The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-24 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION August 24, 2021 AGENDA 7pm Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. ********BY VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ONLY******* Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900-6833 I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes. IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT V. BUSINESS 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the June 22, 2021 and July 27, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENTJUNE ATTACHMENTJULY 2. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15min) ATTACHMENT 3. Park Improvement Ordinance for the Baylands Tide Gate Structure Repair Project - Action - Daren Anderson – (60min) ATTACHMENT 4. Approval of Memo to Council on NVCAP regarding park land – Chair Cribbs – Action (30 min) ATTACHMENT VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 MEETING VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS VIII. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC LETTERS ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Staff Assistant will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1(669)900-6833 August 24, 2021 ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e- mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting. DRAFT Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 June 22, 2021 8 Virtual Conference 9 Palo Alto, California 10 11 Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Keith Reckdahl, David Moss, Jackie Olson, 12 Amanda Brown, Jeff LaMere (arrived late) 13 Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Greenfield 14 Others Present: 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do 16 I. ROLL CALL 17 Chair Cribbs welcomed the attendees to the meeting. She noted that tomorrow is 18 Worldwide Olympic Day, June 23rd, a celebration of the Olympic Games all around the 19 world to talk about fair play, friendship, honoring the competition, and peace. 20 [roll call] 21 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 22 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23 II. DEPARTMENT REPORT 24 25 Mr. Anderson updated the Commission on summer offerings that the Recreation is 26 providing. They will host their annual Fourth of July summer event, typically called the 27 Chili Cookoff. It will have no chili, but there will be live music by Radio City Allstars, a 28 variety of food trucks, fun and games, and activities. It will take place from 11:00 a.m. to 29 3:00 p.m. at Mitchell Park. No registration is required. He said summer camp season has 30 begun. There are about 160 in-person camps and 37 virtual camps offered, ranging from 31 arts, science, technology to sports, cooking and Foothills Day Camps. They will be hosting 32 another movie night, Friday, June 25th, in Mitchell Park, featuring “The Goonies,” starting 33 at 8:00 p.m. Registration is required, but it is free. He reported that Mitchell Park 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 Community Center rentals are available, provided all current guidelines are agreed to and 1 followed. Cubberley Community Center will reopen for rentals on July 13th. 2 Mr. Anderson reported, regarding the Highway 101 Bridge, the center piece of the bridge 3 has been installed. Between now and August they will be pouring the concrete of the deck 4 for the center span; installing bridge railing, fencing and lighting; completing the 5 pedestrian access ramp; concrete pouring on the West Bayshore Road, and completing the 6 paving on Adobe Creek Reach Trail; landscaping and irrigation; signage, striping and 7 miscellaneous site improvements. Completion should be sometime in August. 8 Mr. Anderson reported on the City Council meeting the previous night, stating it was 9 eventful and impactful for CSD, Recreation and the Commission. The Commission’s work 10 plan was approved on Consent. The golf course contract with O.B. Sports was extended 11 for another three years, a mutually-agreed upon extension. The budget was adopted, 12 though it has been a very challenging budget season. Key outcomes from the budget 13 include that the Supervising Ranger position at Foothills, vacant for about a year-and-a-14 half, will be restored, and will be funded again on July 1st. Staff will go through the 15 recruitment process to get a new Supervising Ranger onboard. Regarding the Rinconada 16 Park CIP, he reminded the Commission that there had been a discussion that perhaps it 17 wouldn’t be funded, but it did get fully funded, and the park bids came back and were 18 within budget. They will go to Council tonight for approval of the contract. He said the 19 Rinconada Park project had a certain amount of Community Center funds going towards 20 it. These have been reallocated towards the Roth Building. To refund Rinconada Park 21 project, Park Dedication fees fund will be used. Regarding the Roth Building project, the 22 Council decided to help fund this, with funding coming from three sources. There would 23 be $2 million from the Stanford University Medical Center funds (SUMC funds); the 24 Community Center Impact Fee funds redirected from Rinconada Park; and $350,000 from 25 the Park Impact Fee funds to help pay for the restroom at the Roth Building, which will 26 actually serve the adjacent Heritage Park. Mr. Anderson reminded the Commission that 27 they had taken action by sending a memo to Council regarding the JMZ ticket pricing. He 28 reported the ticket pricing has been set at $10, and the JMZ is expected to open in October. 29 Mr. Anderson reported that at Fire Station 8, which is within Foothills Nature Preserve, 30 staffing was started again. He explained that this is a new relationship where Palo Alto 31 Fire Department is teaming up with Santa Clara County Fire Department and Los Altos 32 Hills to fully staff the Foothills Fire Station between June 15th and the end of October. 33 Under the agreement, the City and the County will take turns providing staffing at Fire 34 Station 8. Palo Alto provides firefighters for the first two weeks of the arrangement, and 35 the two agencies will then begin rotating on a monthly basis, with Los Altos Hills County 36 Fire District providing some funding for the staffing under this one-year agreement, which 37 has potential to be extended for up to four years. The City previously staffed Fire Station 38 8 between July 1st and October 31st with three firefighters, but because of budgetary 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 constraints, the City has not provided full time staffing of the station since 2015. Instead, 1 they had been relying on red flag days – dry and windy conditions which make the area 2 more vulnerable to wildfire. There were 17 of these days in 2020. 3 Mr. Anderson reported on a message from the Palo Alto Pickleball Club regarding the Bay 4 Area Senior Games at Mitchell Park. The courts will be closed for drop-in play during the 5 Games, from Friday, September 24th, through Sunday, September 26th. Those interested 6 can sign up at pickleballtournaments.org. 7 Mr. Anderson shared information about the drought. On June 9, 2021, Valley Water’s 8 Board of Directors declared a water shortage emergency condition in Santa Clara County 9 due to the extreme drought and called for a mandatory 15-percent reduction in water use 10 compared to 2019. He noted the Palo Alto does not get its water from Valley Water, but 11 from the San Francisco Regional Water Supply System, which is currently in good shape. 12 The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is asking for voluntary conservation in 13 case the water supply situation worsens. Mr. Anderson wanted to assure the Commission 14 and the community that the Parks team is already conserving water, using previous 15 experience from the drought in 2015 and 2016 about reducing water usage. He said during 16 the previous drought, when there were significant mandatory reductions, they took a 17 couple of missteps by cutting back water in certain areas too far, which impacted trees. 18 They changed course when they noticed this, and instead they strategically targeted areas, 19 usually aesthetic turf areas where trees would not be impacted. This is where they are 20 currently achieving some water savings. 21 Mr. Anderson reported that the City of Palo Alto is offering six rebates for water savings 22 for households, which can be found on the City’s website. Rebates include rain barrel, 23 cistern, rain garden, permeable pavement, landscape conversion and gray water laundry to 24 landscape. 25 Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commission regarding the Department Report. 26 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the Fire Station will be staffed 24 hours per day, or just 27 during daylight hours. Mr. Anderson believed it was daylight hours only. Commissioner 28 Reckdahl asked if there was sensing there, or simply closer proximity allowing for faster 29 response to fire. Mr. Anderson there would be faster response, because they are so close 30 to the hills and can quickly get to incidents, both medical and fire. Commissioner Reckdahl 31 said in the fire memo that was given, Council talked about potential for some sort of 32 cameras at Foothills Park. He wondered how far into the future this might occur. Mr. 33 Anderson said he thought there was a push towards funding for this type of thing, so there 34 was probably a more near-term potential for this. However, they have been talking about 35 cameras for a long time with limited success. He said he feels there will be a bigger push 36 in that area. The endeavor is led by the Office of Emergency Services. Mr. Anderson said 37 he will pass new information from them on as he receives it. 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 Commissioner Reckdahl referenced a map made by Mr. Anderson during the last drought, 1 showing areas of all the parks that he thought could be cut back. He wondered how many 2 of those areas are being watered again after the drought was over. Mr. Anderson said the 3 majority of sites returned back to normal irrigation but sometimes not as much as in the 4 past, both for financial purposes to conserve funding for water, and also to be water-wise 5 in areas that didn’t need it as much. These are areas they are targeting now. He said 6 sometimes it is unclear whether trees are drawing upon some of these areas, depending on 7 how far the roots of those trees go. There is a risk of harming trees if you’re not careful 8 and prudent with trees that are turf-dependent for irrigation. He said he thinks there is a 9 good understanding of where those are, and they are avoiding them but still realizing some 10 savings in water usage. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if there is any recycled water in 11 trucks driving around or just relying underground pipes. Mr. Anderson replied that they 12 are not paying for any recycled “purple pipes.” He explained that, for mandatory houses 13 that had to de-water their developments, they would pay for purple pipes to take their 14 water, and the Department would tell them where to strategically use it to reduce their 15 irrigation in those areas. They are not paying for that, and Mr. Anderson added that it is 16 not especially effective. The amount of water carried and the time it takes to deliver it is 17 not a particularly prudent or effective means of irrigating any significant areas. In small 18 areas it may have potential, by that is not the effort they are focused on in conserving. 19 Commissioner Moss was grateful for the news regarding the Senior Ranger. He asked if 20 there are other key items that Mr. Anderson was particularly concerned about in the budget 21 besides the Senior Ranger. Mr. Anderson said there were a couple of ways to look at it. 22 There is what they had originally proposed as potential cuts that were more significant, 23 and there was even a second tier of cuts, which didn’t end up making it to the proposals, 24 which were even more dire and more impactful to his group in particular. For example, 25 regarding the Park Landscape Maintenance Contract, where they maintain the vast 26 majority of urban parks. They had cut 27 percent - $267,000 – last July due to budgetary 27 constraints. Those impacts are still becoming apparent. He said the weeds sometimes take 28 a while to show up, and areas that were well-maintained gradually slip into disrepair, so 29 they are still reckoning with that budget cut. He said it is frustrating to him, because they 30 have some issues with trash not being collected quite as frequently, and he is getting 31 complaints about it. There are some unsightly areas where weeds are present. He said, 32 frankly, it is the unfortunate consequence of cutting $267,000 from that contract. He said 33 he doesn’t have a lot of good alternatives but will have to deal with it. As far as what he is 34 happy about, he said there was yet another significant budget cut option on the table for 35 that contract, and he is grateful they did not need to exercise it. 36 Commissioner Moss asked regarding the Commission Work Plan, if this was all of the 37 work plans that they submitted “to prove why we’re valuable.” Mr. Anderson assured him 38 that the Council knows they are valuable, but it was to ensure that the Commission is on 39 the same page as Council, and said that the Council approves of the work that the 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 Commission would like to focus on in the coming year. By virtue of the Consent calendar 1 approval, he thinks they’ve got the green light from Council. Chair Cribbs added that they 2 were all happy to hear that their work plan was acceptable and she thinks they are all 3 anxious to get started. She asked Mr. Anderson what the next steps are. Mr. Anderson said 4 his feeling is they can march forward with the plan at this point. 5 BUSINESS 6 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 25, 2021 Special Parks and Recreation 7 Commission Meeting 8 Commissioner Moss said he appreciated the volume of the minutes. Chair Cribbs agreed 9 with him, and said it is good to know where they have been, and she is glad they are doing 10 them in that form. She asked Mr. Anderson if it was going to be okay to continue with this 11 type of minutes. Mr. Anderson said based on feedback he received from the Commission 12 he will pursue this and that it was facilitated by Catherine Bourquin. Commissioner 13 Reckdahl asked how the cost of the service compares to the service for verbatim minutes. 14 Ms. Bourquin does not know yet, but will find out when she receives the invoice. 15 Commissioner Reckdahl thought it would be wise to evaluate the item again. 16 Commissioner Moss was fine with verbatim if it’s significantly cheaper, but said he loves 17 the summary minutes. 18 [Commission LaMere joined the meeting] 19 MOTION 20 Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by 21 Commissioner Brown. The motion passed 6-0, by roll call vote. 22 2. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison updates 23 Chair Cribbs acknowledged Commissioner Olson’s upcoming departure from the 24 Commission. She expressed appreciation of Commissioner Olson for her thoughtful 25 approach and the way she looked to everything from a lens of what is fair and right, but 26 also how to make it work. She said Commissioner Olson’s leaving is a big loss, but she is 27 excited for her and her family and wished her all the very best on the part of all the 28 Commissioners. Commissioner Moss appreciated having Commissioner Olson on 29 subcommittees. He was especially impressed by one of her comments, basically saying 30 that they should be very careful to let staff do what they need to do and be an advisory 31 role, as opposed to dictating actions of staff. He said staff does an incredible job, and 32 recognizes what it means to support them. Commission LaMere added that he worked with 33 Commissioner Olson on Foothills Park, which was often quite contentious, and always 34 found her to be very judicious in her thoughts and thinking of others. He has enjoyed 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 getting to know her and offered his best in her future endeavors. Commissioner Brown 1 added that Commissioner Olson was very warm in reaching out to her to join the 2 Commission at such a strange time, and it made her feel comfortable as they swapped 3 stories of being on the staff side of things. She appreciated her focus for the youth of Palo 4 Alto. She offered her best wishes. Commissioner Reckdahl said Commissioner Olson had 5 a passion for Parks and Recreation, yet was still reasonable and thoughtful, which he 6 appreciated. He said they would all miss her. Mr. Anderson said on behalf of staff thanked 7 her for her service and echoed what a pleasure it has been to work with her. They will miss 8 her and wished her the best. Commissioner Olson thanked all for the kind words and said 9 her cup was full after hearing from each of them. She said it’s been a pleasure learning and 10 growing through the Commission. They are lucky to have wonderful opportunities for Palo 11 Alto and residents, wonderful programs, and the inspiring dedication of staff, particularly 12 during the pandemic. She thanked the Commission and hoped they would keep her family 13 in mind as they joined the “Great Migration” back to where they came from. Chair Cribbs 14 said they expect to hear from Commissioner Olson occasionally and hoped she would 15 keep in touch. 16 Chair Cribbs made note of the task to fill Commissioner Olson’s position on her Ad Hoc 17 committees. She asked for a volunteer on the Foothills Park Policy committee. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl thought leaving just the remaining two might be sufficient, unless 19 anyone had a desire to join the committee. He suggested starting with two and if they need 20 more help, a third could be added later. Commissioner Moss asked Mr. Anderson his 21 opinion on this. Chair Cribbs said having only two worried her. There are some check-in 22 points coming up with a number of tasks, and another in January. Commissioner Moss 23 said the point at the end of the summer will be important in learning from the summer’s 24 happenings. Commissioner Brown remembered that during the discussion, they wanted to 25 have one Commissioner from the original Ad Hoc to stay on, and this was Commissioner 26 Olson. Commissioner Moss felt that was not as important as there are many fresh issues 27 to consider. Chair Cribbs suggested leaving the Ad Hoc at two for now. Commissioner 28 Reckdahl expressed that he is happy to join the committee and will try to cover as many 29 of their meetings as possible. Chair Cribbs appreciated his offer and said he would be a 30 great addition. 31 Chair Cribbs proceeded to the Racquet Court Policy Ad Hoc committee, and wondered if 32 Commissioner Reckdahl thought two people was sufficient on this committee. 33 Commissioner Reckdahl responded there is not a lot going on right now. If someone is 34 interested, a second person would be useful, but he didn’t feel it was mandatory. 35 Commissioner Brown volunteered to serve as the second member. Chair Cribbs stated she 36 would very much like to cover the Baylands 10.5 Acres Liaison. As there were no other 37 Commissioners requesting to do this, she was appointed. Regarding the GSI Ad Hoc, she 38 asked Mr. Anderson to remind the Commission about this Liaison position. Mr. Anderson 39 explained it pertained to the Green Stormwater Infrastructure, usually meeting with the 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 Public Works team, looking at opportunities for groundwater green infrastructure, such as 1 cisterns, conservation efforts, keeping water clean, et cetera. He said it could involve 2 looking at different projects to decide whether they could be incorporated, to stay up on 3 the latest. He didn’t think it was an overly-involved appointment. Commissioner Moss 4 said he was the liaison for a time. They met once a month, or even every two months. The 5 main benefit of GSI for Parks and Recreation Commission is that they have source of 6 guaranteed funding, so if there are projects having to do with the drought or irrigation, it 7 might be valuable this year. Otherwise, it is a fairly low labor commitment. Chair Cribbs 8 asked Commissioner Moss if he would be willing to serve again. Commissioner Moss said 9 he was willing, on a temporary basis. 10 Chair Cribbs invited reports, comments or questions in regard to Ad Hoc committee 11 activities. 12 Commissioner Moss summarized the Foothills Park activities and said they consisted 13 mainly of watching and monitoring. There will be another meeting in July or August. He 14 attended a Jasper Ridge event which explored additional partners that could be used, 15 including the Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network, and the Santa Clara Valley 16 Open Space Authority. These groups have experience in some of the issues Foothills has 17 faced, and they could, in turn, use Foothills’ experience in the future. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl said he and Commission LaMere reviewed the Valley Water 19 Plan, which they will discuss later in the meeting. 20 Chair Cribbs said the Fund Development Committee did not meet. She attended a meeting 21 of the Recreation Foundation, at which they discussed the music festival that is being held 22 at California Avenue and University Avenue every weekend through June, which the 23 Foundation is helping to fund. 24 Chair Cribbs said next month’s agenda will include an appearance by both the Recreation 25 Foundation and Friends of the Parks to talk more about the work they did last year for fund 26 development, now that they have an idea of where the budget is going. 27 Commissioner Moss said, similarly, with the CIP Review Ad Hoc, they have basically 28 been waiting for the budget to be approved. There is not much they can do this year to 29 affect the CIP schedule. They intend to meet again later this year to talk about what they 30 can do next year. 31 The Racquet Court Policy did not meet, but Commissioner Reckdahl said they will talk to 32 Adam and see if anything is going on there. Chair Cribbs thought there was something 33 about lines on the pickleball courts and asked if that was resolved. Commissioner Reckdahl 34 said Adam was going to look into that. The issue was that they prefer darker lines that are 35 more visible. However, this would interfere with tennis. Commissioner Moss said there 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 was question about the Cubberley tennis court being resurfaced. He thought next time they 1 could research the status on that. Commissioner Reckdahl commented that there is little 2 desire at present to put a lot of money into Cubberley. 3 Dog Parks and Restrooms Ad Hoc is being scheduled by Chair Cribbs and Commissioner 4 Brown with some of the staff and some of the neighbors. Mr. Anderson added that the next 5 park restroom will be at Heritage, and his understanding is it is a shovel-ready project. He 6 was unsure of the timeframe, but thinks it will be soon. The other one, perhaps concurrent, 7 would be the Ramos Park restroom project. 8 Chair Cribbs said regarding the New Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc, there have been 9 some very good meetings around the skateboard park, discussions of locations and 10 components that are needed. She said the stakeholder group is excellent. They are 11 expanding the group. The Ad Hoc asked that they include a female or two in the planning, 12 which they are happy to do. She thought they would be able to come in July to speak to 13 the Commission. Mr. Anderson thought this was possibly the case, and said he would like 14 to meet one more time with them to work out a few details before then. If not July, certainly 15 August. 16 Regarding the Sidewalk Vendor Policy Ad Hoc, Chair Cribbs thought the group had done 17 a lot of work on this. Mr. Anderson said the Ad Hoc has had some good thinking on this 18 and has had consultations with Attorney’s Office to clarify questions. It is a challenging 19 issue, especially the legal parameters they are dealing with, so there is a lot of back and 20 forth with the Attorney’s Office that may take a little more time. He advocated not rushing, 21 to ensure a solid policy. Chair Cribbs said there were many questions that came up and 22 there is a lot to think about. 23 Chair Cribbs gave a Liaison report on Aquatics, stating everything is good according to 24 Tim Sheeper. He is targeting July 5th to return to traditional operations, with no more 25 reservations for lanes. They have tripled their workforce. It appears Mr. Sheeper is having 26 no problems getting people to work. They will be scheduling more open time/family swim 27 time shortly. The new schedule will be implemented on July 5th. Mr. Anderson said he 28 would do some more research and add it to the Department Report for the next meeting. 29 Chair Cribbs thought it would be good to hear how the swimming lessons are going and if 30 anyone has asked for lessons with any kind of scholarships attached, given the times and 31 fiscal issues for families at present. 32 Commissioner Olson said nothing new has come up for the Baylands 10.5 Ad Hoc. 33 Commissioner Brown said there was nothing to report regarding the Community Gardens. 34 Mr. Anderson commented in regard to the Community Gardens. The Ad Hoc has not 35 needed to meet recently because things are going well, which he attributes to Catherine 36 Bourquin’s great management of the program. He wanted to mention something she 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 recently accomplished that at the newest Community Garden, arising from the relationship 1 with the Palo Alto church on Arastradero, there was a successful pollinator plant planting. 2 They brought in Juanita Salisbury, and she graciously did a design plan. Staff purchased 3 the plants and have added them. This is a part of the Parks Master Plan, to have corridors 4 of pollinator plants where these species have multiple ways to get to resources they need, 5 which is a good step and enhancement to one of the City’s gardens. Chair Cribbs thanked 6 Ms. Salisbury for all her work, and said they are lucky to have her. 7 Commissioner Moss said in regard to Cubberley, they are still waiting for the City and the 8 School District to meet. According to Councilmember Kou, they are still talking about the 9 rules on how they will conduct this. The item is moving, but slowly. 10 Chair Cribbs said the Field Users Ad Hoc report will be deferred until next meeting when 11 Vice Chair Greenfield is present. 12 Commission LaMere said he had nothing to report currently on the Golf Ad Ad Hoc, but 13 he will follow up with Lam to get an update on the Golf Course as well as First Tee. 14 There was nothing to report from the GSI Ad Hoc. Commissioner Reckdahl had nothing 15 to report on the PAUSD/City Committee. 16 Commissioner Reckdahl reported that Ventura Plan did go to the Council. He said one of 17 his complaints about the plan is that they didn’t have enough park space. He said Council 18 deliberated about this and were sympathetic, but did not make any conclusions. They have 19 pushed the discussion to August when they come back after the summer break. Chair 20 Cribbs asked if there is anything the Commission should do about this. Commissioner 21 Reckdahl said there is interest in the Commission to have a statement encouraging 22 sufficient parkland. He said he is concerned because there is a housing shortage and they 23 are adding a lot of density, especially apartments, where people don’t have backyards. So, 24 many things that people need parks to do the things that others could do in their backyards. 25 He said he thinks of this as an equity issue. The people in other parts of the city get good 26 parkland, but the new residents in this high density, lower income area should get the same 27 parkland. He thought it would be useful to have a letter from the Commission to support 28 this. Chair Cribbs said she agreed, and shared that she lived in the Ventura area for a long 29 time and there weren’t a lot of parks, and that situation hasn’t changed. She said she would 30 like to pull out the statistics about parkland and the number of residents and see if they can 31 make a case for more parkland. She said she would be happy to work with Commissioner 32 Reckdahl on this. Commissioner Moss was also in favor of a letter. Chair Cribbs and 33 Commissioner Reckdahl will work on this and talk about it again at the next meeting. 34 3. Selection of Liaison for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 35 Hawthorns Area Planning Process 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 Mr. Anderson presented this item. He said this is not a City project, merely one happening 1 close to City property. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is undergoing a 2 planning effort for their Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. This is a 3 79-acre area located at the intersection of Alpine Road and Portola Road, about a quarter-4 mile from Foothills Nature Preserve, and about a half-mile from Pearson Arastradero 5 Preserve. Mr. Anderson shared a map showing the location of the area. He said it is in very 6 close proximity to the Palo Alto nature preserves, which is why he thought it would be 7 good to have the Commissioners aware of it, and have a liaison follow the project and 8 participate in the public meetings where feasible. The area is subject to a conservation 9 easement which allows low-intensity recreational uses and related developments that align 10 with improvements typically offered on District preserves, such as unimproved trails, split 11 rail fences, parking areas and directional signage. In 2014, the District Board approved 54 12 action items in their Open Space Vision Plan that prioritized conservation and 13 management efforts throughout their jurisdiction. For the Hawthorns area, the direction 14 included opening the area, which is currently not open to public access, and developing 15 trails connecting to Portola Valley and Palo Alto trails; exploring partnerships to protect, 16 restore and interpret historic buildings; and improving habitat conditions in Los Trancos 17 Creek. The Plan would prescribe future uses and management activities at the Hawthorns 18 area. The District is proposing to hold a series of meetings with multiple opportunities for 19 public comment during the first phase of the planning process. Because the area plan may 20 include opportunities to form regional trail connections with other nearby public open 21 spaces, including Pearson Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Nature Preserve, Mr. 22 Anderson feels it would be helpful to have a Commission Liaison. 23 Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commissioners. 24 Commissioner Moss said he has been very interested in this subject regarding connections 25 to other open spaces ever since he walked from Palo Alto to the sea on public land. He 26 went through Foothills to Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, and then on to Montebello 27 Ridge. He has always been interested in being able to get from either Arastradero or 28 Foothills to Windy Hill. He explained that one must go through Portola Valley at Portola 29 Valley Ranch, and that is as close as one can get. He says they desperately need easements, 30 or some way to get from the edge of Foothills over to the general area. He said this will be 31 a help in doing that, but not good enough, because a quarter-mile away is a long way to 32 try to get a public easement. He thought the best idea would be to get Portola Valley Ranch, 33 because they have trails, but it is very hard to get from Foothills to there, and from there 34 to Hawthorns. He said he would love to see something like this come to fruition, but it will 35 have to be with some additional public easements. 36 Mr. Anderson noted that Vice Chair Greenfield had mentioned interest in being a liaison 37 for this project. Since Vice Chair Greenfield was absent, she suggested advising him that 38 the Commission would be thrilled to have him take this on, and if he should decline, they 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 will take up the matter again. She said it is a great opportunity for the Commission to work 1 through a liaison with other entities who have the same desire for open space and trails, 2 and for cities to work together. She thinks it is a good, and fun, opportunity. Mr. Anderson 3 added it is an opportunity to learn from the best, as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space 4 District is sublime in their land management, their staff are outstanding, and he thinks 5 participation from either Vice Chair Greenfield or himself or other staff in whatever they 6 are allowed to participate in within their public outreach could only help Palo Alto to learn 7 from their experience. Chair Cribbs said this is a good point. She has watched Midpen 8 Open Space for many years since they were a client many years ago. She has watched 9 them grow and watched their acquisitions and how carefully they steward the land. 10 MOTION 11 Approval to appoint Vice Chair Greenfield as Liaison for the Midpeninsula Regional 12 Open Space District Hawthorns Area Planning Process was moved by Commissioner 13 Moss and seconded by Commissioner Olson. The motion passed 6-0, by roll call vote. 14 4. Park Improvement Ordinance for the Baylands Tide Gate Structure Replacement 15 Project 16 Mr. Anderson introduced the Valley Water staff, advising this is an action item in which 17 staff recommends that the Commission recommend that Council adopt and approve a Park 18 Improvement Ordinance authorizing Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Palo Alto Flood 19 Basin Tide Gate Replacement Project. Valley Water staff making the presentation 20 included Robert Yamane, Associate Civil Engineer; Roger Narsim, Capital Engineering 21 Manager; Alexander Hunt, Senior Water Resource Specialist; and Rechelle Blank, 22 Deputy Operating Officer. 23 Mr. Yamane began the presentation on the Palo Alto Flood Basin Ted Gate Structure 24 Replacement Project – Park Improvement Ordinance. The existing tide gate structure was 25 constructed in 1957, and the tide gate structure combined with the Palo Alto Flood Basin 26 Levies create an approximately 600-acre flood basin that provide a 100-year flood capacity 27 for Adobe, Barron and Matadero Creeks and also protect against coastal flooding. One of 28 the gates has been modified into a motorized sluice gate which the City uses to help 29 enhance the water quality within the basin. 30 Mr. Yamane explained that the project objectives include replacing the existing tide gate 31 structure which is over 60 years old and has aged beyond its service life; providing a better 32 level of flood protection service for Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks as well as to 33 protect parcels on Highway 101 from coastal flooding if the existing structure were to fail 34 and also to address impacts to flood protection due to future sea level rise; as well as to 35 limit impact to existing habitat within the Palo Alto Flood Basin. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 Mr. Yamane shared photos of the Flood Basin as well as photos of the condition of the 1 existing structure, including spalled concrete, exposed rebar and weathering of the over 2 60-year-old concrete structure in a marine environment, and not having the epoxy coated 3 rebar. The structure has reached the end of its service life. He said from a high level 4 perspective they are proposing a schedule of this year doing a surface improvement to the 5 levy surface, followed by four years of five-month construction windows by an external 6 contractor to do the actual tide gate structure replacement work and de-watering. 7 Temporary trail closures are estimated to be a total of 36 months. They are currently in the 8 process of obtaining environmental permits to do the work and are hoping to get those this 9 summer or fall, as well as complete the design 100 percent by the end of the year. The 10 dates are tentative, pending project development and acquisition of the environmental 11 permits. 12 Mr. Yamane indicated that the trail work will go from the tide gate structure down to the 13 San Antonio roadside. They propose to do the work this year, using Valley Water O&M 14 staff. The current levy trail is a soil/earth levy material and is more of a summer, dry 15 weather access. They propose to put down a geotextile fabric with a Class 2 aggregate 16 base, ¾-inch maximum, compacted well, to make it an all-season pervious surface that can 17 function as a trail and also provide protection against the construction traffic. He showed 18 a table indicating anticipated timing of when the trail segments that would be open and 19 closed, depending on the time of the construction. The table ties in with the color-20 coordinated trail segments on the map, both of which are attachments to the agenda. He 21 pointed out two locations where they would need to keep the trail open for part of the 22 detour route. These would have shared traffic with the construction traffic. 23 Mr. Yamane said they plan to install 4’x4’construction project signs as soon as they get 24 approval finalized. These would be one on each side of the tide gate structure. They want 25 to also install 11x17 laminated signs which would be replaced more frequently, as often 26 as needed, to post the trail closure dates accurately. He said they were hoping for feedback 27 from the Commission or the City regarding the temporary staging area, a donut area to the 28 east of the existing tide gate structure. Currently it is mostly barren, but there are some 29 patches of vegetation. He said weren’t sure if the City would like to see this more as a trail 30 use or would like to see it attempted to be seeded. 31 Mr. Yamane suggested that construction benefits will include continued flood protection 32 and continued use of the Adobe Creek Loop Trail. The new structure will be somewhat 33 wider and have more aesthetically pleasing railing instead of the chain link fence. 34 Educational signage, coordinated with the City, will be placed near the new structure to 35 inform visitors of the history of the structure. The new motor-drive sluice gate that will be 36 on the new structure will have advanced technology that can be operated remotely and set 37 up on a schedule, to provide better control of the water elevation within the basin. This 38 will help with mosquito breeding as well as maintaining consistent water quality in the 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 basin. 1 Mr. Yamane outlined the anticipated construction traffic route, which for Year 1 may enter 2 from the Embarcadero Road and exit from San Antonio Road. Regarding public outreach, 3 they would like to have a pre-construction public meeting prior to commencement of the 4 work. They will keep their project website updated at all times regarding trail closures, 5 maps, et cetera. They will do a Nextdoor outreach, as well as physical postcard mailers. 6 Mr. Hunt spoke next, acknowledging that Valley Water appreciates the very special setting 7 that this project occurs in. There are many sensitive and protected fish and wildlife species 8 in the area. In addition to the biological value of the area, the project area supports the 9 Adobe Creek Loop Trail which is part of the Greater San Francisco Bay Trail. During their 10 site visits they observed how heavily utilized the trail system is. Staff at Valley Water who 11 live in the area have also emphasized its importance to the project team. 12 He said with those impacts in mind they thought long and hard about ways to avoid or 13 minimize impacts on the environment. He said, first and foremost, they knew that they 14 were going to be limited to a work period between September 1st and January 31st in order 15 to prevent any impacts to the nesting of California Ridgway’s Rail which is an endangered 16 species in the area. With that limited work window in mind, they evaluated various 17 options. Hydraulic modeling demonstrated that some options have the potential to cause 18 erosion along the edge of Hook’s Island, which supports a large, very nice patch of salt 19 marsh habitat. They rejected any of the options that could result in this erosion and aligned 20 the proposed tide gate in a manner that ensured that the island was protected. They also 21 sought options and configured the approach with the goal of minimizing the total length 22 and duration of the trail closure. Given that there will be some temporary impact to trail 23 users, they found that it was important they incorporate some new educational signage on 24 or near the tide gate to highlight environmental and/or historic resources to the public. 25 They look forward to working with City staff on the details of what is most suitable at the 26 site. 27 In addition to the design considerations, Mr. Hunt said they would also be implementing 28 a number of best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts. In light of the 29 design efforts, the project still results in some environmental impacts, primarily related to 30 various biological resources, but they have developed a suite of mitigation measures as 31 part of their CEQA process to reduce these impacts. The measures include having 32 biologists onsite to perform surveys or monitor construction as necessary; adding 33 temporary fencing to keep critters out and making sure that they are staying in the area 34 that they are supposed to be in; providing training for their construction crews; capturing 35 and relocating fish prior to de-watering the project site; and providing compensation for 36 wetland impacts by purchasing credits from a local mitigation bank in Foster City. 37 Mr. Hunt reported, regarding environmental review, that they finalized their CEQA 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration in April. They received comments on the draft MND from 1 the City as well as from BCDC the Bay Trail and other agencies. They considered the 2 comments and incorporated them into the document for finalizing as appropriate. They 3 have obtained environmental permits from numerous agencies, as Mr. Hunt presented. 4 They have been, and plan to continue, engaging with these agencies to get the project 5 permitted in time to meet their construction schedule. 6 Regarding trail impacts, Mr. Hunt emphasized that they do understand how important the 7 trail is to the community and have developed their detour plan based on recommendations 8 received from BCDC and Bay Trail staff who had experience working in the area. He said 9 there will be clear signage regarding the detour and they will widely advertise the detour 10 well in advance so there are no surprises for the community, to make sure everybody is on 11 the same page about what is going to be happening. Mr. Yamane invited questions from 12 the Commission. 13 Commissioner Moss remarked that it is interesting that one person’s blight area is another 14 person’s beautiful place, sharing that the only way he gets his three kids to go on the long 15 bike ride from South Palo Alto was the “bike bowl,” which will be taken over as the 16 staging area. They love to ride in this area, even though it may not look like much or seem 17 like it’s of much interest to anyone. Therefore, he requested that, when construction is 18 finished, they put the “bike bowl” back the way it was. Mr. Yamane informed that they 19 are not actually going into the bowl at all, and only the flat surface on top could be used 20 for a staging area. 21 Commissioner Moss asked if, when they put the all-weather surface on the road, it would 22 remain afterwards or would need to be taken away at the completion. Mr. Yamane thought 23 the intent was to leave it there. They received a comment from Commissioner Reckdahl 24 asking about the same topic. He said they were not planning to do a DG on top of that 25 because of the additional cost, but could possibly talk with City staff about it. 26 Commissioner Reckdahl asked for a description of the fabric that they will put on the trail. 27 Mr. Yamane explained it is a plastic fabric that will be covered with a Class 2 aggregate 28 base, of which there are different sizes, so they are using the smallest size gravel. It will 29 be well-compacted. Commissioner Moss asked how long it would last, or if the plastic 30 would degrade into the environment in time. Mr. Yamane said it is not biodegradable, and 31 it is something they are still talking about. They haven’t had a comment specifically about 32 the material yet, and there was no opposition at this point. He said there are fabrics that 33 are biodegradable, but with these, when the vehicles drive over it, the gravel tries to spread 34 out and it pulls the fabric in tension, so the biodegradable fabrics don’t have the tensile 35 capacity to provide the support for the vehicles. His understanding is that there isn’t really 36 a viable alternative for that function. 37 Mr. Narsim added that the proposed fabric is called a geomembrane and has a lot of holes 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 in it, so it adjusts itself. It is covered with the aggregate base, so the fabric isn’t exposed. 1 They have used this specific fabric in creeks, and it can take a lot of construction load and 2 has a history of good performance. It is not biodegradable. He said with the construction 3 load of this much, with the existing soft side at the site, he thinks they need something like 4 this that can hold the weight. It will not be noticed, but will be covered up. Mr. Yamane 5 also pointed out the alternatives in terms of not using it at all, saying they would likely end 6 up with damage to the trail during construction, which could cause delays for the 7 contractor, which could then result in more closure and construction delays. 8 Commissioner Moss said if they are using it in other creeks, it would be nice to know what 9 kind of life span it has, and whether it will need to be removed it in 10 or 15 years before 10 it gets to that point. He wondered about their experience with using it in creek beds. Mr. 11 Narsim gave an example, of Calabazas Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek and Pond A8, 12 where they do a lot of sediment removal in the area. He said with the high groundwater 13 pumping, the fabric was holding up well. He said without the fabric they have to put so 14 much gravel in, and the gravel sinks into the dirt because of the water. This fabric stretches 15 out and acts like a bridging for the saturated dirt. They have found it to be very useful. He 16 estimated that they have about 10 years of experience using this fabric. 17 Commissioner Reckdahl asked how many inches of gravel the fabric will have on top of 18 it and how hard it is when compacted. Mr. Yamane answered eight inches, and Mr. Narsim 19 said they are requesting 90 percent compaction. For example, in street gravel they request 20 98 percent compaction before putting down the asphalt. This will be a little less compacted 21 with the aggregate base. Commissioner Moss asked if they will be able to ride bikes on it. 22 Mr. Narsim replied that yes, the gradation maximum is ¾ inch. Most of the aggregate will 23 be one-quarter to half-inch, compacted well and all mixed together, so it will be good for 24 riding bikes. They are using the same kind of base material for their levy surface roads for 25 the District in a lot of places. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if it would be suitable for a 26 road bike as opposed to a thick-tired bike. Mr. Narsim said a road bike is meant for asphalt 27 with tin tires. He did not know, but said they could get back to them on that. Commissioner 28 Reckdahl said he rides the trail going down to Sunnydale, and there are a lot of road bikes 29 on the trail. He said people will be unhappy if it will be something that’s gravelly and 30 mushy such that road bikes can no longer use that stretch. He advocated making the 31 surface useable for road bikes, because it is heavily used for those. 32 Mr. Yamane said he believes the Class 2AB aggregate was installed on the west side from 33 the Tide Gate structure to the Bixby parking lot. He said Ray Bramer did the install, but 34 Ray believed the City had later added a type of shell material to the surface as an 35 enhancement. Mr. Anderson answered that staff shares the same sentiment – that it’s 36 critical that the surfacing of the improvements on the levy be comparable to all the adjacent 37 levies. He said Mr. Yamane and he have discussed this in terms of compaction, size of the 38 material, and granulars inside for good compaction. He thinks, based on the prior levy 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 work he has seen the District do, that they should end up with something very similar, if 1 not better, that holds up just as well. He said he has in the past seen certain areas where 2 they have used rock that was too big, without fines, and it did not compact well, and it 3 was hazardous to bikes, and a road bike could not use it. With what Valley Water is 4 proposing, Mr. Anderson said he thinks they will end up with a high quality product that 5 will last a long time. Regarding the question about shell material or DG or anything else 6 on top, he would not recommend that as it is very expensive and does not hold up to vehicle 7 traffic at all as it gets mushy and leaves dents. The compacted base rock with fines will 8 hold up many times better, in his experience. He said they do have oyster shell trails, and 9 they are very expensive, in the neighborhood of 20 times the cost of a base rock trail, and 10 they don’t hold up at all. He feels they are looking at the most durable and efficient 11 surfacing material possible at the Baylands. 12 Mr. Narsim said he totally agreed with Mr. Anderson and adding DG would not help for 13 street bikes. He added that if the surface is constructed really tight, then it is somewhat 14 like an impervious site. They would like to have a pervious surface, so it must be balanced 15 out. The proposed material provides a strong support as well as being pervious so that 16 water drains through. He said sometimes with DG, water does not drain through very fast, 17 but they have used these materials on District levy access roads and have had good results 18 with them. He said they will go back and look at where they have used street bikes on this 19 kind of levy surface and will provide that data. Commissioner Moss said that is why he 20 was wondering if it’s better to remove it when the project is completed, or if laying 21 something over the top of it after construction with a finer grain for crossover bikes would 22 be feasible Mr. Narsim said they can definitely look into that and could probably have a 23 different gradation on the aggregate base as well. Mr. Anderson asked, if down the line for 24 some reason there is some lift or exposure of the fabric, Valley Water would come back 25 and make the necessary repairs to conceal, repair or cover. Mr. Narsim said they would. 26 Chair Cribbs invited any further questions from the Commissioners. 27 Commissioner Brown asked regarding the SCADA system, what sort of redundancy or 28 backup power is built in to make sure there is resilience, for example, in the case of a 29 power outage or emergency or natural disaster. Mr. Yamane said they are talking with 30 some manufacturer/vendors of sluice gates. He said it is another conversation he was 31 probably going to have with the City soon, if they can find a standard product that’s already 32 made that could also be most cost efficient. He said there are a few different products. 33 Although they definitely have the power out there, it will be hard-wired. Some of the 34 systems do have a battery back-up, and this is why it might be a possible to have the battery 35 back-up as well. They are also putting in a hookup for a portable generator, so in the case 36 of a power outage a generator could be available. He said the sluice gate could also be 37 manually cranked open if needed. Mr. Narsim said there are three overrides, a Plan B and 38 a Plan C. 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 Commission LaMere asked what the estimated cost of the project would be. Mr. Yamane 1 believed the total project cost, including everything, overall from the beginning, also 2 including previous attempted repairs done in 2017, would total around $39 million. Much 3 of the cost is a lot higher than expected for a structure replacement because of the multi-4 year construction aspect, mobilizing and de-mobilizing. Also, before they can do any of 5 the work, he explained how de-watering the system is a huge cost, because in order to do 6 any of the work. A sheet pile needs to be installed into a large perimeter around the area 7 in order to keep the water out of the work area, so is much preparatory work to be done 8 just to get in the area to work. In addition, they can only work for five months, outside of 9 the California Ridgeways Rail breeding season, during which the contractors have to get 10 out and come back again the next year. The multi-year construction significantly drives up 11 the cost. He added that a large amount of water can come in if they have a 100-year storm, 12 so they can’t cut off the existing structure until the new structure is built and put into 13 service, which is another justification for the high cost. 14 Commissioner Olson asked if they think the new tide gate will last as long as the old one. 15 Mr. Yamane said he they think it will last a lot longer, because they have better concrete 16 now. He said in this marine environment it is recommended to use and epoxy-coated rebar, 17 which probably wasn’t practical or even available back in the 1950s when the tide gate 18 was constructed. The epoxy-coated rebar will prevent corrosion from getting in and the 19 rebar. Corrosion causes the rebar to expand and pop off of the concrete, so this issue will 20 be addressed in the new construction. 21 Chair Cribbs thanked the presenters for the information and comments. She said obviously 22 there will be schedule changes and they will hear from the public about the trails being 23 closed, and when they’re opened. Communication will be very important, and it looks like 24 the Valley Water team has thought about all of that. From the Commission perspective, 25 they are interested in the schedules and in what they plan to do about communication, and 26 she thinks they have done a good job of informing them about that. Mr. Yamane said they 27 will continue to coordinate with Mr. Anderson and the Ad Hoc committee. 28 Commissioner Reckdahl asked the two extra feet referenced in the document for sea level 29 rise. He wondered what would happen if the sea level were to go above that. Mr. Yamane 30 explained that there are two functions of the flood protection. One is to drain the basin out. 31 The other is sea level rise, coastal flooding protection. They are actually raising the 32 structure to the levy height and coordinating it with the Shoreline Phase II project as well. 33 That is being designed for more than two feet of sea level rise. The issue is that the way 34 that the flood basin drains out is based on gravity. He said that the sea is not going to 35 overtop the tide gate structure. He said they are still far from that. The problem is not that 36 the sea is going to overtop, but that the low tide is now two feet higher than the current 37 low tide, so the basin can’t drain out of the tide gate structure. It is with the fluvial flooding, 38 or riverine flooding, that they can’t drain the water level in the flood basin to the level that 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 they need for the 100-year flood protection of the three creeks. Commissioner Reckdahl 1 asked if the extra two feet in the flood basin means it has less capacity now. Mr. Yamane 2 said yes, it has less capacity for the creeks. But this is an adaptive design, so it really needs 3 a supplemental draining capacity for the basin, which cannot actually be done with the 4 gravity. He said that even if they quadrupled the size of the tide gate with quadruple the 5 number of gates, it wouldn’t change that capacity. Even if they made the structure taller, 6 it is the height limit based on the low tide. So what would have to happen at that point is 7 a pump station would need to be added at a later time to supplement this. This is like the 8 problems they face with sea level rise with the Shoreline Phase II study. At some time in 9 the future it will need to be supplemented with a pump station for active drainage, not just 10 passive drainage. 11 Mr. Narsim said the numbers change all the time for sea level rise. He said every day there 12 is new modeling, and it changes all the time. With the model they used, the two feet is 13 around 35 years. Based on this, it may be 10, 20, 30 years down the road that a pump 14 station may theoretically be needed. He said this new structure is elevated at 15.5 feet, 15 almost 5.5 feet higher than the existing structure. Mr. Narsim advised that the structure 16 may not look pretty, because it’s going to be sitting very high up. He said he wanted to 17 let them know that the project’s concern is about the future, and he believes the levies will 18 be improved to match the same elevation. The project is being planned in anticipation of 19 future needs. Commissioner Reckdahl visualized that if you’re on the levy after the 20 completion, when you reach the tide gate you will have to go uphill a little, go across the 21 tide gate and back down. Mr. Narsim said the transition will have an ADA-compliant 22 slope. Mr. Yamane affirmed that the rest of the levies will have to be raised in the future. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl said they have been talking with the SAFER Bay people and 24 wondered if the reference to Phase II is referring to SAFER. Mr. Yamane said the U.S. 25 Army Corp. is coordinating with SAFER. Commissioner Reckdahl said SAFER is run by 26 JPA and wondered if they are part of JPA. Mr. Narsim confirmed this and said they have 27 been in those meetings and they used that report as part of the basis for their study. 28 Commissioner Reckdahl asked Mr. Hunt about the wetland credits they are purchasing 29 and wondered what the impacts were that necessitated buying the credits. Mr. Hunt 30 explained that there are Waters of the United States and Waters of the State, which are 31 effectively wetlands and open water bodies that, through their permit process, they have 32 to mitigate for impacts to them, or offset their impacts. In this case, the permanent impact 33 occurred along the outboard side of the levy in about a five-foot wide strip of salt marsh, 34 where there is permanent loss of salt marsh totaling about 0.09 acres, so it’s quite a small 35 area. Their team worked with Daren and City staff to try to identify some onsite options, 36 some sort of project in the Baylands to offset the impact, but those projects tend to have a 37 much larger scale than offsetting such a small level of impact. Therefore, in coordination 38 with the regulatory agencies who they’ve been discussing this with over the past couple of 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 months, they will likely be purchasing mitigation credits from the San Francisco Bay 1 Wetland Mitigation Bank, which in Foster City. He said essentially you just give them 2 money, and they’ve already mitigated in advance for you. Commissioner Reckdahl asked 3 what a tenth of an acre of wetland costs. Mr. Hunt said they have to mitigate at greater 4 than a one-to-one ratio. Also, they have to mitigate for “temporal loss” of the de-watering 5 area. Any time there is an impact that extends greater than two years, there is the 6 requirement to mitigate for that, so they are buying for 0.4 acre, which will cost about 7 $800,000. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl questioned about Hooks Island, stating they looked into the flow 9 that’s going through and are worried about whether it’s going to cause erosion. He asked 10 if this will this change how sediment is delivered and if it would affect the sailing area. 11 Mr. Hunt assured him that is something they specifically looked at. Part of the reason they 12 did the modeling is there is a tidal channel that runs from the tide gate basically straight to 13 the sailing dock. They were concerned that by adjusting the tide gate itself that the channel 14 might migrate away from the sailing dock. He said that the modeling suggests that this 15 will not be a problem. Mr. Yamane added that this is why they wanted the new tide gate 16 structure to have the outlet in the same slough as the existing one. There is a throat where 17 the existing tide gate structure goes up, and they are aligning with that. He said they also 18 looked at the velocity differences and concluded this is a good option, because it maintains 19 the same characteristics. Mr. Yamane and Mr. Narsim addressed Commissioner 20 Reckdahl’s concerns regarding the flow and impacts to the sailing area in detail, explaining 21 that the new structure will be aligned with the same throat and the flow trained with pilot 22 channel grading in to flow in the same direction as currently exists. 23 Commissioner Reckdahl asked Mr. Anderson if there is any dredging of the sailing area. 24 Mr. Anderson said they haven’t done this since the 1980’s. Commissioner Reckdahl asked 25 if they would be able to do this, or if the permits would be hard to get. Mr. Anderson said 26 the permits are fairly restrictive, which is probably why they stopped it so long ago and he 27 imagines it is significantly more expensive and rigorous to get permitting to do so now. 28 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if they anticipated any issues with being able to keep using 29 the sailing area. Mr. Anderson said he didn’t believe so. 30 Commissioner Reckdahl was concerned about outreach, and asked if Valley Water was 31 going to be doing the outreach or the City, or both. Mr. Yamane said they will definitely 32 do their outreach using the signage, Next Door, the postcard mailers, and a pre-33 construction meeting. Mr. Anderson said the City intends on working closely with Valley 34 Water, as they have been the entire time. He said he thinks enhancing the outreach of 35 Valley Water through good communication with Meghan Taylor, the City’s Chief 36 Communications Officer, so as to get flyers or other materials to help disseminate the word 37 would be even better. He didn’t think the City would be hosting extra outreach meetings. 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the Park Improvement Ordinance was to be approved 1 tonight, and when it would go to Council. Mr. Anderson said it would go to Council after 2 their break so the earliest would be early August to get it on the Consent Calendar. Two 3 weeks after that, they would have the second reading of the ordinance, and then a 4 construction could begin 31 days after that. Commissioner Moss said there is a tight 5 schedule to get it done so that they can start in September and be done by January. Mr. 6 Yamane clarified that this year they were looking to start in early November, when the 7 crews would actually be able to get out there. 8 Commissioner Reckdahl was concerned that people needed to know about this right away 9 He said there has been so much good planning, but when something like this is coming, 10 he feels that people take it better if they know it’s coming, as opposed to not telling them 11 about it well in advance. He said no one that he talks to knows about the project and asked 12 if they can put up signs that say, “Proposed on this site…” or something, just so they know 13 something is coming. Mr. Hunt said as part of the CEQA process they put a number of 14 signs out there. City staff helped them post signs in seven or eight different locations. As 15 part of their BCDC permit, they will also be required to have signs and will probably be 16 posting them in the same location. He said the signs will be perhaps one piece of the initial 17 outreach onsite, but he thinks they are open to more. Commissioner Reckdahl said having 18 signs out there would be very good, because he just wants people to be informed. 19 Commissioner Moss added there should be a map of the detours, not just verbiage, but 20 something that indicates where they will be allowed to go. Mr. Narsim said he thinks they 21 need to mount a pole first and have a pocket to have flyers in. That way, it will have the 22 detours, plus more information. Mr. Yamane said there is a bulletin at the bathrooms on 23 the Bixby side. He also referred to the multiple locations they posted for the MND. Mr. 24 Narsim said they have been preparing the signs for the last six months. Discussion 25 regarding signage continued, with Commissioner Moss concluding that the Commission 26 just wants to make sure it happens. Chair Cribbs said what’s important for the Commission 27 to convey is that they’re anxious about advanced communication, signage, and letting the 28 community know that this is a big deal. It has to be done, and it’s going to be happening. 29 It’s going to be inconvenient, but it has to be done, so people need to know about it earlier 30 rather than later. 31 Commissioner Reckdahl said in looking at the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance, it’s 32 talking about mosquitos and maintaining water quality. He asked Mr. Anderson to give an 33 overview of how they plan on using this. He wondered if they are actively raising and 34 lowering the sluice, or just basically letting the water come down and letting the passive 35 gates do their work most of the time. Mr. Anderson said it’s different right now than it 36 used to be because of the condition of the existing structure. Prior to its most recent 37 problems, five or six years ago, the Rangers would come out and adjust the gate as 38 necessary. The frequency of adjustments to it varies. There are times when it can be left 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 static, when approximately six inches open would get about a foot tidal exchange, which 1 would bring in water and flush it out, and get a good exchange. He explained, you’ve got 2 the gravity-fed exit and the one tidal gate to allow water in. During the rainy season there 3 are times when they leave it closed and there aren’t any tidal waters coming in, and the 4 water is just passively exiting from the basin to the Bay. The way the mosquitos factor in 5 is at a particular height – negative 2.2 feet in the winter – if the water rises above this they 6 start to get ponding. Water will accumulate in low areas in the marsh in that 600-acre flood 7 basin area, and mosquitos will breed, so it’s very important to monitor the water. In the 8 past they would actively manage this. In more recent times, the past few years, the water 9 has started to flow underneath the structure. Valley Water came out and did a very 10 extensive repair to try to stop that, but there are a few other issues with the aged 11 infrastructure that causes water to flow in in ways that they can’t control. This is the 12 biggest problem in terms of making sure there is good tidal exchange, which means healthy 13 water and avoiding things like low dissolved oxygen which can kill off fish. The other big 14 piece is the controlling of the water levels to control ponding that breeds mosquitos. 15 Mr. Anderson went on to say that his feeling is that this new infrastructure will be far more 16 effective in allowing them to effectively control the amount of water that comes in from 17 the Bay into the flood basin. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if the flood basin is brackish 18 or fresh water. Mr. Anderson said it probably varies depending on the time of year. When 19 it’s closed for long periods of time, during the rainy season, there is only got fresh water 20 coming down the confluence of the creeks into the basin as well as some discharge from 21 mountain dew as it is discharged into the basin, and very little saltwater coming in. During 22 other times of the year, such as during the summer when they try to get a good tidal 23 exchange, it would probably be closer to brackish. He said sometimes you can look at the 24 plant species in the flood basin. There is a mix of fresh, brackish and saltwater plants. For 25 example, he said most people learn about pickle weed when they study the Bay plants. If 26 there is pickle weed in the basin, it’s certainly got elements of saltwater vegetation and 27 salt water from the Bay. But there are plenty of freshwater plants, too. He said brackish is 28 probably more accurate, but it fluctuates depending on the time of year and whether they 29 allow Bay water in. 30 MOTION: Approval to recommend that Council adopt and approve the Park 31 Improvement Ordinance for the Tide Gate Project was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl 32 and seconded by Commission LaMere The motion passed 6-0, by roll call vote. 33 Chair Cribbs and Mr. Anderson thanked the team from Valley Water for their presentation 34 and wished. 35 V. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE JULY 27, 2021 MEETING 36 Mr. Anderson said the memo discussed previously on the NVCAP, regarding advocating 37 for parkland, could be an item at the July meeting. An update from Friends of Palo Alto 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 Parks and Recreation Foundation is a discussion item. There are also three potential items 1 that he needs to vet further. One is the Park Improvement Ordinance for Boulware Park; 2 potentially a discussion with the Skate Park to bring the Commission up to speed on the 3 latest discussions with the Ad Hoc. Also, depending on progress, the Sidewalk Vendor 4 Regulations could potentially be on July’s agenda, but it seems it will be closer to August 5 before being ready for an action on this. It could be a discussion item for July, but he would 6 like to meet with the Ad Hoc and come to consensus on whether they are at a good point 7 to share and discuss, of if they need a little more time to come up with a proper 8 recommendation. Chair Cribbs suggested thinking about the two foundations – Recreation 9 Foundation and Parks Foundation – and then see if there will be enough time to talk about 10 fundraising in general. She thought it would be good to get Skateboard on the July agenda. 11 Commissioner Moss wanted to make sure there would be a Foothills update for August. 12 He also stated that ten years ago, the anabolic digestor near the old Palo Alto dump was 13 taken away from Bixby Park and that ten acres is due to go back into Bixby Park in 14 October, so he hoped they could get something on the August or September agenda from 15 staff or Karin North about that and what it means. Mr. Anderson said this is Measure E, 16 and come November, 2021, there is potential for Council to rededicate that ten acres as 17 parkland. He will check with Public Works, who were heavily involved in the Measure E, 18 when it was undedicated. 19 Commissioner Reckdahl said there are two things on his wish list. First, a fire briefing. He 20 said it would be really nice if the Fire Department could come in and have discussion about 21 their plans for Foothills Park. He thought it interesting in the Fire Plan that the grassy area 22 of Foothills Park is designated as a safe refuge, so if people can’t escape because the roads 23 are clogged, they can go and hide in the middle of the grassy area and put up structures. It 24 would be interesting to hear their thoughts about both evacuation of the Park, getting 25 people off the trails, and also other issues like the safety issues. Mr. Anderson said he has 26 passed that request on to Fire and OES. They have received and acknowledged it, but have 27 not come forward with a commitment to a presentation, per se. Commissioner Moss said 28 there are new techniques for how to do fire breaks without introducing invasive species. 29 He wondered if Midpen was a good resource for that, and Cal Fire for the Santa Cruz 30 Mountains, and if there was some way to get an update on that at the same time, in that 31 same discussion. Mr. Anderson said he would look into that. It probably wouldn’t come 32 from the City’s OES or Fire Department, but he will research and try to find out what 33 they’re doing and borrow best practices. Chair Cribbs also hoped that they could do 34 something with fire; Commissioner Reckdahl had asked about it a couple months ago, and 35 she thought it was a good idea then and a better one now. She wondered if there any kind 36 of invitation the Commission could send out. Mr. Anderson said right now it would 37 probably be best to come from him, but it could be revisited if necessary. If it is not going 38 the way they want, they could also consult with Council Member Kou as well and find 39 some different ways to make it happen. 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 23 Commissioner Reckdahl said there are plans for extending the purple pipe. He said things 1 like Mitchell Park, Community Center and Library have been double piped, to take the 2 recycled water and run it into the bathrooms. He thought it would be nice to know the 3 long-term plan for the purple pipes. The plan was also to go up into the Stanford Research 4 Park. It would be nice to know what their timeline is and what their plans are, and also 5 what the Commission can do to speed it up since it has been on the table for quite a while. 6 Mr. Anderson thought Karin North came to the Commission quite some time ago and 7 presented a little bit on this. It was probably wrapped up into a bigger discussion. She 8 shared much the same, that they have long-term plans but nothing in the immediate works. 9 They have a proposed route that they had looked at, but the cost was very high, and there 10 has been no movement on that. Chair Cribbs asked if there is federal funding for that? Mr. 11 Anderson said Ms. North would know. He will get some basic information and include it 12 in next month’s Department Report and put in a request to say, “At some point when 13 you’ve got some heft to a presentation, could you come to the Commission and give them 14 an update?” Commissioner Reckdahl said it wouldn’t have to be a big thing, but just to 15 hear what the plans are, and if there is a lot of “to be determined,” that’s fine. 16 COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 17 Chair Cribbs suggested they should all try to listen to at least one musical production on 18 either California Avenue or University, coming up either Saturday or Sunday, because 19 they’ve been fun and people are appreciating them. She wished the Commission a great 20 summer and Fourth of July. 21 VI. ADJOURNMENT 22 Meeting adjourned by motion by Commissioner Olson, second by Commissioner 23 Reckdahl, at 9:00 p.m. 24 DRAFT Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 July 27, 2021 8 Virtual Conference 9 Palo Alto, California 10 11 Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Keith Reckdahl, David Moss, Amanda Brown, 12 Jeff LaMere, Vice Chair Greenfield 13 Commissioners Absent: 14 Others Present: Council Member Kou 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do 16 I. ROLL CALL 17 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 18 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 19 Michal Shalon, President of Palo Alto Dog Owners Association, said she has been 20 appearing at the Commission meetings for a few months. Since the last time, she has tried 21 to track down some statistics on dog ownership in Palo Alto. It was difficult to find the 22 information she wanted, but she did find that in 2019 and 2020 combined there were 3,100 23 of dog owner licenses either renewed or new ones. She assumes most of them are new 24 because the renewals happen every three years, so approximately one third of them would 25 be not new puppies. She said she feels there were a lot of pandemic puppies. She estimates 26 there were 1,000 a year, and she feels this is underestimated. In Palo Alto there are only 27 about three-and-one-half dog parks, because she doesn’t count Greer as a full dog park. 28 She feels this population and their pets are underserved. She thinks Parks and Rec have 29 worked hard on trying to get a pilot program for off-leash hours at Ramos. It is very 30 difficult to anticipate what will happen with neighbors. She had hoped that a pilot program 31 rather than a dedicated dog park would help them ease into a situation that neighbors 32 anticipate as problematic. She feels their fears are unfounded, but they will never know if 33 they never get the chance. 34 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 II. DEPARTMENT REPORT 1 Mr. Anderson said the City has been working on a demographic survey for Boards and 2 Commission members as part of the citywide race and equity work. The City Manager’s 3 Office sent a reminder request to the Commissioners to fill out the demographic survey, 4 which is a link from Survey Monkey. Mr. Anderson requested the Commissioners to 5 please fill these out. He gave an update on the skate park progress. They’ve been working 6 with the Ad Hoc and staff and had a productive meeting with Sam Kaplinsky who is 7 spearheading the effort among many other stakeholders. They are working on adding to 8 the stakeholder team, and have a meeting set to discuss a potential location on August 3rd. 9 He hopes they will have made some progress on that and be able to come back to the 10 Commission perhaps at the August meeting with an update and discussion. 11 Mr. Anderson said that the Vice Mayor had reached out to the City Manager’s Office and 12 staff with direction to look into prohibiting campfires and barbecues at Foothills Nature 13 Preserve. Staff is checking with other agencies to learn what policies other agencies, both 14 Santa Clara County and San Mateo County state parks and other nearby agencies, are using 15 in this regard. There is also a Fire Department staff person joining one of the Open Space 16 Rangers for a fuel assessment of Foothills, which will include an assessment of the 17 campground, fire rings and the barbecue areas. He will update the PRC with next steps as 18 they learn more. The Commission was sent an email invitation to a Wildfire Preparedness 19 Community meeting to be held on Thursday, August 19th, 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the 20 Palo Alto Golf and Country Club. There is a link to sign up for that event. 21 Mr. Anderson gave an update on summer camps. There are about 160 in-person camps 22 and 37 virtual camps being offered this summer. There are still registrations for summer 23 classes since there are still two more weeks left in the summer camp schedule. Mr. 24 Anderson shared some nice parent participant comments. One read, “Amazing experience 25 for young kids just learning how to cook. They were so proud of their creations, and the 26 whole family looked forward to each day’s creation. Bravo.” Another comment read, “I 27 just wanted to let you know how amazing my son found Lego camps this summer. They 28 are a fantastic complement to the sports that you also offer.” Another read, “What a great 29 way to get to know your community. Thank you for providing the service. I look forward 30 to signing up for future events and activities.” Also, “My kids have loved their tennis 31 lessons. I’m so happy this is convenient and affordable in a positive environment.” 32 Mr. Anderson reported on swim lessons with an update on the latest numbers. They are 33 still doing the swim lessons through camps. A three-year update showed in July, 2019, 34 there were 960 lessons. In July, 2020, there were 400, a significant drop-off related to 35 COVID. In July of 2021, there have been 1,070. During each swim lesson, each camper is 36 given a lesson per day over the course of a two-week camp. The swim lesson is the main 37 draw of the camp. 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 Regarding the Highway 101 bridge, there was not much more to report from last time. It 1 is expected to be completed in August or September, and they are still working on the 2 railing, fencing and lighting. The next step is the landscape and irrigation on the landings 3 on both sides. 4 He reported that Cubberley reopened its facility for indoor rentals last week. The regular 5 rental season for returning organizations begins in September. Some organizations are 6 delaying their start due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Recreation Health Fall 7 Field Brokering meeting was last week. Recreation staff is working on inputting additional 8 requests for the fall season which runs from August 9th through the end of the calendar 9 year. For special events, Recreation has three events planned – a movie night tentatively 10 planned for Friday, September 11th at Mitchell Park at 6:30; the Moonlight Run on Friday, 11 September 17th; and a Jack-O-Jaunt on Friday, October 29th. 12 Chair Cribbs invited any questions from the Commissioners. 13 Vice Chair Greenfield asked how many people they are reaching with all of the camps. 14 Mr. Anderson had a couple stats, broken down into groupings. For special interest summer 15 camps – cooking, coding, Lego, magic and academic camps – there were 331 participants. 16 For tennis, adults and youth, youth soccer, cardio dance and Tai Chi, there were 372. For 17 drop-in boost fitness there were 545. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there would be a 18 ribbon cutting planned for the Highway 101 Bridge. Mr. Anderson said he has not yet 19 heard this discussed, but he imagines there will be. 20 Commission LaMere said if they were still in a tier, the tier would have changed, in terms 21 of the color tier for COVID. He asked if they will just follow Santa Clara County guidance, 22 or if there is any local guidance that would be followed in terms of summer camps, 23 especially for kids under 12 who are not vaccinated. Mr. Anderson said they will definitely 24 be following Santa Clara County’s guidance. However, the City has just implemented for 25 inside all City facilities, regardless of vaccination status and applying to public and City 26 staff is that you must be masked. Other than that, they will be following County guidance. 27 Chair Cribbs asked if there were any reported cases of COVID during the camps. Mr. 28 Anderson said he had not yet heard of any cases of camp COVID exposures. Chair Cribbs 29 asked if they had had any trouble getting camp counselors, as there is a lot in the news 30 about camps’ inability to find counselors. Mr. Anderson said he has only heard a little and 31 not direct information from Recreation on that, but he inquired at one point, and they said 32 they still had openings. He didn’t think it had hindered their ability to offer the classes. 33 Chair Cribbs asked when the kids are finished with the swimming camps if there is any 34 way to know what the ability of the kids is to swim. She wondered if they are considered 35 water safe when they come out of the camp, or if Tim Sheeper rates their ability at all. Mr. 36 Anderson said he didn’t get that information, but will follow up with him and share that at 37 the next meeting, or set up a time for Chair Cribbs and him to chat with Mr. Sheeper. Chair 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 Cribbs said she is very interested in how many kids are really learning to swim and are 1 really water safe. Mr. Anderson asked how the question would be best phrased to Mr. 2 Sheeper. Chair Cribbs said she would be happy to talk to him with Mr. Anderson because 3 it’s a little complicated. The ability to swim a certain number of meters or yards, to dive 4 in and do certain things, and a technique called drown-proofing that allows you to just bob 5 in the water without panicking until help can arrive. She said there are a lot of different 6 ways of looking at it, but it is all obviously very important. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if they are still selling a lot of Foothills Park annual passes. 8 Mr. Anderson said they are still selling them, although he didn’t know the current rate. He 9 will provide an update with total numbers at the next meeting. Commissioner Reckdahl 10 asked how many of the people buying passes are locals and how many are from outside. 11 Mr. Anderson didn’t not have that data, but will look at that as well. 12 BUSINESS 13 1. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates 14 Baylands Tide Gate - Vice Chair Greenfield said Commissioner Reckdahl and he met with 15 Valley Water staff and Mr. Anderson for an hour-and-a-half, talking about a change to the 16 project that the Commission just recommended a PIO for last month. Mr. Anderson gave 17 an overview of the change. Valley Water had reached out to staff last week and informed 18 them they were going to make a change to a part of the tide gate project. They plan on 19 omitting the levy trail improvements which they described in the discussion of the Park 20 Improvement Ordinance, in which they had planned on adding eight inches of rock and 21 some trail fabric to help the levee hold up to heavy vehicles associated with the 22 construction process. For a number of reasons – permitting, feasibility and timing – they 23 chose to omit those trail improvements, and instead will add trail repairs to the contractor’s 24 responsibilities. They will allocate a certain amount of money so that contractor at the end 25 of every construction season will restore the trail to as good or better condition. At the end 26 of the project they will do the same, to make sure the City is left whole in terms of having 27 a pathway on the levee that is as good or better than the current one. This shifts the burden 28 from doing this ahead of time until after, and the contractor has the responsibility to fix 29 any damage. 30 Mr. Anderson explained that this means they would be required to update the Park 31 Improvement Ordinance and bring it back to the Parks and Recreation Commission. They 32 will target that for August. He feels the meeting was constructive in that regard, that they 33 understand this is important, and they want to be forthright and honest with the community 34 and commissions and council when this eventually goes to them and give them a clear and 35 realistic picture of what the community can expect over this four-year project. Vice Chair 36 Greenfield said from the standpoint of the Ad Hoc, that the change to the plan is not 37 insignificant and it happened right after the Commission made the PIO recommendation, 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 and while they appreciate the information that Valley Water shared with them, for full 1 transparency for both the Commission and the community it seems appropriate to have 2 Valley Water return to the Commission to reconsider and recommend the Park 3 Improvement Ordinance. Commissioner Reckdahl also thought it was a constructive 4 meeting, but it would be nice to get an update. 5 CIP Ad Hoc - Commissioner Moss said in regard to the CIP Ad Hoc they mentioned last 6 month that they really don’t have anything to do until late in the year when they are talking 7 about starting the budget process for next year. This year is basically set in stone, so they 8 have not met. 9 Dog Parks and Restrooms – Commissioner Brown said they have been meeting and 10 discussing options. Chair Cribbs said they heard from the head of the Dog Owners 11 Association earlier in the meeting, and they are working with staff to set up a meeting with 12 the community. 13 Fund Development – Chair Cribbs said they will be hearing about this later in the meeting 14 from Jack Morton and Roger Smith. 15 New Recreational Opportunities – Chair Cribbs said there was a great meeting at the 16 Baylands at the 10.5 acres with good discussion. There was a good meeting with the 17 skaters and the staff around moving the skate park forward. 18 Racquet Court Policy – Commissioner Reckdahl said there was nothing to report, but there 19 is an upcoming meeting they will be talking about. Chair Cribbs added that Mandy is on 20 that Ad Hoc as well. 21 Sidewalk Vendor Policy – Commissioner Moss said that Vice Chair Greenfield and 22 Commissioner Brown and he met this past week after the deadline. They were waiting for 23 Mr. Anderson to get feedback back from the Attorney’s Office. He finally got some 24 feedback. The bottom line is they want the Commission to make sure that any changes to 25 the rules are backed up with one or more of three different reasons. One, heath, safety and 26 welfare. Second, ensuring the public use and enjoyment of natural resources and 27 recreational opportunities without being blocked. Lastly, necessary to prevent an undue 28 concentration of commercial activity that interferes with the natural character of the park. 29 He said this is not easy. They had a dozen or so rules to go through, to see how to explain 30 the rule and why it was important. They will meet again next month, but it will take a 31 while to get through this. Commissioner Moss said it was also reported that there is really 32 not that much demand by vendors right this minute, so it’s not like there’s an extreme 33 sense of urgency like they thought. Thus, they are taking their time to do this thoroughly. 34 Vice Chair Greenfield added that part of their determining the level of urgency was 35 consideration of the work they would be putting on staff. If it is not something that there 36 is a high immediate demand for, they want to be respectful in trying to spread out staff’s 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 workload. 1 Liaisons – Chair Cribbs said Aquatics has been covered and updates about Baylands 10.5. 2 Commissioner Brown said they are working with Catherine on touring the Community 3 Gardens. 4 Cubberley – Commissioner Moss said there are no updates at this time. Chair Cribbs asked 5 if there has been a meeting set up between Councilmembers and the School District. 6 Commissioner Reckdahl said there is none scheduled for the summer. Chair Cribbs asked 7 Council Member Kou if she had any information to share on Cubberley. Council Member 8 Kou said Council and the School Board members have been meeting. It is an Ad Hoc 9 committee, but they have not met recently since they went on break. It is still on hold until 10 they return. 11 Field Users – Vice Chair Greenfield said there is a big problem at the synthetic turf fields 12 at Mayfield and El Camino Park with the infill material melting into globs. He said it’s 13 something they tried to address at El Camino Park about a year-and-a-half ago. The 14 solution at that point as he understood it was replacing all of the material that was not 15 properly rated for the geography because it gets too hot for the material and it melts. He 16 said apparently not all of the material was replaced, so now some of the original material 17 that wasn’t replaced is now having the same problem. Also, the same infill material was 18 used at Mayfield at a later date, and now the problem has become evident and significant 19 there. Mr. Anderson commented and said it is very frustrating. They have a meeting 20 tomorrow with the vendor of the infill to try to resolve it and will do their best to get it 21 resolved in a timely process, hopefully better than the El Camino project was done. He 22 explained that when they swapped out the infill at El Camino there is a certain amount that 23 is imbedded in the lower portion of the turf that is hard, maybe impossible, to get out 24 without lifting up the carpet. They are going to try to find a better way at Mayfield to get 25 it fixed. 26 Commissioner Moss asked if there is also a problem at the much newer Cubberley turf 27 field. Mr. Anderson said no. He said the infill company just made a mistake and used the 28 wrong type for the temperature zone. Vice Chair Greenfield said Cubberley was done after 29 the problem was experienced at El Camino, so they made sure not to get the same 30 problematic material. Commissioner Moss said Cubberley was done at least two years ago. 31 Chair Cribbs asked if it was the same vendor for all three fields. Mr. Anderson said it is a 32 different vendor for the Cubberley field. Commissioner Moss asked what the new signage 33 for Cubberley is about. Mr. Anderson said it is focused on rules to protect the track and 34 field. Commissioner Moss said they were having some problems with people at the gym 35 throwing medicine balls, and there was a javelin thrower and things like that which are not 36 good for the field. They had a talk with them, and he hoped that there wasn’t that issue at 37 other fields as well. Vice Chair Greenfield said the rules haven’t been updated since the 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 track was changed from the decomposed granite to the synthetic material. 1 Commissioner Moss said the other problem is dogs on the field. Dogs are okay on the 2 track, on a leash, but not on the field. Vice Chair Greenfield said that will be properly 3 reflected in the new signage. Commissioner Moss added that it is important to make sure 4 that people take their trash with them, as there have been issues with games being played 5 and trash being left behind by both teams and audience. 6 Golf – Commission LaMere had no update at this time. Commissioner Moss asked about 7 the kids’ golf camp and the area closest to Embarcadero. He asked if that has been moved 8 forward. Mr. Anderson asked him to clarify which area he was asking about. 9 Commissioner Moss said it was the triangle between Embarcadero and the driving range. 10 Mr. Anderson said this is a part of what First Tee has proposed and wants to partner with 11 the City to make improvements there to make it more useable, including fencing and other 12 improvements. They are still in the discussion phase and looking at the possibility of 13 meeting with Council in a closed session to discuss it. 14 Hawthorns Area Planning – Vice Chair Greenfield said it is quiet right now. He has been 15 in contact and signed up for a status and waiting to get rolling on it. 16 Palo Alto Recreation Foundation – Chair Cribbs said Jack will be talking about this. She 17 commended the Foundation for the music series through the month of June, which was 18 funded in part by Foundation funds. 19 PAUSD – Commissioner Reckdahl had nothing to report. The meetings are tabled for the 20 summer. 21 Safe Routes to School – Vice Chair Greenfield said there was no update. 22 Skateboard Park – Commission LaMere had nothing beyond Mr. Anderson’s report. 23 Sustainability – Commissioner Brown said she talked with Christine to check in. There 24 will be some announcements and engagement opportunities on the Sustainability and 25 Climate Action Plan coming up in the fall. She will keep the Commission apprised of that 26 and share any information. 27 Urban Forestry – Vice Chair Greenfield said he would have a report next month. 28 Ventura Plan – Commissioner Reckdahl had nothing new to add, but he will work with 29 Chair Cribbs to draft a letter for next month. 30 Youth Council – Chair Cribbs said they are not meeting this summer. 31 Chair Cribbs said although it may feel tedious to go through all of the Ad Hoc’s, she 32 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 appreciates knowing what the committees and liaisons are doing. 1 Council Member Kou asked how substantial the changes to the work for the Baylands tide 2 gates are, and if it is substantial enough to return to Parks and Recreation for consideration. 3 Mr. Anderson said for the project itself in terms of fixing the tide gate it is not substantial. 4 It is really about access for heavy equipment and ensuring that they don’t damage the levee 5 trail that they need to get to it from, or if they did damage it, to repair it. It is a popular trail 6 and there are significant closures associated with it. There are also concerns that the Ad 7 Hoc have spoken to Valley Water to say that they want assurances that the change is not 8 going to push them into higher risk for delaying the project or higher risk for impacting 9 wildlife than they would have normally. If the contractor is now responsible for after-the-10 fact trail improvements, are they going to be rushed and have, for example, two drilling 11 rigs at one time when they might have only had one before? Is the noise going to impact 12 wildlife in a way that they hadn’t predicted? Mr. Anderson said that Valley Water staff 13 understands that those are concerns and they intend to have answers to those kinds of 14 questions when they come back to the August meeting. He thinks it is important enough 15 to warrant a new Park Improvement Ordinance that makes very clear exactly what they 16 are doing, with an opportunity for the community and the Commission to provide input 17 before it comes to Council for review. 18 Council Member Kou asked if there is any compromise to the levee itself since that is 19 where all of the heavy equipment will be. Mr. Anderson said when he says trail and levee, 20 they are synonymous in that regard because people are using the biking and walking on 21 top of that levy. The worry is that most of it is bay mud. It was built long ago and it will 22 have ruts easily in the winter, and some of the work will have to take place there. Since 23 they know ruts will happen it is really about being able to repair. They are looking at doing 24 it proactively, which is what they had originally proposed versus doing it retroactively – 25 causing the damage and then fixing it. Valley Water will explain the nuances as to why 26 because it is a little complicated and multi-faceted. 27 Council Member Kou asked if the levee will be compromised in terms of flooding. Mr. 28 Anderson said no, it will actually be better than it was in terms of flooding, at least in the 29 area near the tide gate. They are not raising any other portions of the levee, just the tide 30 gate replacement because it is so old and the structure is failing. The project does not aim 31 to bring the entire levee system up to flood protection levels, but it will dramatically 32 improve the area immediately around the tide gate itself. Commissioner Moss said it was 33 mentioned that they were originally going to cover the levee with gravel, which would be 34 difficult for bicycles. So they have been talking to them about what kind of material they 35 will use to resurface it so that bicycles could be on it, other than gravel. Mr. Anderson said 36 they have assured them that they will use whatever they want, which will be in-kind. So 37 in an area of smooth Bay mud which looks like dirt, they will use that kind of material to 38 ensure that it ends up being as good as what they started with, or better. He has seen 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 multiple iterations of levee repairs, some very crude, such as large rock with no fines, 1 which is horrible for bicyclists. Conversely, he has seen Class AB, aggregate base rock 2 used where it is perfect, like a street. He thinks they can work with Valley Water to make 3 sure the end product is smooth and appropriate for bicyclists and hikers. They will be 4 responsible for making it like it is, not making it something different or significantly better. 5 2. Presentation from Friends of Palo Alto Parks and Palo Alto Recreation 6 Foundation 7 Chair Cribbs introduced Roger Smith from Friends of Palo Alto Parks, and Jack Morton 8 from the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation. She asked them to provide the Commission 9 with a brief history of their foundations, why they started, how they started and when they 10 started, their activities, and priorities for Palo Alto. Both organizations play a big role in 11 the operation and success of recreation, parks and open space programs. 12 Mr. Roger Smith said in 2003, he and his wife, Judy Kay, decided to form Friends of the 13 Palo Alto Parks, with the main idea being that the City would never have enough money 14 to do all the things that were needed. They are a small group of eight board members 15 headed up by their President, Susan Beall. They have done a number of small projects over 16 the years, such as the Learning Center at Arastradero, the fund for the Bol Park Nature 17 Plant Garden, the Embarcadero Road Pollinator Corridor Project. There have been some 18 major projects as well, such as Heritage Park. One of the things they had hoped over the 19 years was to get neighbors involved. He said a great example is John and Kristine Erving, 20 who live just next to the park, and who headed up that project. A second major project was 21 Lytton Plaza, headed up by Barbara Gross and Chop Keenan and Lee Levy. Lee made a 22 substantial gift, and the fountain there is named after him. Mr. Smith shared that it warms 23 his heart to go through the park and see young people, and it turned out very well. The 24 third and most famous project is the Magical Bridge. He said Olenka Villarreal and her 25 group did an outstanding job. The Dick Perry family made a very large donation to get this 26 done, and Olenka has carried this concept on to other communities. A fourth project is 27 working with the City to get the new signage out at the Baylands in English and Spanish. 28 They donated some money because there were other funding sources, but there was a gap. 29 He said they are a very flexible organization and open to anyone with a great idea for a 30 project. They are a 501(c) so are able to get a fund started, and people that donate can get 31 a tax deduction. He said they are a small group with hearts in the right place and are happy 32 to work with the City and the Commission. 33 Commissioner Moss wondered if they could try to somehow do something with Foothills 34 to bridge the budget gap there, considering all of the wear and tear it’s had the past months. 35 He said when the time comes, he hopes they can do something there. Mr. Smith replied 36 that they would be happy to participate in that and would look forward to visiting in that 37 regard. 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 Chair Cribbs mentioned that Friends of Palo Alto Parks has a very nice website. She asked 1 Mr. Anderson how people get to their website from the new City website. Mr. Anderson 2 said he will check. The transition to the new website was a little rough, and he is not sure 3 it is complete yet. Chair Cribbs said she just wanted to make sure that they are visible on 4 the City’s website, as they used to be. 5 Mr. Jack Morton, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, addressed the Commission. He said 6 he takes a deeper look at what goes on in Palo Alto. He immigrated to America in the 70’s 7 and he and Mary Ellen came to Palo Alto with an 18-month-old. He asked, why would a 8 Canadian come to America at the time of the Vietnam War? He said he thinks this is what 9 framed his view of how commissions and cities work. He thinks in many ways there is a 10 belated response to problems. In his perception and experience, when things are going 11 well, there is a recreation department, there is staffing for things, but the moment there is 12 a downturn, for example, they will lose the only ice skating rink west of the Sierras, or 13 will lose Baylands. In looking at the actual history of the Commission and its values, you 14 will find that the community had to fight for Baylands. He related that his in-laws used to 15 say that when they came from Kansas the Baylands was a garbage pit. Eventually the 16 community got tired of it and changed things. He said organizations like Friends of the 17 Parks, Friends of the Library, and Palo Alto Recreation Foundation evolve because it 18 becomes unbearable in the sense that something that the community values is going to be 19 destroyed. He got involved when he discovered there was an outdoor ice skating rink, and 20 one spring he said goodbye to the founder, who told him “We’re not going to be here next 21 year, because we will be torn down for condos.” He said at that point they started the 22 Winter Lodge, and Ann thought if they started the Winter Lodge maybe they could save 23 the May Day parade and all the other things. 24 Mr. Morton said that the first reaction of the budget people is to eliminate people that don’t 25 “pick up garbage” or don’t “fill potholes.” He said forty years ago the bulk of downtown 26 Palo Alto was not $11-million-dollar houses. It was vacant houses, off-campus housing, 27 and it was an economic downturn. He thinks one of the things that has kept the libraries, 28 parks and recreation going is that they finally as a community said, “This is as important 29 to us as all of the other things that the City does, and which we depend on.” He said that 30 one of the things he will ask the Commission to think about whenever they accept and use 31 funding is to make sure it is permanently dedicated. For example, who would have thought 32 in the 80’s or 90’s that the community might have to fight to save the space in Cubberley? 33 Even though not a giant open space, it is one of the largest open spaces for South Palo 34 Alto. He said he thinks if it weren’t for those of them who cared about those kinds of 35 activities, there would be no pressure on City Council. They would just simply say, “Well, 36 look, we’ve got this lot on Middlefield. It’s got to be worth something. Let’s sell it and use 37 the money,” and then that money just disappears, and the community loses a major asset. 38 Mr. Morton suggested that new ways of fundraising are needed because the City will not 39 be approving anything beyond the existing funding level for the next several years. Staff 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 is stretched and cannot add more programs. The kinds of non-profits that historically have 1 raised funds have a harder time because they don’t have the luxury of one parent not having 2 to work and having time for support of public activities. 3 Chair Cribbs asked him and Mr. Smith if it seemed that the Friends of Palo Alto Parks are 4 more focused towards capital kinds of improvements, and the Recreation Foundation is 5 more concerned with supporting programs that Community Services is running. Mr. 6 Morton said this is very close, and they tend to do that. He said they have only done things 7 that are park-related and they tend not to run things. Chair Cribbs said the reason she thinks 8 both of these Foundations are very important for Palo Alto is that in the Master Plan they 9 have talked about support for Parks and also support for Facilities. When the Commission 10 put together their work plan, the Ad Hoc for Recreational Opportunities they had identified 11 three or four areas that were really capital projects. One is the 10.5 acres. One is the skate 12 park, which Council has asked them to look at. There is also the potential City gym, First 13 Tee, and now potential athletic field renovations. 14 Chair Cribbs said it felt to her that it was important for all of the Commissioners to 15 understand what potential funding vehicles are available to them. Both of them are 501(c)3 16 organizations, although the Recreation Foundation may have a different determination. 17 Mr. Morton said there is a dedicated beneficiary, which is the City. Since it is frequently 18 program money that the City is short on, they are dedicated, so most of their monies go 19 directly to City programs. Chair Cribbs said she wanted to make sure they get both of the 20 designations because what they will be looking for, assuming Council approval, is a place 21 where citizens can contribute money to causes that have been outlined by the City Council 22 and supported by the Recreation Foundation. Chair Cribbs invited questions from the 23 Commissioners regarding the history and goals of the two foundations and how they can 24 work together. 25 Commission LaMere thanked the two guests for being present and feels their service is 26 amazing. He hopes they are able to engage younger families and keep them abreast of what 27 is happening and get them involved. He asked Mr. Smith for a brief overview or 28 description of how a project comes to fruition in terms of their involvement, how they 29 raise the funds, if they went to the City first, or if they find an idea and then find the people 30 that might finance it, or if all of them are very different. Mr. Smith responded that Heritage 31 Park was simple because it was raw land at that time, and it was through the neighbors that 32 came forward. It just made sense for to get the neighbors involved. Lytton Plaza came 33 from Roxy Rapp And Lee Levy. He said Lee loves water, and being former mayor and a 34 very generous man, they put together a founder’s group to raise the money. There is a 35 plaque there of those involved. Unfortunately, and very importantly, he said, a lot of the 36 old citizens that grew up here, so to speak, are now gone, and the plaque shows about six 37 people that are deceased. They need to replace them. Fortunately, there is a lot of tech 38 money around town, but it’s not the same and a little harder to get ahold of. Mr. Smith said 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 that Olenka came to them and joined the Board because she had the idea of Magical 1 Bridge. 2 Mr. Smith said in in regard to where they come from, it’s like Henry Kaiser said, “Find a 3 need and fill it.” With the Baylands, he said they have some flexibility in working with the 4 City. They have done several things where they needed an organization that could step in 5 between funders, so they funded some money until the money came through. They tend to 6 be project-oriented, so people come to them. One of his dreams was for every park to have 7 their own Rangers, such as Greer Park or others. One of the things he wanted to throw out 8 to the Commission was, as they get ready to redo a park, he would encourage them to form 9 a fund for that park, because then there is activity, and then they can ask people to 10 contribute, and it would be a nice thing. Once people write a check they will have more 11 interest in the park next door than they otherwise would. Chair Cribbs said they’ve talked 12 about that several times and it is something they would love to do, to help move forward 13 and get support for. She said they would be listening to some information about Boulware 14 Park in a little while and she would suspect that it would be nice to have a small fund to 15 support Boulware Park if it comes to that. 16 Commissioner Brown asked a logistical question. When they are trying to recruit new 17 volunteers to either serve on a board or to get involved in the foundation, what are some 18 ways in which the City or the Commission could be helpful to them in that way? Mr. 19 Morton said what is important to them is continuity and trying to find families near the 20 activity that will sort of police it after they are done with the fundraising. He thinks he has 21 more of a bias now that when outside funds are raised they get permanently dedicated. The 22 City cannot without a vote of the community just come in and decide, for example, it 23 doesn’t want a fountain there anymore, or things like Cubberley and the struggle with the 24 school board over whether or not that remains community-accessible. He said this is where 25 the Commission has to come in. He said they didn’t do this with the Winter Lodge. They 26 traded City land for very expensive at the time – now impossibly expensive money – for 27 the Winter Lodge. But in those cases, when they get the community involved, their efforts 28 should somehow be protected so that the next budget doesn’t put the activity or the capital 29 investment at risk. He thinks one of the things the outside funders, such as the with 30 libraries, there is not quite that risk. With the Children’s Theater there is probably not that 31 risk because there would be such an uproar. But that’s not necessarily the case with 32 something like the old Palo Alto Medical Building that becomes revitalized as the History 33 Museum, and they have to make sure that the City Council doesn’t someday decide that it 34 just doesn’t want that building to be supported. He shared that these are just 40 years of 35 frustration with government from his view. He said the Commissioners are the “warm” 36 side of government, but when they do these big projects they basically have to guarantee 37 their longevity and continuance. While the Magical Bridge in 20 years might need some 38 modifications, but the facility that they save, they must be able to guarantee that it will 39 continue to be saved. 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 Mr. Smith added in answer to Commission LaMere’s question, what they have found from 1 business is that you need a champion or a pair of champions to take on any of these projects 2 and then from that you help out. He said he views it as like a start-up. You need someone 3 who is willing to really exert their energy and time to get it done. Chair Cribbs said they 4 are absolutely right in that. The Junior Museum is a great example with a vision early on 5 and a champion and somebody to really create the vision in the community. Any big major 6 projects need as champion or two, like Magical Bridge. 7 Commissioner Moss said in his mind this is a very important conversation to have, and 8 that’s why they have an Ad Hoc for it. The big question he has is they take so much of this 9 for granted, such as the May Fete Parade and the Moonlight Run and now the Halloween 10 event, which he had never heard of before. They have the World Music and the movie 11 nights. Also there used to be the Music in the Park. All of those things require, as stated, 12 a champion and some funding, and they cannot take them for granted. Secondly, 13 Commissioner Moss said talked about how hard it is to get people on the Board, to get 14 people to step up. He wondered if there is a way to do advertising, such as the Daily Post, 15 Palo Alto Weekly, the Enjoy! catalog, because the new blood is needed, a lot of small 16 donors or medium-sized donors, rather than a few very wealthy families, to buy in to the 17 community, and unless you advertise to get the word out it’s only going to be friends of 18 friends. It’s not sustainable because they get old and die off, so how do you replace that? 19 He wondered if there is some way that both organizations could advertise with a list of 20 projects in an ad and get their name out. Mr. Morton responded that all of the programs 21 Commissioner Moss mentioned were Recreation Foundation programs. They got them set 22 up and then what happens? The City they can’t run the Music in the Park. They don’t have 23 the staff. They’ve moved on to another project. He said that’s the hard problem, and he 24 doesn’t know how to solve that problem. Chair Cribbs said she thinks the fact that they 25 can identify that they might want to move forward doing some more either advertising or 26 visibility in some way can help. The function of bringing the guests here was so that the 27 Commission could hear about what they’ve done and their concerns for the future and 28 learn from the collective experience. 29 Commissioner Reckdahl agreed that they have just scratched surface when it comes to 30 fundraising. Every time someone registers on the Enjoy! website, it should pop up a box 31 to say, “Can you donate some money to either the Recreation Foundation or Friends of 32 Palo Alto Parks?” Mr. Morton said they could say something like, “Think of us in your 33 will.” He thinks that this is something worth thinking about. Mr. Smith pointed out that 34 the people that supported all the things we loved are getting to that age. Commissioner 35 Reckdahl said his parents are seniors, and they are right now getting the list of the charities 36 they like and putting them in their will. Also regarding seniors, he said, their house if full 37 of stuff. They don’t need any more objects. But they go for a walk in the park in the 38 morning, and the best birthday present for them is to give a donation to the Parks 39 Foundation, much better than buying them anything else. They appreciate it more. It 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 wouldn’t fill up the landfill. There are so many good reasons to do it. Commissioner 1 Reckdahl said they haven’t pushed that. He suggested that every entrance should have a 2 sign saying, “Help support this park. Donate to the Rec Foundation.” He said if you went 3 door-to-door to ask people in Palo Alto what they know about these two foundations 4 maybe 10 to 20 percent of the people know anything about it. Mr. Smith said also a lot of 5 folks have never been to a city council meeting. So they might want to think about having 6 some hero awards, or something to bring out people of various ages to say “Thanks for 7 doing this,” because a lot of City Council stuff is negative, and there is so much positive 8 stuff here. Mr. Smith said there’s a joke in the venture capital community, that the venture 9 capitalists have deep pockets but short arms. That’s what we have here, a lot of money, 10 and we need to extend the arms. Mr. Morton agreed, that is the problem exactly. 11 Vice Chair Greenfield thanked for all that their organizations do and said their partnership 12 is very important for the City, and they want to help foster the relationship so they can be 13 successful in helping the community. He said champions are key, as Mr. Smith pointed 14 out. You need a champion and a project together for it to work. He thinks they are talking 15 about trying to figure out how to simplify the process for the community to contribute back 16 to the community; also, improving the outreach and the awareness to further simplify the 17 process. The Commission is onboard to help and support those goals. 18 Chair Cribbs appreciated all the comments of the Commissioners and said they will take 19 a lot of notes back to the Ad Hoc committees and put together plans to implement that 20 won’t cause too many challenges for the stretched staff. She said they would like to have 21 them both come back in December to show them what they’ve been able to do and continue 22 communicating because they all have everyone’s best interests in mind. She said there is 23 no more fun thing to work on than recreation and open space and parks, and stuff for kids. 24 That is the Commission’s mission and they are grateful to have Friends of the Parks and 25 Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and all that they have done over the years. 26 Council Member Kou thanked both organizations on behalf of the Council for all they do 27 for the city and carrying on the history and traditions of the City. She also mentioned that 28 the Mayor has also implemented for this year having nonprofits come and do a 10- to 15-29 minute presentation prior to Council meetings, so she suggested connecting with staff and 30 put themselves on the calendar, perhaps doing a presentation so that not only the city 31 becomes aware but also Councilmembers and begin to place more emphasis and 32 importance and support towards the organizations. Chair Cribbs thanked her for this good 33 information. 34 3. Park Improvement Ordinance for the Boulware Park Project 35 Mr. Anderson introduced Peter Jensen, City Landscape Architect, who has been working 36 with the community, staff and the Commission on this project. 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 Commissioner Brown recused herself from this item. 1 Mr. Jensen presented the Park Improvement Ordinance for Boulware Park which has been 2 a project they have been working on for a few years. With the addition of the adjacent lot, 3 the AT&T property, the project has expanded into a larger project, so has taken longer 4 than expected. They are asking this evening for the Commission to recommend to Council 5 approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance. The next step in the process is approving 6 the design and the scope of the work. Staff will be working on developing some drawings 7 and building the park, which they hope will happen next summer. He presented slides 8 indicating the Boulware Park and the Birch Street property which was purchased about 9 two years ago. Their plan is to now form these into one Boulware Park. They conducted 10 the community process and outreach that has gone on for the last two years. The project 11 webpage can be accessed at www.cityofpaloalto.org/boulwarepark which has the project 12 summary and presentations that were viewed by the community and Parks and Recreation 13 Commission. Also, a community survey that was completed to extract information from 14 the community, and how they developed the plan. 15 The proposed park design highlights include combining the playgrounds, which is 16 something the design process favored. For the Ventura Community Neighborhood Plan, 17 they set back all of the real development in the park away from Matadero Creek 65 feet, 18 so if there are any future renovations of the creek bed itself, there would be nothing in the 19 way of allowing that to happen. That was seamless in the park and didn’t really impact 20 any of the park amenities at all. They did include existing amenities that are in the park 21 now. There is basketball, open turf areas, the two playgrounds, the picnic space, the 22 walking paths. Those elements are still part of the overall park design. With the new land 23 and adding some more amenities to the park itself which were heard from the community 24 as well as the Parks Commission, and taking some lead from the Parks Master Plan, they 25 are adding a restroom, a dog park, covered picnic areas, a bocce ball area, rain gardens, 26 expanded picnic areas with game tables and expanded loop pathways. They are also 27 expanding some of the street parking along Lambert and providing the park with accessible 28 parking stalls. There is a pump station in the park which will remain as it is. 29 Mr. Jensen presented the plan as it appeared at the January, 2021, meeting. The only 30 difference in the new plan is the two restrooms in the previous plan. This plan has just the 31 one located closer to the playground area. All of the previously-discussed amenities are 32 the same. This was also shared with the community, which was in support of the overall 33 design and amenities. The other aspect of the design that is unique to the project – besides 34 it being a starting over of parkland which they don’t often do since the city is built-out, so 35 it is hard to have a project where there is expansion of park space - they are planning to 36 remove the portion of Ash Street that basically divides the newly-purchased property and 37 the existing park, so that they can combine then into one area, making Chestnut a cul-de-38 sac with a drop-off area in that space. 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 Chair Cribbs asked how big the dog park area is. He responded that it is 0.25 acres. He 1 said when they started to look at dog park areas, they tried to get up to the half-acre size. 2 In developing this park, they decided to make it smaller because the park itself is not a 3 very large park, and also is a community park and not a regional park, so has a smaller 4 user group, mostly the surrounding community. He said he knows they are always trying 5 to find spaces for dog parks, which is in the Parks Master Plan and frequently discussed. 6 They did their best to get a dog space area in the park boundary itself. 7 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if there are utilities under Ash Street that will have to be 8 dealt with. Mr. Jensen replied that there are not. There is a drainage line that they will start 9 to use in an infiltration planter, but there are no utilities that run under Ash Street except 10 drainage, which is connected only to the park and is draining the park. Commissioner 11 Reckdahl asked if the Council has already given permission to do this, or if it will be part 12 of the PIO. Mr. Jensen said the removal of Ash Street to incorporate the full area into a 13 park is included in the Park Improvement Ordinance. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if 14 what used to be Ash will be dedicated parkland. Mr. Jensen said staff is discussing this 15 and the Council will probably have some direction on. It is not currently something that is 16 being actively worked on, but it can still be developed as parkland. The question of making 17 it parkland is still being discussed and will be discussed more with the Commission. 18 Commissioner Reckdahl asked about the corner that currently is blinded, where they 19 currently have issues with people hanging out, if it will give better visibility or if it will 20 be about the same as today. Mr. Jensen thought it will give better visibility, especially from 21 the cul-de-sac. They are going to take away the amenities that are back there. There are 22 currently picnic tables that do provide a location for people to sit in the park all day long, 23 basically. They will move these out of that corner and are not planning on placing anything 24 back there, as it does back up to residential and they want to keep it open to deter the type 25 of gathering that is happening there right now. The pathway in the vicinity is also meant 26 for people to be moving and walking through the area, so it is not just a static space, which 27 will also help with keeping the area open. Commissioner Reckdahl said he hears a lot of 28 complaints about homeless people in Boulware Park and asked if they’ve done anything 29 to make this less attractive. Mr. Jensen said he feels opening up that end of the park and 30 moving the amenities out closer towards Lambert Street will help. The other thing that has 31 come up in the past is the people living in RVs or campers along Ash Street because the 32 lot was undeveloped for so long. He said that was the main issue that the neighborhood 33 had, so by removing that segment of the street it should impact that happening as well. 34 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if it will be two-hour parking, or if that is a park issue or 35 someone else. Mr. Jensen said they will have that discussion with Transportation. He 36 doesn’t imagine that it will be, but it may be something they decide on. Their goal was to 37 meet the ADA requirement of providing necessary stalls. There have to be at least two for 38 the park. It gives a couple more parking stalls, but they will have further discussion with 39 Transportation as to what the parking should be on the street. 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there is anything that will stop basketballs from going into 1 the dog park. Mr. Jensen there are fences around each end of the basketball park that are 2 currently six feet on the street side and eight feet on the dog park side, so hopefully that 3 will stop that from happening in that corner. This is the other reason that the dog park entry 4 is located there, because it gives another layer of protection. If something does fly over the 5 fence, hopefully it flies into the little pen area and not out to the fence. Vice Chair 6 Greenfield said this is a consideration that they want to avoid. Mr. Jensen said they are 7 also planning along the back side where there is an existing old hedge planted there. They 8 will leave some of that because it screens the property next door somewhat. In another 9 area of the basketball court they will come back with a much tighter hedge which he would 10 expect to grow 15 to 25 feet over its lifetime, so there will eventually be a much more 11 significant wall behind it. Vice Chair Greenfield asked what is currently circling around 12 the dog park and the right side of the basketball courts. Mr. Jensen said this is the actual 13 lot of the AT&T property that they still have with their switching station. The edge on the 14 right side is parking lot area, so even if a ball does fly over the fence, it would mostly go 15 into their parking lot space. Vice Chair Greenfield said obviously they don’t want it to be 16 a private residence that the dog park backs up onto. 17 Chair Cribbs asked if they are going to use that land they are currently using forever. Mr. 18 Jensen did not think they have asked them that question. He thought the building itself, the 19 switching station, is fairly important, although there doesn’t seem to be a lot of people 20 working in it. They do own the frontage that’s out there, too, which would be nice to have 21 as well, which is just basically a few existing pine trees and a lot of pine needles. There 22 has been no discussion with them about that at all. Commissioner Moss said he thought 23 that was part of the original purchase. Mr. Jensen replied for some reason that is how the 24 lot is broken up . The lot line includes the frontage as shown on the illustration. 25 Vice Chair Greenfield asked if Ash Street will terminate in a turnaround similar to 26 Chestnut. Mr. Jensen said Ash Street is actually a segment of the street shown. Ash Street 27 started as a segment where Chestnut turned into Ash, so they are eliminating that portion 28 of Ash altogether. Lambert will come straight by it, and there will be no turn off into the 29 park anymore. Chestnut will have its own cul-de-sac. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if 30 basically Ash will just go into Lambert and there will be new parking on Ash Street. Mr. 31 Jensen the new parking is actually on Lambert. Vice Chair Greenfield suggested if that 32 could be made more clear in the diagram it would be helpful. Regarding the discussion of 33 whether the area that is no longer a street should become dedicated as parkland, he 34 wondered why that would not be the case. Mr. Jensen said he couldn’t answer that 35 question. It is being discussed, but he is not sure what the pros and cons for it are at this 36 time. Vice Chair Greenfield said he thinks it’s a fairly obvious action for the Commission 37 to pursue in terms of working to get the land dedicated as parkland, because what would 38 be more appropriate to dedicate as parkland than something that is serving as part of a 39 park? Mr. Jensen thought there was some discussion that maintaining it as a street provides 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 flexibility with doing things there that if you dedicate it as parkland would be very difficult 1 to do. For example, if one day that development of Fry’s were to come over there a little 2 bit more, there would be some flexibility in that. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if he was 3 suggesting that the plan they are seeing today might not be the plan sometime down the 4 road, the potential exists that the new addition could get ripped out and go back to having 5 a street there. Mr. Jensen said he couldn’t say what would happen in the future. He said 6 they did put the 65-foot setback against the creek which would allow for development and 7 restoration of the creek. Maintaining the road right-of-way there allows for flexibility for 8 future development because of the nature of what’s happening with the discussion of the 9 Fry’s location. Vice Chair Greenfield said that only increases his interest in getting this 10 portion dedicated as parkland. 11 Vice Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Jensen to talk through the process after the Commission 12 recommends approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance that goes to City Council. Mr. 13 Jensen said if the Commission tonight recommended to Council to adopt the Park 14 Improvement Ordinance, they will be taking the Park Improvement Ordinance to Council 15 in the fall, either late September or early October probably. During that time or after the 16 meeting, if there is good support for the plan, staff will start to put the bid documents 17 together which takes a few months to do. They would plan on bidding the project in the 18 springtime, taking the contract approval to the Council for approval in 2022, and then start 19 construction sometime next summer. Construction is estimated to take about 120 days. 20 Vice Chair Greenfield asked if it would be coming back to the Commission for review of 21 the details of the implementation. Mr. Jensen said not in the current schedule. But if the 22 Commission would like to have it come back again to see details they can make that 23 happen. The restroom has to go to the Architectural Review Board to review because it’s 24 a structure, so there will be further comment on that. Vice Chair Greenfield said that would 25 be something for the Commission to review, even perhaps creating an Ad Hoc next year 26 to be reviewing this along with park amenities and consider if there’s a need to bring it to 27 the Commission for a full review. 28 Mr. Jensen shared the Park Improvement Ordinance Scope of Work, which includes the 29 basketball courts and the berm seating area, the prefabricated restroom, the street 30 improvements with the head-in parking stalls and two accessible stalls. They do have to 31 maintain some drive access for the Water District to access the creek, so they will be 32 maintaining that. There is the street plantings. There is the picnic area, the bocce ball 33 court, the dog park, the open grass area, the loop pathway that is composed of both asphalt 34 and decomposed granite. There are both playgrounds, one for older kids and one for 35 younger kids. There is a new crosswalk that they will be putting on Fernando Avenue, 36 which is part of the ordinance, the incorporation of a portion of Ash Street into the overall 37 park area, the cul-de-sac for Chestnut, new site amenities through the whole park – 38 benches, tables, trash cans, et cetera. There is low flow irrigation and native planting – 39 going back into a drought they are cognizant of doing that. They also need to meet new 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 drainage requirements and filter the water coming off the park before it goes into the creek. 1 Finally, there is lighting and new fencing around the residential areas, which needs to be 2 redone. 3 Commissioner Moss said all of those amenities are examples of things they could fund-4 raise for through Friends of Palo Alto Parks. He wondered how they could do that. In other 5 words, they will bid for the whole project, but he asked how they can get the community 6 to buy some of those things and reduce the overall cost to the City. Mr. Jensen said it was 7 something that staff would have to meet to discuss. He thought probably the way to do it 8 would be to advertise now before the actual project goes out to bid to try to secure some 9 funding before, so they know which amenities are being covered and which need to be 10 purchased by the contractor. This is something that staff can work on and get back to the 11 Commission on. He said they do have the park bench program currently that they can start 12 to use, at least as a template. It could include other park amenities. Right now it is for 13 benches, but that would be probably the easiest one to start out with, by putting word out 14 that there are benches in the park that could take donations. Commissioner Moss said they 15 can go ahead with the Park Improvement Ordinance and through the process until they get 16 to the bidding part, so there is a month or two to see about getting an advertisement out. 17 Mr. Jensen agreed and said the project would probably go out to bid sometime around 18 February or March of next year. Chair Cribbs asked if Mr. Jensen anticipated there being 19 a gap in the funds they have allocated and what it’s going to cost. Mr. Jensen said they 20 requested funding for the full project, and that’s what they were given, so at this point they 21 are fully funded, unless prices go up. Commissioner Moss said that was his question. If 22 it’s fully funded and they can get some donations, what happens to the money from the 23 fully-funded project? Does it just go back into the general fund? Mr. Jensen said yes. At 24 the end of the project, if there are funds left in the capital improvement project, they are 25 basically put back into the capital improvement funds to use for other projects. 26 Commission LaMere asked if the park would be closed for the entire three months of 27 construction or if it would be staged with certain parts open and other parts closed. Mr. 28 Jensen thought for this park the whole area would be closed. Commission LaMere 29 expressed that they did a great job on the plan and he always loves to see Mr. Jensen’s 30 work. Chair Cribbs asked if there are any further community meetings they need to have. 31 Mr. Jensen said he reached out to the Ventura community so there is something they might 32 have, to give them an update on what’s happening. Because of the scale of the project, he 33 thought they would start putting up signage in the park a lot earlier than usual for 34 renovation projects, so in the next couple months they will start putting this plan up and 35 getting word out that the idea is to do construction. There will be a lot of community 36 outreach regarding the project. 37 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 MOTION 1 Approval to recommend that the City Council adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance as 2 specified in the attachment to the staff report was moved by Vice Chair Greenfield and 3 seconded by Commission LaMere. The motion passed 5-0-1, by roll call vote, with 4 Commissioner Brown abstaining. 5 Chair Cribbs said this is exciting, hearing about this for a long time, and then the ability to 6 buy the additional property. She requested a tour at some point. Mr. Jensen said he will 7 keep that in mind as they go along with the process. He said hopefully within the next few 8 weeks they will start the renovation of Rinconada Park as well, which is very exciting also. 9 Chair Cribbs asked if Rinconada Park is also fully funded. Mr. Jensen replied that it is. 10 Commissioner Moss commented to Mr. Anderson that the little corner of the AT&T 11 property that wasn’t included in the purchase, he would like to recommend that they go 12 back to Real Estate and Legal and try to buy it. He was almost certain they purchased that 13 with the original purchase and was surprised that they didn’t get that piece. If they could 14 get that piece now, or in two years, he wondered if they could they come back and increase 15 the dog park or perhaps put a little bit of parking on Chestnut. Mr. Anderson said they 16 bought what was available for sale. They could ask AT&T if they are interested in selling 17 more. He certainly thought in the future if they were willing to sell any of it, the more 18 parkland the better, so it would make sense to keep their eye on it. He said he will talk to 19 Real Estate to see if there are any openings for a conversation with AT&T. 20 V. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE AUGUST 24, 2021 MEETING 21 [Commissioner Brown returned to the meeting] 22 Chair Cribbs said when he and Mr. Anderson talked last there were several tentative items. 23 Mr. Anderson said a lot of things are still tentative. The Sidewalk Vendor Regulations, the 24 Ad Hoc had mentioned they are working on it, but still have quite a bit. They are targeting 25 September as the date. The Skate Park, there is the meeting upcoming with the 26 stakeholders. This is a possibility for the August meeting but not guaranteed. It would not 27 be an action item, but a discussion item. The Ad Hoc can be discussing that soon after the 28 August 3rd meeting. He had talked with the Chair and Vice Chair about an informational 29 report from Valley Water on a purified water project. They have been looking at the former 30 Los Altos sewage treatment plant adjacent to the Baylands Preserve. They talked to them 31 about coming to the Parks and Recreation Commission with an informational presentation. 32 They recently tentatively for the September meeting, but they could not do August. The 33 Fire Safety update was another one talked about, but there are currently no plans from the 34 Fire Department or Office of Emergency Services to present to the Commission. However, 35 they have a community meeting on August 19th, and Council has asked the Fire 36 Department to present a study session on fire safety tentatively scheduled for September 37 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 20th. Lastly, he said they talked about the memo to Council and VCAP regarding parkland. 1 Commissioner Reckdahl talked about coming up with a letter at the August meeting, which 2 could be put on the agenda. Also regarding a recycled water line, he has not connected 3 with Public Works on that yet, but he thinks they could give either a brief update to include 4 in the Department report, unless they have something substantial. Vice Chair Greenfield 5 reminded there is also the Tide Gate discussion which seems likely for August. Vice Chair 6 Greenfield asked if the people involved with the purified water information any of the 7 same people they would be working with on the tide gate project. Mr. Anderson said they 8 are not. Vice Chair Greenfield thought it would be worth mentioning to the purified water 9 people that the tide gate people will be presenting a case that is reason for them to want to 10 try to make it to the same meeting for a presentation if that was possible. 11 Chair Cribbs said since the Fire Department is not able to come to them, she wondered 12 about some of the Commissioners going to that meeting at Palo Alto Hills Country Club 13 and having some time on the agenda to report back to the Commission. She said it seems 14 like all of the Commissioners are very interested in fire safety, especially at Foothills Park 15 and Arastradero. Mr. Anderson thought this was a great idea. Commissioner Moss added 16 that he would like it to be on Zoom, saying he doesn’t understand how they can have a 17 community meeting only in-person, so if that’s at all possible to get that message back to 18 them he would appreciate it. Mr. Anderson said he will check with them on that. Chair 19 Cribbs said at the least it would be good for the Commission to have something to 20 understand and think about. The last time they talked about fire safety was when the 21 neighbors of Foothills Park came from Portola Valley a couple years ago. So that would 22 be good. Mr. Anderson thought they had enough to have a meeting. 23 Mr. Anderson thought the tide gate subject is important and time-sensitive, and with 24 adding the memo on NVCAP it would be worth having the meeting. Chair Cribbs said 25 also the Ad Hoc could get together and do a quick advertising outreach for funding from 26 what they learned tonight. Vice Chair Greenfield added that Skate Park might make it as 27 well. Commissioner Moss asked if the Los Altos sewage treatment plant would be a whole 28 separate subject, or if it tied in with something else. Mr. Anderson said it is tied in with 29 the water project he mentioned. They are looking at that side as a potential location for a 30 water purification plant. Commissioner Moss said they paved over the entire piece of land 31 and put up a giant fence with barbed wire within the past eight months. Also, he thought 32 it was going to be used for Safe Parking, but that project was moved over by the Athletic 33 Center. He asked if they will use this area at all for that purpose. Mr. Anderson said he had 34 not heard any conversations about using the LATP for Safe Parking right now, but he did 35 not know. Commissioner Reckdahl said San Antonio does not have any water or sewage, 36 so it made it hard to do the Safe Parking there. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if Council 37 Member Kou had any additional information on this. She replied that she did not, but she 38 did have a question. She asked if consideration for the water purification required an EIR. 39 Mr. Anderson thought so. It was a fairly significant build-out and everything was very 40 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 tentative. He has only been involved in one brief meeting, so a lot of the information they 1 would present would be new to him as well, both would be learning more if they came. It 2 was very tentative and high level when they talked to him about it. 3 Vice Chair Greenfield had a quick question on the wildfire preparedness meeting, 4 whether it was just for Palo Alto or other communities as well. Mr. Anderson wasn’t 5 sure and didn’t know that there is a limit on it. He thought they could invite whomever 6 they wanted and thought they were envisioning the surrounding Foothills area as the core 7 audience. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if the outreach is beyond Palo Alto or extending 8 to Los Altos Hills, et cetera. Mr. Anderson said he would assume so, as it is being led by 9 the Fire Department and Office of Emergency Services. They intend to invite 10 MidPeninsula Regaionl Open Space to have a table there, for example, and he assumes 11 they would be inviting their own constituents as well. There is a limit to the number of 12 people in the building, he thought around 100-some. Vice Chair Greenfield wondered if 13 there would be a similar need for a Foothills Nature Preserve or Arastradero Preserve 14 table. Mr. Anderson they are planning to have an Open Space Ranger there. 15 16 COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 17 Chair Cribbs said she hopes everyone is enjoying the Olympic Games, because she very 18 much is and was very happy to hear earlier from Mr. Smith that Katie Ledecky had won 19 her 1500, which is the first time women have ever swum that race in the entire Olympic 20 Games. 21 ADJOURNMENT 22 Meeting adjourned by motion by Commissioner Moss, second by Commissioner 23 Reckdahl, at 8:56 p.m. 24 PALO ALTO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AD HOC/LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS STAFF LIAISON August 2021 Update Baylands Tide Gate Greenfield, Reckdahl Daren Anderson CIP Review CY21 Moss, Brown, LaMere Daren Anderson The next budget cycle requires that the ad hoc committee prepare to meet in November or December to start the process for the budgeting in early 2022. Until then, no update. Dog Park and Restrooms CY21 Brown, Cribbs Daren Anderson Foothills Nature Preserve Moss, Greenfield,Reckdahl Daren Anderson The ad hoc has met twice since the last PRC meeting, and covered several topics in detail, including Film/videography policy and permitting which we will discuss more next time,, special event policy, and bikes coming through Arastradero into Foothills. We also discussed weekday entry fee collection, and the ability of IT to handle credit cards. We also touched on BBQ policy but will cover that next time. Looking to go before the fulll commission in November or December.Fund Development CY21 Cribbs, LaMere, Brown Kristen O'Kane New Recreation Opportunities LaMere, Cribbs, Reckdahl Kristen O'Kane Racquet Court Policy Brown, Reckdahl Adam Howard Side Walk Vendor Policy Brown, Greenfield, Moss Daren Anderson We have met and put together a start of a policy and then passed it along to city attorney for comment, and are due to meet again this month to discuss their input. Looking to go before the full Commission in September or October. LIAISON MEMBER(S) STAFF / CONTACT Aquatics Cribbs Sharon Eva Baylands 10.5 Cribbs Daren Anderson Community Gardens Brown Catherine Bourquin Met with Community Garden Coordinator to discuss current status/issues of the gardens. Recent, isolated incident of baiting/trapping at community gardens that became an issue. Discussion of whether the commission would like to weigh in on any amendments/adjustments to the guidelines or whether it can be handled by staff. Cubberley Moss Kristen O'Kane No movement between City Council and PAUSD until after the summer recess. Field Users Greenfield Adam Howard Soccer Field Permits - Helped broker a compromise agreement with soccer stakeholders to adjust fall field permits by +15 minutes on Monday and Tuesday (i.e. through the end of the year). The daily bell schedule at local high schools has changed, resulting in students getting out of class later, and making it more difficult to get to 4pm practices. 90-minute permit slots on Mon-Tue will now run from 4:15- 10:15 pm. Wed-Fri slots remain 4:00-10:00pm. Cubberley Field and Track Signage - Final changes to proposed new signage are circulating for approval.Golf LaMere Lam Do GSI Pam Boyle Rodriguez? MROSD - Hawthornes Area Planning Greenfield Daren Anderson Palo Alto Recreation Foundation Cribbs Adam Howard PAUSD / City Reckdahl Kristen O'Kane Safe Routes Greenfield Rosie Mesterhazy Skateboard Park LaMere Adam Howard Sustainability Brown Christine Luong Attended S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on 8/12 - public interest in moving Climate Action Plan process at a faster speed than scheduled completion of the plan by the end of 2022. Lots of comments from high school students Urban Forestry Greenfield, Reckdahl Daren Anderson On 8/10, the City Council Policy & Services (P&S) Committee meeting reviewed and discussed proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance (P.A.M.C. Title 8). Along with a list of comprehensive updates to the ordinance, the P&S recommendation to City Council included "Discuss and direct staff on the role of the PRC serving as a community forum for urban forestry issues, and advising City Council on matters related to the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) and other appropriate activities of the Urban Forestry (UF) section." Ventura Plan Reckdahl Clare Campbell Youth Council Cribbs Adam Howard TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: AUGUST 24, 2021 SUBJECT: PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN TIDE GATE STRUCTURE AS PART OF THE PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN TIDE STRUCTURE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that Council adopt and approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A) authorizing Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gate Structure Replacement Project (Project), which will construct a new replacement tide gate structure (Structure). Plan sheets showing the in-progress design and planned temporary trail closures are included in Attachment A. BACKGROUND The levees forming the Palo Alto Flood Basin (Flood Basin) were built by the City of Palo Alto (City) in the 1940s and the associated tide gate structure (Structure) was constructed in 1957 by the former Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (now Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water), Santa Clara County and the City. The Structure is located along the Bay shoreline in the City, east of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport and Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The floodwaters stored in the Flood Basin are released to the Bay through eight cells with 16 tide gates (15 passive gates and one motorized sluice gate) that comprise the overall tide gate structure. The purpose of the passive tide gates is to regulate water elevation in the Flood Basin such that when the water elevation in the basin is higher than the tidal elevation of the Bay, the passive tide gates are pushed open by water pressure and discharge water from the Flood Basin to the Bay. When the water surface elevation in the Flood Basin is lower than the Bay, the passive tide gates are held shut by water pressure from the Bay, to prevent full tidal inundation. In 1977, the City requested to change one of the passive tide gates to a motorized sluice gate for a mitigation project agreed to by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the City for the Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area. In 1978, the City forwarded the plans and specifications for the gate modification and Valley Water issued a permit to the City for the gate modification. The City operates the motorized sluice gate to improve water quality within the Flood Basin while considering optimal Flood Basin water elevation. The Structure has been regularly inspected and maintained by Valley Water. In 2011, Valley Water discovered that water was flowing beneath the Structure, undermining the function of the tide gates and potentially its structural stability. In 2012, Valley Water completed emergency repairs to stop seepage flow beneath the Structure. As part of that effort, staff prepared a post construction report (as required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ Emergency Permit) which detailed the emergency work and recommended replacement of the Structure. In 2014, Valley Water retained the services of Mark Thomas & Company (MT) to perform structural inspections and prepare an assessment report for the Structure. The report concluded that the Structure was generally in fair condition and recommended minor structural repairs. In 2017, Valley Water retained a construction contractor to perform minor repairs. The work was complicated due to cracks found in the bottom slab and inability to dewater for the repair work, which resulted in the contract being terminated without completing the work. Subsequently, a structural assessment was performed by MT in October 2017 which concluded that the structure would be functional for a couple more years and recommended the Structure be replaced. In 2018, after project objectives were changed to replace (rather than repair) the Structure, a new team was assigned to the Project to commence planning and design of the new Structure. The new Project team also prepared an Emergency Action Plan in coordination with the City of Palo Alto in 2019 to provide guidance for potential flooding emergencies in the interim. MT was engaged to perform additional structural assessments in January 2020 and January 2021, and both assessments concluded that the Structure would still be good for another couple of years. Project Description The Project objectives include the following:  Prevent failure of the existing Structure, which would result in increased risk of coastal and fluvial flooding;  Maintain or improve the level of flood protection for Matadero, Adobe, and Barron Creeks, including during Project construction;  Construct a new motorized sluice gate on the City’s behalf which will be used to maintain or improve water quality within the Flood Basin; and  Upsize the Structure to function with two feet of future sea-level rise. The Project would involve construction of a new 132-foot-long tide gate structure slightly inboard (upstream) and southeast of the existing 113-foot-long deteriorating Structure, removal of the existing Structure and levee, and construction of a new levee that ties into the new tide gate structure. The Project would be divided in to two phases and constructed in four seasons. The existing Structure would continue to function until the new structure is completed by the end of second phase. Phase 1 would involve installation of the first dewatering system; construction of the new tide gate structure and east levee transition; and removal of the existing levee in front of the new structure. Phase 2 would involve installation of the second dewatering system; construction of the west levee transition; and removal of the existing Structure. The Project would construct a new motorized sluice gate with Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and water elevation sensors which would be monitored and operated by the City and used to maintain or improve water quality within the Flood Basin. The existing sluice gate constructed in 1978 is now over 40 years old and shows aging. Some of the basic operations such as closing the gate must be done by manual physical cranking rather than use of the motor. Similarly, the existing SCADA system cannot currently be used to automate opening and closing of the sluice gate. The new sluice gate infrastructure would remove the existing City owned sluice gate and replace with a new City owned sluice gate and SCADA system integrated with the replacement tide gate Structure. Maintenance of the Site: Maintenance of the City’s sluice gate should be improved with the new Structure which will improve on the existing conditions by installing trash racks on both the San Francisco Bay (Bay) side as well as the Flood Basin side. The existing sluice gate only has a trash rack on the Flood Basin side. When the sluice gate is opened, water from the Bay enters into the Flood Basin through the sluice gate. The incorporation of the additional trash rack on Bay side of the sluice gate should reduce the risk of debris interference and subsequential potential damage to the sluice gate system. Similar to current operations, the City will monitor, operate, and maintain the sluice gate, water elevation sensors, communication control system related to sluice gate, and SCADA. Similar to current operations, Valley Water staff would continue to support debris removal from the trash racks and/or tide gates as needed. Planning Review Valley Water is the lead agency for this Project and has performed and completed the Planning Phase of the Project. DISCUSSION City of Palo Alto staff and Valley Water staff have been working together on this partner Project since 2018. This project replaces critical flood, environmental, and recreational infrastructure critical to the City, Valley Water, wildlife, and the public. This project will replace the aging tide gate Structure and sluice gate system. The Project will require temporary closures to portions of the Trail to accommodate construction of the replacement Structure work. A diagram illustrating anticipated Trail closures is included in Attachment A. If the replacement Structure is not constructed, future degradation of the existing Structure will occur and would eventually require closure of the Trail for an unknown duration of time. The replacement Structure will include a dedicated concrete bay with motor driven sluice gate solely for the City’s use of maintaining water quality within the PAFB and controlling mosquito breeding. This new motor operated sluice gate will replace the existing motor operated sluice gate which is owned and operated by the City. The Structure will also include new water level sensors and SCADA system to improve flexibility and efficiency for the City’s sluice gate operations. The new sluice gate will enable remote operation of the sluice gate. The replacement Structure with its improved operations and maintenance features and improved hydraulic performance is anticipated to reduce mosquito breeding within the PAFB compared to the existing conditions. On June 22, 2021, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and voted (7:0) to recommend that City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the improvements to the Palo Alto Flood Basin Tide Gate structure (Staff Report). On July 10, 2021, Valley Water informed City staff that improvements to the existing levee trail surface, which was part of the project and included in the Park Improvement Ordinance, was going to be removed from the scope of work. Because of this change in the scope of the project, the Park Improvement Ordinance has been updated and will be reviewed again by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The proposed trail improvements were intended to smoothen, strengthen, and provide an all-weather trail surface for the contractor to use during construction, and would have been installed by Valley Water’s Operations & Maintenance staff. However, the outlook for starting the trail improvement work as planned has been impacted by the need for more time to acquire regulatory permits to perform the trail work. It was questionable if the full stretch of trail improvements could be completed within the full three month period, and with a delayed start, it was becoming even more unlikely. Not completing the entire trail work would reduce the benefits to the contractor. As a result, Valley Water has re-assessed the need for the proposed trail improvements and this work has been cancelled. In lieu of this work, the contractor will be required to adhere to additional specification provisions during the Project’s construction season. While the previously proposed trail improvement work was intended to improve the ability for the existing levees to facilitate construction equipment loading, it would not have fully eliminated the risk of possible trail surface damage or levee damage. Although omission of the proposed trail surface improvement work comes with increased risk that the levee may require repairs, the planned duration of construction remains unchanged at four years. In lieu of the proposed trail improvements, the contractor will be required to perform in-kind repairs to the levee, if necessary, during the normal work seasons. To minimize levee repairs, the contractor will have to find the optimum balance between truck load size and number of truck trips to reduced potential levee damage that could occur with heavier truck loading. Another restriction similarly applied to the South Bay Salt Pond berms that are utilized by haul trucks, is that use of haul trucks on the berms is limited following significant rain events to prevent damage to the berms. Valley Water will use a similar provision to minimize the risk of levee damage. The project specifications will also require that the contractor repair the trail surface to the satisfaction of Valley Water and the City of Palo Alto at the end of each construction season, prior to opening to trail users. Additionally, at the completion of the project, the contractor will be required to provide a final trail surface that meets or exceeds the pre-construction conditions. Lastly, not installing the trail improvement work also eliminates temporarily closing the trail for at least three months this year and eliminates the public from having to use a potentially unfavorable all-weather aggregate base trail surface. RESOURCE IMPACT Valley Water has requested cost sharing for specific project elements. The City and Valley Water are working together on cost sharing discussions. Post-construction operations and maintenance costs are expected to be reduced compared to existing conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Valley Water is the lead agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA Final Mitigated Negative Declaration is available at the Valley Water Project website: https://www.valleywater.org/pafbtidegates. TIMELINE September/October 2021: Park Improvement Ordinance to Council October 2021: Second Council reading September 2022*: Start of Year 1 (Season 1) Construction September 2023*: Start of Year 2 (Season 2) Construction September 2024*: Start of Year 3 (Season 3) Construction September 2025*: Start of Year 4 (Season 4) Construction *All dates above are tentative target dates subject to change pending project development, acquisition of all required regulatory permits, construction permits, etc. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance DATE: August 24, 2021 TO: City Council Members FROM: Parks and Recreation Commission SUBJECT: MEMO REGARDING EQUITABLE PARKS IN NORTH VENTURA AND TO ADOPT AN NVCAP DESIGN THAT FOLLOWS THE CITY’S ESTABLISHED PARKLAND STANDARD. Parks are an essential part of Palo Alto’s high quality of life, fostering health, wellness, and social connections. Palo Alto has long used the National Recreation and Park Association standard of 4 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. The Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation facilities Master Plan (Parks Master Plan) (unanimously adopted by City Council in September 2017) reaffirms Palo Alto’s dedication to the 4 acres per 1000 residents parkland standard. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030 (unanimously adopted by City Council in November 2017) endorses the same parkland standard. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) studied future development in the North Ventura Area. During the process, both the neighborhood and the NVCAP Working Group members expressed their strong support for North Ventura parks. Unfortunately, the three NVCAP alternatives not only do not meet Palo Alto’s parkland standard, they also use a parkland definition that counts landscaped planting strips, setbacks between buildings, and paved driveways. If the calculations are limited to actual parkland, the NVCAP alternatives all provide less than one third of Palo Alto’s parkland standard. An explicit goal of the Parks Master Plan is to provide parks that are “distributed equitably across Palo Alto.” As a result, the adopted Parks Master Plan requires the City to provide our new North Ventura neighbors with the same high-quality parks that are enjoyed in other Palo Alto neighborhoods. Furthermore, because much of North Ventura will contain high-density developments without yards, parks will be even more important to the residents, as traditional backyard activities will become park activities. The Parks & Recreation Commission encourages City Council to recognize the importance of equitable parks in North Ventura and to adopt an NVCAP design that follows the City’s established parkland standard.