35
proposing in this Code update that would actually impact some residences, but it's not going 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
to be a huge impact. It's just a greener, more sustainable design. When you're redeveloping 1
or remodeling your home, that's your ultimate goal. 2
Vice Chair Greenfield: I support the concept and the end goals here. Switching gears a 3
bit. Have you considered some type of neighborhood champion program for the 4
neighborhood GSI features? You have some planting areas; you have someone who lives 5
nearby or a guy who likes to walk the neighborhood, so you have some sort of direct, vetted 6 communication line to staff regarding maintenance needs? 7
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: We have thought about working with maybe a local nonprofit that 8
could help us perhaps maintain some features, and then build a volunteer base that could 9
help us and be, like you said, a champion. Our Zero Waste group has Zero Waste 10
Champions throughout neighborhoods. Perhaps that could overlap, help us keep track 11
even. If they see a broken irrigation line, they would have an appropriate contact number. 12
If they could help us weed, if they could let us know about different things. In the 13
Southgate neighborhood, there was a car that had parked into the bioretention area, so we 14
were notified about that. I think that's a great idea, and we are hoping to do that. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: There are the neighborhood preparedness groups that are already 16
spread amongst the community that might be worth tapping into as well. You have goals 17
to improve outreach. I'm wondering if the goal of the outreach feedback or to push 18
acceptance? How do you straddle the line? 19
Ms. Boyle-Rodriguez: The general outreach effort would be more about acceptance of the 20
general concept. Every time there's a GSI project, it would go through the regular public 21
review process and go to Council, go to the ARB. There would be an opportunity for 22
feedback as well. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm asking with an eye to what happened with Bol Park where there 24
was a proposal for both the underground tanks and the bioswales. My impression is that 25 the bioswales idea was generally met with positive feedback and the underground tank not 26 so much. Is this a good precedent? If the community is up in arms about something, we're 27 trying not to push forward with this or it depends on what it is? I know it's a difficult 28
question to answer in the generalization. 29
Ms. North: This is where sometimes we're stuck as staff. Do we share a very high-level 30
concept before its vetted, before we've had an opportunity to go to the community? We 31
learn as we move forward. Unfortunately, this is something we learned. Because it was in 32
the stormwater resource plan, we wanted to put in all the high-level concepts. The way we 33
look at is if it was in the stormwater resource plan within the county, then we could 34
potentially get grant money. If it was not included in the stormwater resource plan, then 35
we in the future could not get grant money. We talked about it at our Stormwater Oversight 36
Committee meeting; the members there were very excited by this, and they wanted to share 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
it with Bol Park members. Would we do it in that manner in the future? No, we probably 1
would wait. "We know you're excited by this, but we actually need to have a public 2
meeting. We're not there yet." We try to slow down the process. People are excited, and 3
community members are excited, and we got stuck. Would we do that differently in the 4
future? Yes. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Part of the reason I'm asking is how can we as a Commission assist 6 with that. In this particular case, as soon as the Bol Park plan was released, residents of 7
the Bol Park area contacted me as part of the Parks and Rec Commission. "What do you 8
know about this? Oh, nothing." I contacted staff. 9
Ms. North: As I said before, it was very, very concept level. They thought we had already 10
decided on it, which we hadn't. We hadn't even gone through a whole vetting process. 11
That is where we'll go back if—right now, Bol Park is not high on the list for projects based 12
on the ranking that Pam and her team have done. We spent a lot of time on something that 13
actually is not ranked pretty high. We've learned that the marketing and how you express 14
the information and how it's been tweaked too can be a challenge. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: Depending on the development path of this, we may want to 16
consider an ad hoc within the Parks and Rec Commission to help assist you. 17
Ms. North: If we were at a level where we were really fleshing it out and bringing it out to 18
the community, we'd be coming to you, and you'd be invited to any public meeting that we 19
had. It was a very high-level concept that our Stormwater Oversight Committee was very 20
excited about. It made our lives a little bit more challenging than we anticipated. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: Just one final question. You mentioned some of the master plans 22
will need updating. I'm wondering if the Parks and Recreation Master Plan will need some 23
updating as well. It's the one we just finished. 24
Ms. North: I think the Parks and Rec Master Plan actually has a line about GSI, but it's not 25 elaborated on. If it ever did come up for renewal—if I remember correctly, I think we did 26 manage to sneak it in. It's not the level of detail that we'd obviously like. It's one of those 27 things where Council still hasn't accepted this plan yet. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: We did discuss swales and other water retention issues in parks 29
and said that was best guidelines. 30
Chair McDougall: Thank you for your presentation. I want to say the same as Jeff just 31
said. I'm very enthusiastic about the goals and ambitions and the fundamental idea of what 32
you're trying to do. I have to say I'm probably not as enthusiastic as everybody else here 33
is about the work that you've presented and the status that we're at. You've been working 34
on this for a year, year and a half. You've got nine months left to go. Frankly, I felt in the 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
presentation there was a lot of "we're thinking about that." I would have thought at this 1
particular point, because this is the only time on your timeline that you're going to present 2
to us, you might have been more specific than "we're thinking about that." Before you go 3
all the way back to Council, I would like to invite you to come back and give us an updated 4
presentation. I'm not going to ask you to respond to any of my comments. The one thing 5
that bothers me in particular is an ad hoc has spent time on our CIP numbers recently for 6 the various projects. What I listened to right now—as we go through those projects, some 7
of them are obviously impacted by this, and some of them are not. I hear 20, 30-percent 8
impact to any of those projects. Where we've got a number in there right now that says 9
$250,000, I can imagine if we say, "Daren, come back and tell us how much this is going 10
to cost if you comply to the GSI," he's going to come back with another $75,000 or 11
something. Imposing that kind of funding on parks and rec in particular but to the City in 12
general without visibility is my concern here. I don't see that there's visibility of that. I 13
kind of doubt that in your outreach plan you're planning on telling the citizens, "By the 14
way, this is going to be good for you. You just need to know it's going to cost the City 15
another $20 million or something." By the time you do these projects—you've mentioned 16
over and over again the maintenance issue. When we look at our CIP projects, we've got 17
10 percent, 20 percent of the money at most left over to do something new. Everything 18
else is maintenance. I'm kind of worried by the funding implications of this. I understand 19
that some outside body, outside the City, said we have to do this, so we have to do this. I'd 20
really like to hear more about where the money's coming from. Are we going to go to the 21
federal government, and they're going to give us money? Are we going to go to the State? 22
Are we going to go to our citizens and do a bond measure to fund this? The important part 23
of all this is not necessarily the implementation. It's what the standards are. You've 24
confused me relative to whether the standards apply to the projects that we do, the 25 commercial projects, or residential projects, and how all that comes. I'm not comfortable 26 that you've got a good definition of that. The fact that we've done some GSI projects and 27 we haven't bothered to measure them, so we have no idea of are we doing anything useful. 28
We're going to spend all this money, we're going to do all this effort, and we have no idea. 29
This is something where, as was commented—our Parks Plan was completed last year. 30
There was something about swales, but there wasn't anything big about this, and that GSI 31
was not a whole chapter. Now, a year later, we're going to spend millions of dollars to 32
implement GSI even though it was not on the horizon before bothers me. I also see that, 33
as you go through this, your plan doesn't call out a step where consultants get involved. As 34
I heard it, I think there's four different places where you're going to invite consultants in. I 35
wonder if, at some point, something like this—I've asked this question within our own CIP, 36
whether there's knowledge that we like to build ourselves rather than simply contracting 37
out, and the consultant builds the knowledge and gets to use that knowledge to go sell the 38
same information to Mountain View or whatever else. Maybe some of these things are not 39
consultant-rich projects as opposed to in-house Public Works projects. The last thing I 40
would comment on is in a specific level you talked about in lots of these projects the trees 41
are going to be there anyway. This is good for the trees because we're going to capture the 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
water for the trees, which are going to be there anyway. I would have been interested, in 1
the list of five things that you have on the front page of the document we were given, if 2
there was a number six, which is you weren't just going to deal with what was going to be 3
there anyway, but it was habitat that was deliberately being built. We took down the trees 4
in front of my house because they had elm disease. Two years later, they replaced them. I 5
worry that the City cares about trees, take a survey and ask people, "What do you care? 6 Why do you like Palo Alto? We love our trees." I see nothing in here that says you're 7
going to do anything about that. You're going to help the trees that might coincidentally 8
be there. The picture you showed of Arastradero had trees in it, but I didn't see anything 9
in your writing or your conversation that explicitly called out that you were going to put in 10
some plants or whatever, but plants that are contributing to the things that people like in 11
the City, which is the trees that are part of it. A bit of a rant. I would encourage you to 12
come back and give us an update, if nothing else to practice on us before you go to Council. 13
Thank you for your time and the effort that you're putting into this. As I said, the goals are 14
correct. Thank you. Karin, you're willing to stay? 15
Ms. North: Sure. To be honest, we actually really appreciate your feedback. We've been, 16
as you saw, spending a lot of time on this. Actually our City staff is doing a good chunk 17
of the work because we don't have a lot of money for consultant support. We do value all 18
of your input. It is still at 85 percent; we're not done yet. It's a little challenging when 19
you're giving an update when we don't have the completed 85-percent, but we want to keep 20
on moving on with our schedule. We do appreciate your input. Yes, the funding is a huge 21
issue. We know our CIPs too are, just because of the construction and getting people to do 22
work in Palo Alto, a challenge. 23
Chair McDougall: As a citizen as opposed to a Commission Chair, I might write you the 24
rest of my notes. 25
Ms. North: That would be great. I'd greatly appreciate it. 26
3. Horizontal Levee Conceptual Design 27
Chair McDougall: Would you like to talk to us about the horizontal levee conceptual plan? 28
Ms. North: Sure. We're switching gears a little bit. We actually went to Council about 29
sea level rise, a study session, I think three years ago. Julie Weiss is actually working in 30
partnership with the Office of Sustainability on a sea level rise policy and plan. In 31
conjunction with this, there are a lot of buzz and a lot of excitement about these horizontal 32
levees. We're going to give you an update on what's going on. Currently, our existing 33
levees in Palo Alto are not FEMA rated; they're not the FEMA accreditation standards. 34
We're looking at SAFER, which is another project—I don't know if Public Works has been 35
to discuss SAFER with you guys. There's a SAFER feasibility report that's not done yet, 36
which is probably why they have not come to talk to you. Hopefully, in early 2019 we can 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
come back to you to talk about SAFER and our sea level rise policy and plan development. 1
We're trying to meld all these together. You know what the horizontal levee is. Rather 2
than building the levees higher, they're building them longer. It helps with waves. It helps 3
accrete, so the sediment will build up. It will give our saltmarsh harvest mice and clapper 4
rails somewhere to go. Now in the king tide, they go to the levee, and then they're basically 5
free picking. All the naturalists come and say, "Palo Alto's the prime example of how you 6 don't want to have your levee system work with our king tides." It helps with flood 7
management. For us, since it's right next to the wastewater treatment plant, you can utilize 8
the wastewater treatment plant effluent to provide that freshwater habitat, which is upland 9
and which is a nice benefit. This gives you an example of what the horizontal levee system 10
looks like. It's much longer so your eye can see it. It's not your traditional levee where it's 11
just a big wall, which we don't really want to see. That's what we've seen in some of the 12
preliminary SAFER alignments for levees. Some of the options are really big walls to 13
protect our community. We're trying to see if there are other options out there. We were 14
lucky that we were approached through—across the Bay, Oro Loma Sanitary District has 15
a test bed horizontal levee system; they got some money. We were asked if we wanted to 16
be another concept area for a horizontal levee. Daren and I said, "Absolutely. Why not? 17
Free money and a free concept." We're not going to say no to that. This was a collaboration 18
with Environmental Sciences Associates and San Francisco Estuary Institute. SFEI does 19
phenomenal research throughout the entire Bay Area. As a wastewater treatment plant and 20
stormwater, we fund them. This is another research project that they do. They evaluated 21
seven sites within our community, and we vetted some of those. We decided to go for the 22
three. This is still high-level concept. Just like Bol Park, we haven't made any decisions 23
yet. We picked the three sites because of the proximity to the wastewater treatment plant, 24
obviously water availability because putting pipes in ground, as we were alluding to earlier 25 with the recycled water pipelines, is really expensive. Trying to tie it into our SAFER 26 project as well. The con is also tying it in with our SAFER project because no one wants 27 to have a levee. Everyone likes to have control over it. We're trying to tie it in timing-28
wise hopefully by 2019, and then we can get it integrated more. This is our Embarcadero 29
conceptual design. This area is essentially the airport, where you can see my airport 30
parking lot. It's the widest part when you're walking out there. Right now the habitat's not 31
that great, and that's part of the reason why it ranked higher. This would be our Phase I, 32
the area that's poor habitat, wider zoned so we're not impacting our existing saltmarsh. We 33
would be potentially one of the first ones to actually get a horizontal levee into an open 34
waterway. Keep in mind it took them three to five years to permit the test levee design at 35
Oro Loma that doesn't even discharge into the Bay. This is still fine, new, and exciting. 36
The second phase, if it works well, would be the build out along this portion, which is right 37
in front of our wastewater treatment plant and right in front of the Environmental 38
Volunteers and up towards the Ranger's station. This gives you a little better sense of the 39
space needed. The thing about the slope is it's a very shallow slope. That's why you need 40
more space for it. This is Embarcadero Road, and this where the new SAFER levee top 41
would be. We could have all this great habitat, utilizing our freshwater from our effluent 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
and providing this brackish marsh that could provide refuge for the saltmarsh harvest 1
mouse and the clapper rail, Ridgeway rail. This gives you a sense of the slope and the 2
gradient. This is another view of it. We can have kind of a riparian corridor, walking trails. 3
This is just a very high-level concept. This is the 2018 construction costs and the 2021 4
construction costs. That's why we're looking at doing Phase I first, to see how long it's 5
going to take to get built. The escalation in costs between 2018 and 2021 and the 35-6 percent contingency. We haven't done any design engineering work at all. The nice thing 7
is we do have some funding to get more of a conceptual design done. We're continuing to 8
partner with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership. We're going to get a 30-percent 9
preliminary design, and then we'll come back to you guys. We actually have some funding 10
through the USEPA climate ready estuaries, and we're trying to see if we can find some 11
other funding for the remaining project phases. With Measure AA and anything that has 12
to do with the Baylands, finding outside funding is feasible. You need to have a shovel-13
ready concept. We're trying to do 30 percent and then think about all the permitting 14
requirements since it is an area adjacent to existing saltmarsh, which will be very 15
challenging permitting-wise. We're always up for a challenge. That's the horizontal levee 16
discussion. I'm here in the hotseat again for the Renzel Marsh after this, so keep on going. 17
Chair McDougall: Jeff, do you have any comments? 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: Could you repeat what SAFER stands for please? I'm not trying 19
to put you on the spot. I got Strategy to Advance Flood Protection. 20
Ms. North: We've always called it SAFER. Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, 21
Ecosystems, and Recreation. This was in partnership with the San Francisquito Creek JPA. 22
HDR is the consultant working on it. Redwood City and north in East Palo Alto have 23
already done a feasibility study on SAFER. Mountain View's also done a feasibility study 24
for sea level rise, and Palo Alto has not. A few years back, we decided to throw in some 25 more money so we could make sure we bridge it. It doesn't make sense to have people to 26 the north and to the south, and us in the middle not have a plan. That was the strategy. 27 That's why it's called SAFER because it's linking it with the people to the north. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: Could you say a little bit more about why the three choices out of 29
seven were moved forward and four of the original options were no longer considered? 30
What was (crosstalk)? 31
Ms. North: Some of it had to do with logistics and location. In the report, you will see that 32
they had some on the other side of the duck pond, which we don't need. Some were down 33
in Mountain View benefitting their area, but our effluent pipeline doesn't go down there. 34
It would be a challenge to get our—putting pipes in the ground costs quite a bit of money. 35
Recycled water goes there, but we don't have effluent. We don't have recycled water in the 36
volume that would be needed. That's why we targeted just the areas where we thought it 37
would benefit Palo Alto specifically. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: You said we have recycled water but not effluent? 1
Ms. North: Recycled water goes through another treatment process and has a chlorine 2
residual, and that goes down to Mountain View and irrigates a lot of the Shoreline 3
amphitheater. Treated effluent does not have chlorine residual, so you have to remove the 4
chlorine before you discharge it into the Bay. It just makes it a little bit more challenging. 5
That is Title 22, recycled water versus treated effluent, which is what we're proposing to 6 use in these habitats. 7
Mr. Anderson: Another one I wanted to point out on this and the reason I was really excited 8
is the Baylands Master Plan, which was last updated in 2008, had recommended several 9
sites for restoration that had been filled, much like Harbor Point was done in the '80s and 10
'90s. It's all filled, all parking lot, much like this spot over here that we're talking about. 11
All the way up to the pathway and beyond is all fill. I've pulled out chimneys from there. 12
I've heard a rumor that it was fill from the earthquake in San Francisco and all sorts of 13
strange things. The habitat value in that spot is very poor. It was already delineated as a 14
site for restoration through the Baylands Master Plan. I thought it could be a fabulous spot 15
for restoration that would involve volunteers to fix that properly. 16
Chair McDougall: Ryan, do you have any comments. 17
Commissioner McCauley: Could you go to the slide that has the cross-section showing the 18
levee? What is the top of the levee? If someone is looking at it, is that exposed? What is 19
the material? 20
Ms. North: We don't know at this point in time what that material would be. That would 21
be determined when we do the design. This is still a concept; it can be however we want. 22
The levee in front of the wastewater treatment plant is the road. In other areas, the path 23
that you would see is the top of the levee. That's something we as a community would 24
determine. 25
Commissioner McCauley: Could it be organic materials rather than … 26
Ms. North: Absolutely, yeah. It just happens that our road is a levee. Everywhere else it's 27 organic materials. 28
Commissioner McCauley: What's the approximate width of the levee that's exposed there, 29
that's not part of the wetlands? 30
Ms. North: I guess the typical 8-10 feet, which is standard for most of our pathways. I 31
think in the Baylands some of them are not as … 32
Mr. Anderson: Some are very wide; some more narrow. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Commissioner McCauley: Big picture, appreciating the very good intentions behind the 1
project generally and the concept, what is the risk of unintentional degradation of the 2
existing wetlands? To construct these, I imagine you're going to disrupt the existing habitat 3
pretty significantly. How do you both abate those disruption and issues and ensure that it 4
works long-term? 5
Ms. North: For the construction, we would have to avoid birding season. We would need 6 to put in any kind of protection measures. Our goal is to construct the area that's already 7
impacted, not touch the actual wetland area. I anticipate we would put a band in, where 8
we wouldn't touch it, and we would let that naturally evolve over time. This is why we're 9
picking Phase I where it's the widest area that we could impact. If you look at the habitat 10
along the edge, it's not great habitat for the current species that are there. If we could create 11
a buffer zone of a brackish marsh, that would benefit them. That's where the biologists and 12
the experts will come in. 13
Commissioner McCauley: Is this something you can design in the first instance and get it 14
right or is this more or less a trial and error sort of thing? 15
Ms. North: That's part of the reason why that they have this—I would urge you guys to go 16
to Oro Loma and see their test bed. They have, I think, 20 different cells. They've tried 17
different planting schemes. It was a partnership with Save the Bay. Now they know which 18
soil structure works, the planting, the densities, and the water quality. This is why it took 19
so long to get the permitting done. In the Alviso area, they're going to do an ecotone levee, 20
which is different from a horizontal levee because it's usually in freshwater. There will be 21
a lot of lessons learned before Palo Alto gets a project complete. It's usually the same 22
consultants for the different locations. 23
Commissioner McCauley: What do you anticipate would be a timeline from construction 24
through when you have a habitat that is mature? 25
Ms. North: I don't know the answer to that right now. That would have to be built into 26 when we do 30-percent design. When we get to the next stage, we'd need to see how long 27 it takes for that band area to adapt over time. It can be fairly quick, but we also know it 28
can take time. Because the saltmarsh can get completely inundated with sea level rise, 29
we're trying to figure out a solution in the interim to give the saltmarsh harvest mouse and 30
the Ridgway rail somewhere to go. 31
Commissioner McCauley: I actually have another question. Appreciating that this is 32
viewed as being the best option, what are the alternatives? 33
Ms. North: A big wall, raising the road in front of the plant significantly higher, keep on 34
adding concrete and having no shoreline. That's one option. I have a feeling sea level rise 35
will not be during my time on this planet, but maybe my kids or my grandkids. We're 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
trying to see if we can provide opportunities for the best option in the future. The nice 1
thing about Palo Alto is we have, as Daren was alluding to, this strip of land that was 2
already in the Baylands Master Plan to be improved. This could be a good test case to see 3
how well these horizontal levees work. We're not talking about the entire area. We're just 4
talking about one small phase of currently not great habitat right in front of an airport that 5
we could see if we could improve. It's probably going to take five, six years to get through 6 regulations on this just to get approval, or longer. It could be ten years. 7
Commissioner McCauley: One very brief comment, and then I'll let you go. I'm always 8
concerned about impact to users. As you go through the process and start thinking about 9
ways to stage this in order to accomplish this—it's obviously a long-range plan—try and 10
be very mindful about ways to reduce the impact to users in real-time. We're talking 11
presumably about big earth-moving equipment needing to be in the Baylands, the 12
disruptive nature of that perhaps to everything that would be accessed from that area on. I 13
don't know how you would go about doing it efficiently without using big earth-moving 14
equipment. 15
Ms. North: I'll leave that one up to Daren. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm a little confused about how this is constructed. The write-17
up was talking about how some of it was reclaimed sediment from flood control channels. 18
Some it was also saying natural sediment. How much of this that we see in this diagram 19
on Slide 9 do we put down and how much does nature put down? 20
Ms. North: I don't have all that because this is still conceptual level. We might have a 21
little more idea in terms of volume of sediment being moved during the 30-percent. We'd 22
need to build up some of it, the levee portion closest to the road. The goal is that over time 23
the Bay would naturally accrete. In the lower South Bay, the current salt ponds that are 24
getting converted are naturally accreting. Soil is building up in the margins. We're trying 25 to set it up so we can continue that pattern of less imported soil and local. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the treatment area? What does that mean then? 27
Ms. North: The treatment area is essentially the initial area. Imagine the pipe with a 28
diffuser underground for our treated effluent. It would be a slow level. That's what they 29
call treatment. Our water is already discharged; it's shallow. We discharge … 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: On this diagram, this is a pipe that's going underground and 31
providing water just … 32
Ms. North: Providing water to this area. 33
Commissioner Reckdahl: … like drip irrigation. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Ms. North: It's subsurface drop irrigation, a little bit different than what you would be 1
thinking about. It's trying to create a brackish marsh utilizing our treated effluent. If you 2
think about our effluent channel, you know we have alkali bulrush near the manmade 3
effluent channel adjacent to the airport. We've been monitoring how we have changed the 4
habitat there over time. My team is looking at that over time. We know we have freshwater 5
marsh; we also know we have brackish marsh. The alkali bulrush has out competed some 6 of the saltmarsh plants, the pickleweed. We would anticipate we'd have some similar 7
habitat gradient change. This wouldn't be on purpose. 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Everything to the right would be accumulated sediment that 9
nature deposits? 10
Ms. North: That's the anticipation. This area would be accumulated sediment. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we look at these different spots around the Bay, are there 12
different spots where we think more sediment will accumulate or are they all roughly the 13
same? 14
Ms. North: I would need to check with my sediment expert at SFEI because I don't know 15
that. I understand in the lower South Bay all along the margins it's accumulating. I'm sure 16
there are certain areas where it accumulates faster than others, but I don't know that. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: I like the idea of this horizontal levee, but how much does it help 18
the flood control? It seems very good habitat, but this is more of a habitat program than a 19
flood control. 20
Ms. North: It's a combination. If you think about this entire levee, it's a long levee. If you 21
did the traditional levee, you'd have to make it really tall. It's aesthetically pleasing. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: I can see if we have breaking waves, that would make a lot of 23
sense. We're more like a bathtub there. Won't the bathtub just rise up? What really matters 24
is the height of that final (crosstalk)? 25
Ms. North: Over time as that bathtub is rising up, you're accreting sediment, and you're 26 also getting plants built up. Essentially that levee is naturally building itself up over time. 27 If you do the traditional levee, it's not going to have the opportunity to build up any 28
sediment in front of it. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: We think sediment will eventually go up higher than that big 30
berm in the middle there? At the highest point, we think the natural sediment will go above 31
that? 32
Ms. North: No. Think about our king tide events. Eventually we are going to have storm 33
surges in the lower South Bay. When San Francisco has a storm surge, it goes over their 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
waterfront area. We're trying to make it so we do have a habitat refuge area as well as our 1
existing levee. If we did not build this long levee, this levee system would have to be taller. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: I could see it'd have to be taller for habitat purposes. If you're 3
trying to keep the water to the right and dry to the left, won't that just be keeping the top of 4
that berm higher than the water? 5
Ms. North: According to the folks that have been researching this for the horizontal levee 6 plans, the soil would naturally accrete over decades. The plants, when they breakdown, 7
would also build that area up. You would essentially slow down how fast that levee would 8
need to be built. If this breaks down and all of a sudden the water is here, this levee is 9
going to have to be built faster, taller. The safer plan is to build the base of the levee so 10
you can keep on adding on top of it. Our goal is to not have to keep adding on top of it. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are these safer levees going to be like Byxbee where you can't 12
plant anything on them or can we have plantings on the side? 13
Ms. North: The safer ones that are still in the feasibility? 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: In Byxbee Park, we have this big barren area, and we can't plant 15
much on it because we're worried about the roots. 16
Ms. North: That's because it's on a landfill. That's different. This is not going to be a 17
landfill. 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Even on existing levees, we're limited to what we can plant. We 19
can't plant trees by the edge of a flood control levee. With the SAFER levee that you're 20
showing, would we have the same constraints in that you wouldn't be able to plant trees on 21
top of that? 22
Ms. North: On top, yes. In that transitional zone, we could plant. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: Where the people are walking, they're going to be walking on a 24
barren area? 25
Ms. North: They'd be walking on a trail. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: There's going to be this little elevated spot of gravel that goes 27 across everything. They're going to be sitting above all this vegetation below them? 28
Ms. North: Yes. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: I hate that. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Ms. North: That's how levees are. How do you incorporate habitat and a levee at the same 1
time? That's what we're trying to come up with a solution. Levees are levees. We have to 2
protect from sea level rise. 3
Chair McDougall: Karin, are there horizontal levee research papers or documentation? 4
Ms. North: Yes. 5
Chair McDougall: Rather than continuing that conversation here, I would encourage we 6 make that available to the Commission. Maybe we can come back with more educated 7
questions after we've seen that. Would that make sense, Keith? 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm happy right now anyway. 9
Commissioner LaMere: Just a couple of quick questions. What's the current build time on 10
these? How quickly are they able to construct these levees per square foot or cubic foot or 11
whatever? 12
Ms. North: Currently, no true horizontal levees that face the open water have been built to 13
date. There will be an ecotone levee by Alviso, but I don't know the build time on that yet. 14
I can get that information for you. I think they just got project funding approved, and 15
they're almost through all of their permitting. We don't have that data yet. 16
Commissioner LaMere: How would our City fund something like this? Do we have a fund 17
that deals with sea level rise? What's the funding source? 18
Ms. North: No, we actually don't have a fund that deals with sea level rise. The SAFER 19
feasibility project funds came out of Public Works' General Fund. The work that we're 20
currently doing on the horizontal levee was all done through grant money. We're actually 21
looking for more grant money. That's also in the timing of how long it's going to take. 22
We're doing it because it's interesting, we like a challenge, and we know it's good for the 23
environment. 24
Commissioner LaMere: I assume it's eventually going to be needed, correct? 25
Ms. North: Correct. As I mentioned earlier, I have a staff person, Julie Weiss, working 26 with our Office of Sustainability to develop a sea level rise policy and eventually a plan. 27 In 2019, they're planning on coming to you and the City Council. We're busy. 28
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you so much for all your work. I really appreciate it. 29
Chair McDougall: Thank you very, very much. I want to make a few comments. I very 30
much appreciate the really advanced transparency of what you're doing here. I've even 31
talked to you about sometimes Public Works surprises us or we find out after it's done. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Ms. North: That's why we're trying to come to you early and often. 1
Chair McDougall: That's exactly what I want to recognize. I understand you're doing that. 2
Some of the questions we're asking are totally unfair considering the advance transparency 3
you're giving us. Thank you for that. My comments would be the same as before relative 4
to measurement and the bio blitz that was planned and is now delayed relative to Byxbee 5
and the artwork up there. I don't know how you do a bio blitz in the marsh right now. At 6 some point, you're going to want to measure is this better or not better relative to the habitat. 7
Hopefully, you don't have to measure is it going to work relative to flooding, but that's an 8
issue too. As early as we can, let's identify what the measurement is or how we're going to 9
measure. The work on the Boardwalk, as Daren mentioned. If Commission members 10
haven't been out to see that, you should go see it. It would help you understand how you 11
could build something like this and not necessarily destroy what's already there the way 12
they're going about it. I was there the day they sunk one of their tractors into the Bay. The 13
other thing to consider that I would be interested in—you had two numbers up there, $1.4 14
million and $1.6 million in two different years. By the way, what's the maintenance cost 15
after the fact? I would like to see that when you come back. To remind the Commission, 16
this is not preservation of the Baylands any more than Byxbee Park is preservation of what 17
we have there. It's all restoration. What you're trying to do is rescue something that was 18
severely damaged at one point and filled in without necessarily the appropriate 19
conservation approach. In walking along there, you can see some of the stuff that's in there. 20
I've already heard from Environmental Volunteers some questions. I don't know if you've 21
met with them. They had lunch with somebody from Public Works that told them about 22
this. I would encourage us to go to the board or maybe train me and give me these slides 23
to make sure their expectations are set, that they don't think this is going to happen in front 24
of their building in March. I would encourage that we deliberately do that since they are, 25 as Ryan said, worrying about the users. Again, thank you. I think it's great that you're here 26 with this. 27
Ms. North: Great points. It's still at a very high level, concept level. We're not anywhere 28
near construction. We're not even at 30-percent design. You guys love hearing us talk. 29
4. Renzel Marsh Update 30
Chair McDougall: Now, I'd like to introduce Karin. 31
Ms. North: I think this is my third time here about the Renzel Marsh. Who's been out there 32
lately or driven past it? It looks dramatically different. We're getting close. In terms of 33
the maintenance improvements, we've excavated all the cumulative settlement, and we 34
created that new island. The reason we created the island is because we don't have the 35
money to dispose of the soil. We found an interim solution and created a habitat island. 36
Otherwise, we would have had to let the pond be dry for longer and then excavate the soil. 37
We figured this was a better solution at this point in time. We've removed all that 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
overgrown vegetation. We did leave some cattails in the northern portion of the marsh so 1
they can grow back as soon as water is put back in. We assume that over time it will turn 2
back into a marsh habitat. We have a north end and a south end with a berm between with 3
a spillway and with pipes, if you guys have seen those. They're in already. The berm 4
around is complete, and the actual berm between the two ponds is also complete. That's 5
all done. Frank and Elise and team with Public Works did a phenomenal job of getting that 6 done. Thankfully, we had a soil broker, so the soil didn't cost us any money. That's actually 7
why we needed to do it now. We're still trying to repair the inlet and outlet piping, which 8
is why we don't have any water in it. We've selected a consultant; we're just trying to get 9
the contract signed. This is our soil stockpile area. This will be a big moat. We've seeded 10
it; now that it's rained, we'll see what grows. We can see some little green stuff coming 11
up, which is great. The whole perimeter of the berm has been seeded as well, so that should 12
also eventually grow in with native grasses. We're hoping to transition it from a 13
construction site back to a habitat. As you can see, this will be the cattail area, and this 14
will be the deeper pond. This is what it currently looks like. They've put the jute netting 15
in, and then they hydroseeded it. That's for stormwater protection since I asked them where 16
the stormwater compliance was. We wanted to make sure we were in compliance with our 17
stormwater. The island is still there; we didn't take that out. The nice thing is this 18
maintenance trail that we can get around and drive a vehicle. We can actually maintain it. 19
We won't have the berm that you couldn't walk around without twisting your ankle. This 20
is the spillway here. This is another island. Down here, there's a little dip. If the water 21
gets really high, there's another spillway. It's really hard to capture the images. I have a 22
lot of photos on my iPhone, but they weren't all great. We had three bids. We did select a 23
consultant as a contractor to do this inlet and outlet piping. As you may know, we've lost 24
a lot of staff, and our procurement process is a challenge, so we're trying to get a contract 25 signed. With the rain, they need to get this done fast. With the holidays and nesting season, 26 the contractor has about two months to get this done. They think they can do it all. We 27 met with them on Monday to start discussing the project. As soon as that's done, we'll have 28
Daren or Kristen give you guys an update, and hopefully you'll see the water in there. 29
That's the goal, to get the water in as soon as possible. We are applying for Measure AA 30
grant funding. That's on our parcel tax, and that helps with improving the habitat around 31
the perimeter of the Bay, to look at our remnant slough and the whole Renzel Marsh and 32
see if we can improve the whole Renzel Wetland. That's in alignment with the Baylands 33
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Have you got more questions for me? The Renzel 34
Marsh is almost done. 35
Chair McDougall: Do you have any questions? Keith? 36
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we start filling this, we throw water in this side but 37
freshwater is put by the golf course. How do we select how much water can flow through 38
this marsh? 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Ms. North: This marsh was built in 1991. Between 1 and 3 million gallons of water per 1
day is our allocated (inaudible). We're not taking any water from the golf course. This is 2
effluent, our secondary effluent location. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: My understanding from the water treatment is some of it goes 4
through the channels by the golf course that we dump up there, and some of it we dump on 5
this side. How do we decide how much we pipe through this pond? 6
Ms. North: We decided the volume of water based on the 1992 California Coastal 7
Conservancy grant that tied the saltmarsh portion—by Byxbee Park, there's an 8
underground. At high tide, the water flows into the saltmarsh and then down, and it's 9
pumped into Matadero Creek. Because they didn't want to put a lot of salty water into 10
Matadero Creek, we put in this freshwater marsh to help mitigate that. It's essentially a 1:1 11
ratio. It hasn't been getting that freshwater to dilute the saltwater. It's a short time period, 12
so we don't anticipate that it's going to cause problems in the flooding basin because that 13
takes years. Does that answer your question? 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: That answered my question. 15
Ms. North: It's around 1-2 million gallons of water per day. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: We're not looking at the health of the pond. We're looking at 17
the health of the creek downstream. 18
Ms. North: The health of the pond was an added benefit. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: We're happy with the flow through it? If we increased it or 20
decreased it, would it change the health or is it not very sensitive? 21
Ms. North: It may help in terms of reducing nutrients. Wetlands naturally absorb nitrogen. 22
We remove ammonia, but we don't remove nitrogen or phosphorus at our treatment plant. 23
It's like a polishing wetland. That would be better if we could divert more flow through 24
there. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: Could you clarify what is the public access to this area once it's 26 completed? 27
Ms. North: That actually goes hand-in-hand with Daren's Baylands Comprehensive 28
Conservation Plan, which you guys have been part of. Do you want to take that one? 29
Mr. Anderson: We shared the outcome of our outreach to both the stakeholders and the 30
Commission on the recommendations where we'd have routing and where we wouldn't. 31
Public Works understands that and is willing to comply. As we've talked about before, 32
we've done this in other areas, so it can work. We said we only wanted the marsh side open 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
and the road around the berm would remain closed as a non-trail. As you can see from the 1
photos, it looks like a road. It's 15 feet wide, and people are going to walk on it. We'll do 2
the same thing we did at Byxbee when we didn't want to have every single service road to 3
be a pedestrian or bike trail. We put up a sign that said this is a maintenance service road 4
only, no public access. Public Works will help facilitate that. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: You'll be able to walk on the marsh side from the south. Where 6 do you end up on the north side? 7
Mr. Anderson: It'll connect with the existing road from the ITT area I believe. 8
Ms. North: We're saying that they can walk along this perimeter. We need to improve the 9
access here, which is part of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Currently, 10
we do have a maintenance bridge that we would not want to encourage residents to walk 11
on. It's our outfall pipe with a plastic grate over it. The steps down are like you're lucky if 12
you don't slide down on your bottom. That's another Phase II project, to see how we can 13
get the trail access. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: When this area opens initially, it'll be a dead-end for pedestrian 15
access? 16
Ms. North: When we finish the Renzel Marsh, we will not have trail access. It will need 17
to be built into the Byxbee Park Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan with a trail. 18
At that time, the trails will be marked. If someone wanted to walk it, you would come in 19
on the ITT road. You could actually walk the whole perimeter of it, which we're not 20
encouraging because that's not a trail. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, could you project when we might be able to open this area 22
to the general public, pedestrian use? 23
Mr. Anderson: Karin's right that people will start using it immediately. They already are. 24
The Baylands regulars will continue and are using it. We'll publicize it and start adding it 25 to maps probably after the BCCP has been recommended by the Commission and adopted 26 by Council. That Phase II piece that Karin's talking about, that's currently—people hike it. 27 It's a perilous hike. That one's a conversation with Public Works to see how far away that 28
would be. That could happen sooner rather than later. They'll need access on that one too. 29
Is that correct, Karin? 30
Ms. North: Not anymore. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: It sounds like a safety issue if people are accessing it now, and 32
we're aware of that. 33
Mr. Anderson: We'll work on that. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Chair McDougall: Karin, the only comment I have is to apologize for mispronouncing 1
your name earlier. 2
Ms. North: No problem. 3
Chair McDougall: Congratulations. What you've done here is great. 4
Commissioner McCauley: I just wanted to echo Jeff's comment. The sooner you're able 5
to get that trail up and running the better, even if it's not quote/unquote official, if it's in a 6 state where you think people could actually access it. 7
Chair McDougall: The issue from the Baylands Plan is how much access are you going to 8
allow relative to the habitat that you're creating and are you wasting a habitat by making it 9
so accessible that animals wouldn't stay there. That's the discussion, where should you 10
allow access and not allow access. I would invite the Commission members to participate 11
in the Comprehensive Plan. Karin, thank you very much for the marathon session that 12
you've provided us. 13
Ms. North: Thank you. We look forward to coming for future items. Sea level rise will 14
probably be the next one you'll see me. 15
5. Cubberley Community Center Synthetic Field Replacement & New Restroom 16
Facility 17
Ms. O'Kane: Peter should be on his way. 18
Chair McDougall: I don't think we're any earlier or later than he would have anticipated. 19
We've done a decent job of being efficient. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: I have a general question I could occupy time with regarding the 21
printouts that we get at the meetings. About a year ago, we went away from having the 22
packets sent to us. Now, we effectively arrive and have the packet waiting here for us, 23
which seems to defeat the purpose. I want to check in with the other Commissioners and 24
staff and clarify what we would like to have. It's nice having a printed agenda. Do we 25 want anything else in terms of materials in front of us when we arrive? 26
Chair McDougall: Maybe Kristen can fill us in. The bottom line was we said, "Let's go to 27 having it sent to us in softcopy. We don't need to get the hardcopy here." The problem 28
with not having a hardcopy is visitors don't have that. You can see there's not hundreds of 29
copies back there; there are ten copies back there. I think they went with a decision that, 30
if they're making ten copies for the public, they might as well make seven more to put up 31
here. Kristen, does that make sense? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Ms. O'Kane: You're right, Commissioner Greenfield. The Commission decided to go 1
electronic unless a specific Commissioner let Natalie know they wanted a printout. We do 2
need to provide copies for the public. If the Commission prefers not to get the full packet, 3
we can go back to that. 4
Chair McDougall: Do we want a quick poll on whether you want the hardcopy? Let's just 5
do a quick poll. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm fine with no hardcopy. 7
Commissioner McCauley: Having a hardcopy on the dais is helpful. Without it, I would 8
be lost. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: In general, I don't think I need it. I find it useful if we have 10
oversized park plans or something like that. Being able to look at it all in one spot is better. 11
My printer only goes to 8.5 x 11. I would appreciate oversized printouts, but the other 12
printouts I get online. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: If I may, Don? It might be worth taking this offline with the other 14
Commissioner members who aren't here today. 15
Chair McDougall: I wasn't necessarily going to decide here. I called it a straw poll. Jeff, 16
the question is do you want hardcopies. 17
Commissioner LaMere: I'm fine with electronic copies. 18
Chair McDougall: We'll complete a poll with everybody. 19
Ms. O'Kane: Natalie can send out an email to the Commission confirming. 20
Commissioner McCauley: If I might propose something. It sounds as though everyone 21
but me is happy not to have printed copies. I'm happy to grab printed copies from the back 22
of the room. 23
Chair McDougall: Thanks for that, Ryan. We have Peter joining us again. Peter, welcome. 24
Peter Jensen: Good evening. 25
Chair McDougall: We're going to talk about the Cubberley synthetic field. 26
Mr. Jensen: Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the City of Palo Alto, Public Works 27 Department, here to present an informational item about two projects. They're very close 28
proximity to one another. It's going to seem like one, but they are two different CIP 29
projects. One is the replacement of the synthetic turf at Cubberley field and the addition 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
of a restroom facility there. I'm going to go through the presentation fairly quickly. I don't 1
know if we need a lot of detail on this. You've all seen the synthetic turf out there. It was 2
installed in the 2009-2010 area. It's now to the age that it needs to be replaced, and that's 3
what we intend to do. The replacement of the field—I guess we could talk about the 4
restrooms first since that's the order of this presentation. The restroom is a new item to the 5
Cubberley field; it does not have one currently. Portable restrooms are brought in for that 6 facility, which aren't ideal for the area due to the amount of programming that happens on 7
the field. You can see in the slide where we are proposing to put the restroom, which is 8
adjacent to the grandstand between the synthetic field and the baseball field so there is full 9
access to all the field amenities out there. The biggest impact of putting in the restroom—10
right now the location where the restroom is going to be is fairly void of any type of 11
development. It's an open asphalt-and-dirt area. The biggest impact will be the trenching 12
of the sewer line out to Nelson Way, which will occur either down the pathway or along 13
the pathway. We haven't mapped out how that's going to work. We will keep the access 14
open along the path to the neighborhood to the south. We're recommending a specific 15
bathroom, an Exeloo bathroom. This goes along with the prefabricated restrooms we've 16
been installing in our parks. This particular bathroom has some features that we like as far 17
as the cleanability of it, the durability of it, and the security aspects of it. It will consist of 18
two universal ADA stalls. It has a service area that runs between them and that makes the 19
bathroom very easy to service and to keep supplies on site. Like the bathroom at Mitchell 20
Park, which does not have a storage facility, every time maintenance comes, they have to 21
bring all the materials themselves. This will help a little bit with that. Looking at the inside 22
of the restroom, it uses stainless steel amenities. The sink as well as the towel dispensers 23
are built into the wall, so they're more difficult to damage. This provides us the lowest 24
maintenance and the longest-lasting facility as well as the security that is important to the 25 surrounding community. The bathrooms would be open during park hours. The park 26 closes at 10:00; I'm not sure, Daren, when the opening is. 7:00? 27
Mr. Anderson: It depends on the park, but yeah. Foothills Park is 8:30. 28
Mr. Jensen: The bathroom also has the option of securely locking itself during the closed 29
hours. It has some safeguards such as a motion-detector light inside. If there is movement 30
in there, patrol officers can see that someone is in there. This bathroom has the ability to 31
control the amount of time the door is locked. You can set it at different intervals. Most 32
of the time it's set at 10 minutes. At 10 minutes, the door will unlock itself, so you can't 33
lock yourself into the bathroom. 34
Commissioner Reckdahl: What are the walls made out of? 35
Mr. Jensen: This is something we reviewed with the community at the meeting on 36
November 15th. You'll see two sample images up there. One is a concrete board exterior, 37
which is the light version. The green version is an aluminum sheet-metal exterior. In the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
meeting, the community liked the concrete board more. It allows itself to be painted in 1
multiple colors. It's easy to maintain and paint. The initial paint will come with an anti-2
graffiti layer. That wears off over time, but it can be painted very easily. The other nice 3
aspects are good ventilation on the top, which is key to keeping it clean on the inside. The 4
bathroom is brought on the back of a truck and set into place. The other interesting aspect 5
about this bathroom is it doesn't require a lot of large footings or a concrete pad, so it saves 6 a little cost there. We have to bring the sewer line there, but water and power are already 7
at that location. The larger aspect of the project is replacing the synthetic turf. The idea is 8
to replace it with the same turf that we used at El Camino and the Stanford playfields. We 9
went through a process of testing the turf for different contaminants. That has been a 10
question in the past about turf. Mostly, the contaminants were embodied in the recycled 11
rubber infill that was used, which did have some runoff contaminants. We no longer use 12
that material. The infill material that we're using now is a TPE material, which is a better 13
material and is free of toxins from the tire crumble. We're comfortable with using this 14
material. As I mentioned in the staff report, we're always interested if a contractor would 15
like to use something different, but it would have to meet the requirements we set up in the 16
original test, which were based on federal figures for pollutant amounts. One thing we 17
haven't decided and will have more conversations with the user groups about is the striping 18
of the field. Currently, the field is striped for soccer. The Stanford fields have one field 19
striped for soccer and one for soccer and lacrosse. Maybe we can add lacrosse striping to 20
the field. Because it's not programmed that way right now, it would behoove us to have 21
more feedback from the user groups that are using that field. Bid alternate items include 22
replacing the decomposed granite running track around the field with an all-weather 23
rubberized track. I haven't found an answer why, but apparently the most economic track 24
material is red in color. We will probably be going in that direction. All the tracks are 25 installed that way, and there's extra if you want to change the color to blue or green. Red 26 will probably be the direction. This is all based upon the bids that we get back. We would 27 like to do this work—it's part of the CIP put forward in the budget book. With the 28
escalation in construction, we're going to hold it as a bid alternate to make sure, if we do 29
go over, we can still move forward with the synthetic turf field because that's the most 30
important aspect of getting it replaced. Another aspect of that was a smaller, rubberized 31
surfacing next to the bathroom area that could be used for a group or individuals to do 32
unprogrammed stretching or other physical activity. The restroom will go through the 33
ARB process. We'll present a palette of colors to them and, in that process, select what 34
color the building is going to be painted. Our hope is we can produce the bid package in 35
the next couple of months and get it out to bid. When the funding comes available, which 36
for the field and track is June 2019, we'll be ready to move on that. The down period of 37
field use occurs between June and halfway through August, so we'd like to get the field 38
back to usable conditions when sports start to rev up in the fall. The restroom work will 39
coincide with that. It may start a little bit after that so it's not in the way of the turf being 40
installed. It probably will be completed in the fall, a month or two after the track is done. 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
That is the proposed timeline for it. I'll turn it to the Commission for any questions about 1
the project. 2
Commissioner LaMere: Excited about this project and getting the field replaced. Glad 3
also to hear about it. I was curious about the toxins and the infill and what kind of progress 4
has been made with that, which is exciting. I have a few questions. With the restroom, is 5
it air dryer only for your hands or is it paper towels? What would we be doing with that? 6
Mr. Jensen: There's the option for both. I haven't discussed with Facilities the way that 7
they would like to go on that. Usually they like to have the hand dryer so they don't have 8
to keep installing paper towels. That's probably what it's going to have. 9
Commissioner LaMere: Who takes care of the maintenance of those? Is that something 10
that's contracted or is that something City staff takes care of? 11
Mr. Jensen: I believe we do contract the bathroom. I don't know what vendor does it. 12
Commissioner LaMere: I'm very much in favor of hopefully getting that track installed. 13
That would be exciting. Is there any possibility of any partnerships with any groups or any 14
outreach? As we've done with other projects, have you looked at funding shortfalls and 15
determined what user groups might be interested? I don't know how much of a shortfall 16
we'd be talking about, of course. There's not that many tracks for people to use. Besides 17
the high schools and Stanford, it's something that's not there. With the installation of it, 18
there could be great use by the City whether it's for different kinds of camps or different 19
kinds of activities or events. 20
Mr. Jensen: I'm not quite sure what the group is, but I have received an email stating that 21
a stakeholder group is interested in donating some money. It's a modest amount compared 22
to the whole project. They are interested in doing that if it needs a boost in the funding to 23
get us there. We have not done any other type of outreach as far as funding goes and asking 24
for that amount. 25
Commissioner LaMere: What do you anticipate if there is a shortfall? Is there any way to 26 estimate or too early in the process? 27
Mr. Jensen: It's hard to say just on the way prices keep going up. If the shortfall is under 28
$100,000, that probably gives us the option of going to the public and getting some funding 29
for that. When it gets over that amount, it becomes a little more difficult. 30
Mr. Anderson: If I could tag on. At the public meeting, we had hoped that we'd be able to 31
do this. Getting fresher estimates that Peter has put together, it feels like a longshot. From 32
my perspective, I want to do a reality check. It is unlikely that we'll be able to do the 33
synthetic track with this project. The great part is what we did hear. I received 20 emails 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
alone from people who regularly hike it, and they pointed out the same thing as you did. 1
Great community asset, perfect for exercise for adults and multigenerational ages. We've 2
got good documentation, and it would be a great enhancement. It's desired. It won't be 3
possible with this particular project. 4
Commissioner LaMere: What does something like that cost? 5
Mr. Jensen: It costs between $800,000 and $1.2 million. 6
Mr. Anderson: Peter helped inform me that it would not be prohibitive to build the field 7
as planned and come back to do the track at a future point. They're not mutually exclusive. 8
We can reevaluate how much funding we have and submit another project request in the 9
not-too-distant future, if we're not able to fund it. I want to make sure we set expectations 10
based in reality. It'd be a challenge to make it (crosstalk). 11
Commissioner LaMere: I appreciate that and your work. Thanks, guys. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: How is the track used today? Is it people dropping in and 13
running around it or is there any organized use? 14
Mr. Anderson: Mainly just impromptu drop-in use. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we put a rubberized track, would we expect to have organized 16
use or would it still be drop-in use? 17
Mr. Anderson: I think there eventually would be organized use. I think the demand would 18
be great. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it would be great. I'm just wondering if we shrunk it 20
down to six lanes or something smaller, would that meet all our use. If you're talking about 21
organized uses, a six-lane track would not be nearly as good. Is this our last crumb rubber 22
field? All the other turf fields have been replaced with the new virgin latex? 23
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. Thermoplastic elastomer. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: The prefab bathrooms, have we used them in our parks before? 25
Mr. Jensen: Not this particular one. It's being used quite a bit in the South Bay. San Jose 26 is using it, and I think down in Morgan Hill they've started to install a few of them. I've 27 seen it installed. It's a hardened bathroom. The other option we looked at was the golf 28
course prefabricated bathroom, but it doesn't have as much security, and it's not as hardened 29
as this bathroom is. Golfers are a little more gentle on restroom facilities than standard 30
park users. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
Commissioner McCauley: Daren, with respect to the track, are there any interim steps you 1
can take for the current track to shore it up, weatherize it? 2
Mr. Anderson: Peter's got that built in. At a minimum, we'll be able to address some of 3
the challenges. We've got low spots, so regrading would be in order and perhaps some 4
hardening agent, which is typically decomposed granite to help it drain correctly. It'll hold 5
up a little bit better. 6
Commissioner McCauley: That's all part of the CIP? 7
Mr. Anderson: That one we can afford. 8
Commissioner McCauley: With respect to the bathroom, will there be an infant changing 9
station in either one? 10
Mr. Anderson: Yes. The changing station is engineered for adults as well. It's inclusive 11
in that respect. 12
Commissioner McCauley: With respect to the location of the bathroom, in a prior meeting 13
there was a note that some of the seasonal lighting, the mobile lighting that's being put in 14
place at Cubberley, may presently be in the location where the bathroom is planned. Is that 15
what I understood? 16
Mr. Anderson: When we presented this at the community meeting, Neal Aronson who 17
leads that endeavor to do the temporary lighting was there and didn't see any conflicts with 18
the location proposed. 19
Commissioner McCauley: You think you'll be able to continue to accommodate the 20
seasonal lighting with the bathroom location? 21
Mr. Anderson: I believe so. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you for the presentation. I think you definitely have the 23
priorities set correctly. The field certainly is screaming out for refurbishment. Adding the 24
bathrooms is a very high priority for that area. Getting the separate bids for the track and 25 the workout area is great. That's definitely the right way to go. I have a question about the 26 workout area. Would it be possible for the extensions outside the oval track to be used for 27 that type of workout rather than adding a separate area? 28
Mr. Jensen: The track is a different material than—it's tighter and not as attenuated just 29
because it's meant to have spikes in it. The workout area would be using more of a 30
playground rubber matting, which has a little bit more attenuation to it. You could use the 31
track. It's a lot softer, of course. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
Vice Chair Greenfield: I just thought I'd throw that out there. 1
Mr. Jensen: Both items are bid alternates. We would do the track before the workout area, 2
just depending on the price of course. If we did the track and not the workout area, people 3
would start to use the track for that purpose. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: If the track is in the $1 million plus/minus $200,000 range, 5
presumably the workout area would be much lower than that. Perhaps that could be 6 included in the first phase, so it could be done before the track. 7
Mr. Jensen: That would be nice, yes. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Is there any consideration for a changing table in the restroom? 9
Mr. Jensen: I think Ryan asked that question. Yes, both restrooms have it. It's engineered 10
for adults to use it with the inclusive idea that cognitive development doesn't preclude 11
adults. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: Regarding the turf selection criteria, there have been some issues 13
at El Camino Park with rippling and bunching and some general tears at the seams. I've 14
also seen some issues at Mayfield. I'm a little concerned about what we've just put in. It 15
doesn't seem to be wearing as well as we'd hoped it would. I'm certainly getting a lot of 16
feedback from the community on this and hope we will consider this when we make our 17
next selection. 18
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely. Peter and I have talked about building into this contract—the 19
modern contracts are phrased a little differently than previously at least for the City of Palo 20
Alto. My hope and intention is that the new contract will be incumbent upon the contractor 21
to come back regularly and fill infill. In our preexisting ones, it fell upon staff to do that. 22
Sometimes the installer will say there's problems with the infill, that's why such-and-such 23
seam failed. All the liability shifts over to the installer, which is the way I'd prefer it. I 24
think that'll help with some of those problems. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: Perhaps there can be some wording in the contract that the lines 26 put on top of the turf in a different color shouldn't fail within x period of time, like 2, 3, 4 27 years. We're not doing well at El Camino Park with that. Regarding the striping plan that's 28
currently just for soccer, would this be one long field and two short fields? 29
Mr. Jensen: Yes. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: In different colors obviously. One other request I've heard from 31
referees is to have the turf laid out in such a way that there's some sort of pattern that you 32
can see across so you can be square on the line. When the field is laid out to go longways, 33
when there's some sort of lines, you can see them along the way. We can talk more about 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
this if what I'm saying isn't clear. I really look forward to getting this completed. The 1
schedule you've set is prioritized well. 2
Chair McDougall: You're suggesting that when they mow the turf, they mow it all in … 3
A couple of comments. Either picture of the bathroom doesn't look particularly attractive. 4
It looks like a cinder-block building. Obviously our concerns are not only safety and the 5
issues of locking, but then cleanliness. I always believe people show more respect to 6 something that's attractive in the first place. I'm questioning whether we've gone far 7
enough with attractiveness. Maybe we should even go to the Arts Commission and see 8
about getting it painted with flowers on the outside or something that shows more attention 9
was paid to its attractiveness. In Carmel, it's now built with rocks all around it, and it's got 10
a rooftop garden on it. Everybody thought that was kind of neat. I would encourage us to 11
do something like that, that showed some interest in having it kept attractive. I'm not as 12
enthusiastic about the track. In terms of scarce resources and money that we're spending, 13
we're trying to spend it with youth and with adults and with seniors. Particularly in a 14
concentrated facility like this, I doubt that a walking track would be substantially less 15
expensive than a running track, but I'd bet it would be something less expensive. In terms 16
of who the users are, I've always asked who are we designing this for. We're designing the 17
sports fields for the athletes. Maybe the track could not be for the athletes, but for the 18
casual walkers or for the wellness crowd. Maybe that would cause us to have a different 19
design point. Even when you talk about the stretching and exercise facility, you could go 20
further and make sure there was something associated with that relative to senior exercise. 21
That would be a better design point now that we're making it for the whole not just for one 22
cohort. I can't remember whether there's a good bike rack installation or not. I hope that's 23
part of the considerations. 24
Mr. Jensen: Yes, definitely will. 25
Chair McDougall: Anybody have any other comments or questions? Peter, thank you very 26 much. Really appreciate it. 27
6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 28
See item VII 29
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 18, 2018 MEETING 30
Chair McDougall: The one item is Tentative Agenda for December 18th. We've already 31
said we'll have pickleball on that agenda. I don't know if the purple pipe question, Keith, 32
is something we should try to bring into that meeting. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't think there's a rush. If they had something on the shelf 1
they could give us, fine. I'd rather have them take a couple of months and give us a good 2
answer. 3
Chair McDougall: Is there anything else that people would like to have? 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, do you think we'll be ready for the policy review by the 5
next meeting? 6
Mr. Anderson: The park rules and regs? I'm going to need more time. That one's probably 7
going to be in the new year. I apologize for that. 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Did you mention that Acterra was coming? 9
Mr. Anderson: Acterra will be doing a partner presentation. I should also note we can 10
bring the CIPs for discussion at the December meeting. 11
Chair McDougall: CIPs and pickleball all in one night. Kristen? 12
Ms. O'Kane: We may or may not have something to discuss with respect to aquatics. I 13
believe Monique might be giving a presentation on the Aspen Institute final dialog report 14
on the future of libraries and community services. Monique received a grant from the 15
Aspen Institute to do some work on the future of libraries. We brought community services 16
into that discussion. It was an all-day retreat. Commissioner McDougall was there. There 17
were members of all different organizations from the community, other Commissions, 18
other groups. It was a conversation about libraries and community services, and the future 19
of our organizations and how we can continue to partner with each other and other 20
organizations. A report has just been completed on that conversation. Monique will give 21
a brief presentation on the outcome. 22
Chair McDougall: That would be really good. It was a really interesting day. They did a 23
nice job with that. I think we've got a long enough list. The challenge will be to come up 24
with the right topics. 25
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 26
Chair McDougall: Are there any Comments, Announcements, any ad hoc things that 27 people would like to bring up? Keith, you have your light on. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: North Ventura is still going on. We have monthly meetings on 29
that. There's a website. I'd encourage other Commissioners to look at the material on the 30
website. If you have any comments that you want me to relay, please send them to me. 31
Chair McDougall: I'm going to make sure it's GSI compliant. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
Commissioner Reckdahl: There's a big interest in the creek, could it be unconcreted and 1
made accessible, and Boulware Park, do we have interaction with that. 2
Chair McDougall: She did mention the Ventura plan tonight. Jeff, anything you have to 3
report from any of your commissions? 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: I was encouraged by Council to continue pushing for a meeting 5
between the Parks and Rec Commission and City Council. I know Kristen has 6 communicated that we're not in line to get this done this year, but let's continue to push and 7
get it scheduled soon please. 8
Mr. Jensen: There's a tentative ceremony being planned—right now, it's December 17th—9
for a signing ceremony for the 101 pedestrian/bike bridge. It's where the Water District 10
and some other agency is going to sign the approval to start constructing the bridge. I think 11
Google is involved as well with a donation towards the construction of the bridge. I'll 12
email something to the Commission if you want to attend that. The City Council Members, 13
the Mayor will be there. It'll be not the start to construction but a sign that we're getting 14
close to start constructing that overpass. 15
Chair McDougall: I think we would appreciate knowing about it. There are people who 16
are interested enough that they might want to attend. The bio blitz that was planned for 17
Byxbee—I forget whether that was a week or two weeks ago—was canceled by Kathleen 18
because of the smoke. It will be moved to a January date. I would still encourage people 19
to think about participating in that. 20
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 21
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 22
LaMere at 9:36 p.m. 23
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: STEPHANIE DOUGLAS, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2018
SUBJECT: REVIEW AQUATICS CONTRACTOR 2018 ANNUAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
Palo Alto Swim and Sport has submitted an annual report for review by the Park and Recreation
Commission (PRC), as required by their contract. Staff will provide an overview of the report for
discussion only. No action will be taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s (City’s) agreement with Team Sheeper (operating as Palo Alto Swim and
Sport) requires an annual presentation in the fall of each year to the PRC reporting on:
• Total program hours by program area
• Participation statistics by program area including resident and non-resident percentages
• Customer satisfaction survey results
• User group feedback by program area or rental
• Gross revenues and revenue shares between Palo Alto Swim and Sport and the City
• Risk management documentation
• Training certifications listed by staff members
DISCUSSION
Palo Alto Swim and Sport entered into a full service public/private partnership with the City on
August 1, 2017 as a way for the City to provide expanded, high-quality aquatics programming to
Palo Alto residents and to alleviate long-term staffing shortages. Palo Alto Swim and Sport has made some significant progress in expanding programming. Notably they increased lap swim
and swim lesson availability and added additional summer swim camp opportunities.
2018 Performance Highlights Include:
•An average of 182 residents held a monthly membership for Palo Alto Swim and Sport Lap /
Open Swim (January-October) resulting in a total of 11,643 resident member visits. In
comparison to 2017, there is a 45% increase in memberships.
•A total of 9,437 Palo Alto residents utilized the open swim drop in program with an additional
12,517 non- residents also attending the drop in program for a total of 21,953 drop in customers
served. In comparison to 2017, this is a 161% increase.
• The Swim School provided swim lessons to a total of 8,942 participants (April-October 2018)and 354 kids were enrolled in the Aquatics Summer Camps (June – August). Although there is a
23% decrease in swim lessons from August – October 2017 to August – October 2018, there is a
233% increase in aquatics summer camp attendance.
• 84 percent of swim lesson survey respondents said they were extremely satisfied or satisfied
with swim instruction. In comparison to 2017, this percentage is the same.
• 96 percent of lap swim survey respondents said they were extremely satisfied or satisfied with
their lap swim experience. In 2017, this percentage was 95%.
• Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics (PASA) has maintained their youth swim team programming with21 hours of Rinconada Pool use each week and the Rinconada Masters swim program has
maintained their programming with 17.25 hours of Rinconada Pool use each week.
Palo Alto Swim and Sport is looking forward to increasing programming at Rinconada Pool in
2019. Specifically they are exploring the addition of water exercise classes for adults, spring board diving for youth and scuba diving certification for adults. They also aim to spend energy
on improving the pool party rental experience and creating a package that will cater to small
parties under 20 people where the group will have reserved space on the pool deck and be
catered by a “party success associate”.
The main overarching goal is to increase the community lap and open swim time offerings with the desire of increasing the volume of community members who use Rinconada Pool. In order to
meet increased programming and service goals Palo Alto Swim and Sport will first need to
recruit and hire inspiring team members. They have enhanced their recruiting and hiring
methodology in an effort to build relationships and partnerships with schools and institutions.
For additional reporting information, please review the attached Palo Alto Swim and Sport Annual Report.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Swim and Sport Annual Report 2018
CITY OF PALO ALTO
To: City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager and Field Usage Ad-Hoc
Committee
Date: December 18th, 2018
Re: Preliminary Designs for Dedicated Pickleball Courts
Action:
Staff is requesting that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide feedback on the
preliminary design for designated Pickleball space. No action will be taken by the Commission.
Background: (Please reference attached map for Mitchell Park court layout)
The City of Palo Alto has seen an increase in the number of pickleball players and request for
pickleball space. The Palo Alto Pickleball Club (formally Silicon Valley Pickleball Club) has been
very active in Palo Alto. The club began by using Mitchell Park tennis Courts 5,6,7 on a first-
come first-serve basis, which is not supported by the City’s court policy. Staff saw an increase in
pickleball play and felt it was important to address the growing demand for pickleball space. On
August 29th, 2018, staff brought recommended changes to the Court Use Policy that would
result in allowing pickleball to use Mitchell Park courts 5,6,7 on a first come first serve basis as
well as providing dedicated times on evenings and weekends. These policy recommendations
were supported by the Recreation Commission and approved by City Council on October 15th,
2018. Staff has also redesigned and resurfaced the small paddleball courts in Mitchell Park that
were underutilized and turned them into two dedicated Pickleball courts.
Discussion:
This policy change legitimized the use of courts by pickleball and provided dedicated times for
pickleball play. However, the policy change still does not provide enough designated space to
meet demand. When the pickleball community uses Mitchell Park courts 5, 6, 7 they must put
together nets that they have purchased, set them up and take them down. With the continued
growth of pickleball, staff feels it’s important to provide additional, dedicated pickleball space
for the Palo Alto community to use.
The Community Services Department and the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc
committee began looking into available space to provide designated Pickleball courts. With high
demand on Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 5,6,7 by Pickleball, staff proposed converting those
courts to permanent Pickleball courts. The proposal was met with heavy resistance from the
tennis community, specifically around the idea of losing lit courts and preferring a method that
kept the courts available for joint use. The below proposal is a design that minimizes the loss of
lit tennis courts, provides enough dedicated pickleball space to handle evening play and keeps
the use of joint space to provide expansion for high demand times.
• Mitchell Park tennis court 5 becomes 4 designated Pickleball courts
• Mitchell Park Tennis Courts 6 and 7 remain multi-use courts with designated Pickleball times on Saturday/Sunday mornings and for tournaments. Courts are open for tennis
during the evenings
• New area created outside of Mitchell Park Court 5 becomes 2 more designated Pickleball courts
This plan would result in:
• 8 designated Pickleball courts (including the 2 recently redesigned paddleball courts) (4 lit courts)
• 4 designated tennis courts (4 lit tennis courts)
• 2 multi use courts (2 tennis courts, 7 pickleball courts) (all lit)
Next Steps:
1. Continue to monitor courts and track court usage
2. Finish feasibility design work (easement from creek,)
3. Finish design work with stakeholders
4. Approval by Santa Clara Valley Water District 5. Create public outreach plan
Tennis
Courts 1-4 New
Pickleball
courts
(previously
paddleball)
Proposed new pickleball
courts
13/12/18
1
Community Stewardship Programs
Parks and Recreation Commission
City of Palo Alto
December 18, 2018
What We Do
Mission: To involve and educate the public to restore local ecosystems.
Where We Work
23 sites across 9 cities and 2
counties
2,600 acres of parks and open spaces
Annual participation:
•12,800 people engaged
•80% youth and young
adults
Enid Pearson
Arastradero Preserve
Stewarding since 1996
Last year: 80 volunteer workdays engaging about 1,000 youth and adults
•Control invasive plants and install native species
•Restore natural watershed functions
Arastradero Stewards -After school program for
local high school youth
Highlights
•Mayfly Creek daylighting and restoration
•Berms and swales
San Francisquito Creek
Stewarding since 2000
Last year: 60 workdays for 900 youth and adults
•Remove invasive plants•Install locally native plants,
including willows•Clean up trash
Highlights
•El Palo Alto Park•Bonde Weir removal•San Francisquito Joint Powers
Authority coordination
Foothills Park
Stewarding since 2013
Last year: 38 workdays for 700 youth and adults
•Remove invasive plants and allow for
passive restoration
•Install locally native species in degraded
areas
Highlights
•Partner with Friends of Foothills
•Adding new 7.7 acre parcel -Buckeye Flats
13/12/18
2
Water Quality Monitoring
Monthly testing of water quality parameters on San Francisquito, Barron, Matadero and Adobe since 2013
Last year: 40 community science events for 100 youth and adults
Greening Urban Watersheds
Installing rain barrels and rain gardens in the community since 2016 through Santa Clara Valley Water District grant.
Sites include: Hoover Park, Animal Services, Peninsula Conservation Center,
Gamble Garden, Bol Park, Foothills Park
Nursery
Growing locally native plants at site in Foothills Park since 2003
Watershed specific plants, including rare and endangered species
Supply plants for Grassroots Ecology restoration projects as well as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Santa Clara Valley Water
District
Stay in Touch
✓Sign up for our e-newsletter at www.grassrootsecology.org
Questions? alex@grassrootsecology.org
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2018 SUBJECT: BAYLANDS COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss and provide
feedback on the Byxbee Concept Plan (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND The purpose of the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP) is to develop goals,
policies, prioritized action steps, and best management practices to holistically manage the
Baylands Nature Preserve over the next 15 years and beyond. The BCCP will provide staff, the
Parks and Recreation Commission, and the City Council will with clear direction on how to
manage the Baylands using an ecosystem-based approach that will help guide the protection of the preserve’s habitat, wildlife, and natural resources; ensure that stewardship and access to nature-friendly recreational opportunities are available for park visitors to enjoy the Baylands
now and in the future; and help the City manage the Baylands in a way that allows the preserve
to thrive in the face of challenges such as sea level rise and climate change.
DISCUSSION The consultant used feedback from the stakeholder group to create a conceptual design plan for
Byxbee, which includes two options for the Byxbee parking lot. The plans were reviewed by the
stakeholder group at the November 29, 2018 community meeting, and have been circulated to
the wider stakeholder advisory group via email. The following is a brief summary of stakeholder feedback received to date on the Byxbee concept plans:
• Stakeholders strongly preferred Byxbee parking lot concept 2 with 45-degree parking and one-way circulation. There was a suggestion for adding an area for long vehicles
(school buses, etc.) to park, which can be incorporated into concept 2.
• One stakeholder would like to leave the poles in at Renzel Wetlands as potential nesting
habitat for birds. On the other hand, some stakeholders fear leaving the poles may make
habitat for birds that may prey on the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. o Suggestion – the poles for bird habitat would be better placed near the duck pond,
which can be addressed as a recommendation in the Action Plan.
• Some stakeholders wanted more seating/benches to be available along the trail between the west side of Byxbee and the former ITT site/Renzel Wetland. Other stakeholders explained that the trail is a heavily used wildlife corridor, and that all
2
seating she be removed from this area over concerns that wildlife could be disturbed by human presence. They also suggested to adding shrubs to increase areas of coverage and habitat.
o The benches can be moved to other areas of the park, and the shrub area can be
included on the plan.
• One person wanted to know if it was feasible to add stairs for an exercise loop.
o Public Works staff have advised that due to the rate of settlement on the former landfill, stairs would be difficult to maintain in a safe condition.
• People general liked the number and distances of the proposed trail loops. A number of people did not see the value in having ‘maintenance only’ trails on Byxbee; they commended that if the trails will not be removed, they should still be accessible to visitors.
• The Burrowing Owl Habitat Areas from the 2015 Interim Plan should remain in this plan for if/when implementation gets approved.
• There wasn’t interest in adding a shade structure. Several stakeholders suggested that improving wind protection would be more helpful. o Suggestion - increase vegetative islands around seating areas to serve as wind
breaks.
• People general liked the number and locations of proposed benches
• There are concerns about the effect of increased salinity due to the proposed hydrological
connections between the Renzel Wetlands and the Remnant Marsh. o Discussion - the area already appears to have high salinity levels; it looks like an alkali sink community. Before making any changes to the landscape, the area will be evaluated for potential impacts.
The consultant used the feedback from the Commission and stakeholder to create the ITT Final Concept Plan (Attachment B).
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
• Draft Art Overlay – Stakeholder Review – Dec 2018
• Final Art Overlay – Jan 2019
• Draft Action Plan – Stakeholder Review – Jan 2019
• Draft Byxbee Plan – Stakeholder Review – Dec 2018
• Draft BCCP – Stakeholder Review – Feb 2019
• Stakeholder and public meeting/presentation
3
•Park and Recreation Commission Presentation
•City Council Meeting Presentation
•Public Art Commission Presentation
•Final BCCP – Mar 2019
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Byxbee Park Concept Plan Attachment B: Former ITT/Renzel Wetlands Final Concept Plan