All right, welcome to the November 11th meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board.

Thank you for your patience.

Well, we got our technical issues resolved.

So with that, I call the meeting for me.

Alison, can we take the role call?

Yes, Commissioner P.

Here.

Commissioner Summer.

Here, Vice Chair Mitchner.

Chair Davis.

Here.

Item number three is minutes.

We don't have minutes.

Uh, so we will not take comments from the public or uh commission.

Those minutes will be available Monday.

So that the minutes we don't have are the October or the October 29th, I believe.

Uh, and so those will be uh distributed and available for comments on Monday.

Uh next is oral communications from the public.

Uh, anyone in attendance who would like to provide public comment on an item that's not on the agenda, is welcome to do so.

Please fill out a blue card and leave it on the counter by the podium.

We have three-minute time limit, and we will start with folks joining us online.

Is there anybody online that wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda?

No, it's a right.

Anybody in the room wish to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda?

All right, hearing none, we'll move on to item 5.1.

Uh, for this, we'll get the uh staff presentation, and commissioners will ask questions, then we'll open it up for public comments.

Um then commissioners will comment and discuss this item will uh call for a motion.

The recommendation is to approve the completion of the environmental clearance permitting and plans uh for the sailing lake habitat island.

Um, so with that, we will take the staff presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I missed something else.

So we're dealing with other technical difficulties.

So we'll have good evening.

Uh my name is Raymond Walt.

I'm the watershed manager here at the City of Mountain Field.

Um, tonight I'm here to present um the Sailing Lake Habitat Island alternative and dialysis.

Um, in this presentation, we are going to introduce the project, uh, talk about the alternative that we are being evaluated, and also like uh to discuss our recommendations uh for the project.

This project is a part of the shoreline park uh water control uh structure improvement uh project 2344 in March in May 2023.

Um the city has executed a contract with the design team AECOM uh to work on this project to address a number of the issues um at the shoreline uh park.

Um, as you see on the screen over here, uh we have the Charles Shoot Thai gate.

Uh we got the water control gate, um different like a facility inside the shoreline park, and also the coast case palm station uh that require different level of the replacement, improvement and repair.

And this project also include the Sailing Lake Habitat Island, which is the focus of this uh discussion here tonight, and you can see at the lower right of the photo uh with a group highlight.

Single lake is located.

Sailing capital island is located inside the sailing lake.

Uh, if you see on this uh figure over here, you can see on the right side.

Uh that is an aerial image of the sailing lake, and you can see the triangular land feature in the middle of the island or like a cover towards the west of the eye or of the of the lake uh is the island.

Uh for the location reference, you can see like a where is the uh shoreline bow house.

Um the lake in here has been built in the 1980s as part of the like a cross landfield project, and since it's construction, um it has like an erosion like an over time.

If you look at the lower left of this photo, um you can see an overlay of the aerial image showing like what is the approximate footprint in 1991, which is around 0.18 acres, and also see like a the um uh the latest, like a uh a mapping over here in 2023, which is 0.11 acre.

If you look at the top uh left of like this uh slide over here, you can see the photo of the habitat island.

And if you look at the photo, you can see the edge of it, it's like a vertical, and that's the evidence of the erosion that you see at the island.

So, like for this project, um, we are motivated to like uh improve um the bird habitat at the island, and as you can see on this slide over here, we list the different type of bird species that we identify has been using uh for the bird island for nesting, for roosting, for foraging.

Uh, we like some of the data that we have seen, there's up to 200 uh nesting birds uh that is like a per breeding season that we see at the island.

So it is a very important habitat island that is like for the birds, like in the area.

So, what we're going to do, we establish the restoration goal for the habitat island for this project.

We are focusing on the form and the function.

So we have two major goals.

We try to restore the habitat island, the form of it, the size of the erosion protection, the access to the uh maintenance.

We also want to address the function of the hepatitis island to provide um enhance the nesting habitat.

So, as you can see in here, uh we like I talk about like a subtle feature to include the improving the access to the ground slope, uh to provide nesting substrate, uh non-invasive species management, and also the human interaction.

So, based on those goals and objective, we have identified two options and evaluate them in this project.

We also actually look into like a what we so called the do nothing option, basically really do nothing.

Uh, but however, when we like talk about like a to do nothing, look at the site over here.

There's a continued erosion over time.

It's just kind of keep on going worse and worse.

Like we did like all the hydrodynamic analysis to show that the wave and the erosion process will continue.

So do nothing, it's not really our option.

So we look into like a what can we do to improve the island.

So there go would be the two options.

The option one in here is to restore the habitat island.

The main goal for that is really to manage the erosion of the island.

So basically, like we will maintain the existing like a surface area, 0.11 acre.

Uh, we are going to provide erosion protection, grading out into the water, and we are going to provide surface treatment on the island surface to create like a different type of habitat.

Uh, that could be like a beneficial for the birds.

Uh, we also have the option two here, which we expand the island to restore it to like a what we have, like a uh scene like a from the 1991 data that has shown about like a 0.18 acre.

And then with the slope and the grading, um, there's like a 0.28 acre of the area above the water.

Um, and for this option over here, like you can see the expansion with like a similar like a type of habitat enhancement in the um uh uh in the surface um of the island.

Uh the construction cost is 3.1 million dollars.

So we look into the different alternative.

We're looking into like uh the evaluation, we're looking at from the engineering standpoint, like a how difficult, how easy for us to construct, looking at the environmental, the benefit to the habitat.

We're looking at the regulatory constraint because we are actually filling into the water body and creating some um temporary construction impact.

Uh, we're also looking at the recreational value because um the lake is well used by recreational user.

So looking at that, like we look at the different scoring, like for the different subcriteria, and we come up with the scoring system over here.

And what comes up would be is the alternative two is our preferred option based on the scoring criteria here.

On top of it, we're also looking into the barrier improvement.

So we try to look into like a ways that we can able to manage uh leg user assets to the island.

So we look at three options over here.

A and B essentially is putting some sort of the folding system so that we can able to create a perimeter control.

And option alternative C is to provide drill wooden pier, kind of wrapping around the island, so provide like a couple of anchor so that you can able to connect the flow system again to provide the perimeter control.

So, like we also list the cost for the various options here.

Um we have a similar devaluation looking here, like for different like an alternative, like from the aesthetic, maintenance and effectiveness.

Like wrapping around the island, it actually will not only create a barrier that we would need, but also it increased the reliability of the barrier because one of the issues that we have seen right now is like for any of the floating barrier, you may have like a organic growth and you sink uh the barrier over time.

But for the peer, it's like sticking into the ground, and you were able to keep it stay on like over time.

So to us, like that is a more reliable option.

So, like in here, we recommend the alternative C, the peer system.

So this is our staff recommendation uh with like the um uh uh approval of here from the PLC, like we do want to like a move ahead uh to complete the environmental clearance permitting plans and spec uh to basically get the project ready to restore the habitat island uh with the alternative number two to expand the island to restore the historical size and also the C of the barrier improvement so that we have like a peer system as a barrier control.

Uh, for the total construction cost is 3.35 million dollars.

This is like a kind of a general schematic to show the next step.

So tonight we are here at the PLC meeting, and um once we like a kind of have that and be able to like get the um approval, uh, we will bring the project to the city council.

Um, and then after that, we will start the environmental clearance of and sort of preliminary design.

Uh and depending on the type of document we need for the single grievance, we may need to bring it back to the council.

Um, after that, we launch into the permitting engineering design and then bring it back to the city council for approval of the construction, and then we'll be able to implement to construct and restore and monitor our habitat island.

So that concludes my uh presentation in here and open the floor to like a question comment.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr.

Wang.

We'll now take commissioner questions.

Would you like to start?

I'll start with one.

Um, and I apologize for not being a wildlife biologist and knowing these things, but and I think you might have answered it in the written ones, but I had not seen those.

So um, what happens to the birds?

I mean, do they just pack up their suitcase and go for a while?

Yeah, yeah, and hopefully, they come back, or can we so the public knows exactly what your anticipation would be sure, regardless to the birds during construction?

Sure, absolutely.

So, first of all, we have no control of the bird, we cannot just put a size saying that coming back.

But however, like uh we plan for the project to be construct during what's so called the non-nesting season, because between the February and September every year, uh, that is the productive part of the year that birds will come to the island and nesting and uh utilize the island, and like based on the data that we have seen, uh we notice that like after the September when the bird nesting season ends.

Usually you don't have as much birds, like a couple of utilizing the island, so we take advantage of that opportunity, we think like from the September to the next um end of January, February time frame, which is a non-nesting season, so we can able to go there to do the good work uh to improve and restore the island, and then in anticipation of the next lasting uh season for the birds to come back.

So we try to like a uh time our construction based on the natural cycle of utilizing like the um island, like from the bird standpoint to the best we could.

And um that is like our plan like from the management standpoint uh to how to like a commingle with like the bird use like for the island that will work for our construction.

Thank you.

So, can you describe sort of the difference in protection level between alternatives B and C.

Yeah, you know, on the scale, it's four points versus five points.

But I mean, is it really that close?

Can you?

I mean, which has larger barriers.

I mean, I just want to keep you know, kids on boats away from jumping on.

So can you can you describe the difference between those two?

Sure.

So for those two, like a barrier for the B and C, the mechanism is just a little bit different.

So for the alternative B, what you have is you have floats.

Each of the froze may be three to six feet apart, and then you have like a throat installing for a train, wrapping around the entire island.

And then after you wrapping around the entire island, they will have like a cable or anchoring system to anchor into like the water body, like maybe the bottom of the lake.

And then you have the system wrapping around it and you like be able to provide the protection.

And also like a whole like a barrier from moving around and whatnot.

For the alternative C, the peer system is a little bit different from the mechanism standpoint because you actually drive a peer, like into like a water body.

And then basically, if you think about the post, like you have it one, two, three, four, you're wrapping around the entire island, and then you put the chain connecting between like a dose pier, and then you got the throw in the middle.

So like that basically is the major difference.

And if you think about it, one of the like a kind of advantage on the C that we recommend is because you have a post that like being drilled into like the uh soil underneath, so you can hold it in place, and as I mentioned earlier, when you like start to have organic growth and whatnot, like onto your froze, the whole thing will not sink because you have the like the peer system to support it, whereas alternative B, even though the design is like a kind of helping you to avoid like a dose of biofile accumulation, but in the end of the day, you still have the possibility that you have too much of the like accumulation, the whole thing sink or maybe like a move because of the cable system.

So that stability is like one of the kind of main difference between the B and the C.

So, I mean, but like what's the gap between between Luis or whatever the to prevent boats?

I mean, I just want to make sure that it's a tight enough gap in both scenarios.

Absolutely.

So, like the gap is customizable at this point.

Uh, but one consideration we have if we like a do move for alternative B specifically, is to look at like the wave function.

Because like a one of the main things is like we try to keep it stable.

If you like have all the peers like a too far away, then you may not be able to like have enough force to hold like the cable stable and they may swing and whatnot.

Um, and if you make it too close, the other side of the problem is we also need to provide some kind of assets like for the maintenance to able to get in.

So to strike that balance, like the in the current, like a preliminary design, we set around like a 50 to 100 feet to like each of those like a peer around.

And if you go out to look at the lake right now, or if you even look at the Google Earth to do the measurement, I think the separation is around 150 feet.

So that's kind of a try and true that has been installed over there.

But again, during the design, we will look at it like from the physical processing standpoint to see what is the separation that can provide the savability, and then like a take into the kind of barrier, like a consideration, maybe we put the float a little bit closer or like a further depending on like a what we can do to minimize like a uh or discourage like a people from coming into the island.

And how far is the barrier from the from the island?

Um, so that is something it depends on the final grading, because remember, like what we all talk about is only whatever in the surface, but if you look at one of the like a photo, you actually have a pretty significant prism underneath.

So we try to like find an area such that quite frankly, it's not too deep so that we can able to drive it into distance.

So there's something to be determined.

I think right now, in like what you see out there is close to about a hundred feet, like out like from the uh island, but again, this like it depends on the final grading, and that is something we are going to um kind of incorporate into the design as we move forward.

And then last question I mean, it's probably a small in the grand scheme of things, but in in C, you're gonna have a rope that how often do you have to replace that rope and how much does that cost?

Now I'm guessing it's small compared in the grand scheme of things, but I'm just here.

Yeah, well, you know, like that actually is something that we need to look into further because there's like a many different types of material we can able to use, but the general idea is like if you have the peer system over there, you could able to like a disconnect like a uh session over there to maintain and clean, and you don't need to like a kind of you still maintain the kind of integrity of the entire system.

So from that maintenance standpoint, it encourages you to maintain like a more frequently, so what that translates into is like maybe a less chance uh for like a replacement.

So that is kind of a trade-off.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

I don't know.

I had a question about height of the years above the water, yeah.

What would be the height above the water?

So, like a the height of it is actually customizable because like the most important factor, like from the engine brewing standpoint, it's actually like a how deep do you drill into the soil.

So we can keep it stable?

The height of it, I think it's just like a more like a safety preference.

Because quite frankly, how high is it depending on what is the appropriate height?

We can make sure, like a recreational user in the lake can see that wow, this is like a uh like a barrier, you should not come.

So I think that was something that we try to do.

So that we were bonded between like a safety, uh like a for the bow user, but at the same time not to intrude to stick it like a 10-foot high, so that butt watcher and other, we see like a something uh wrapping around the area, like with a multiple, like a high bar.

Okay, and then my other question relates to this, yeah, these same piles.

Um, was there any discussion about uh problem of them providing a spot for perching predators to predate the uh for you know young birds and eggs, yeah.

Um, I assume that the higher it is, the more likely that would be to happen, you know, a hawk or even maybe.

Yeah, but but you know, like a general like a idea is like a you make it maybe like a type of rail height or something, like it's never meant to be like a five-10-foot height become like a tree or feature that like you try to avoid, so like I think that is something we would need to take into consideration during design.

Okay, yeah, so in some ways that photo that included in the memo is a little misleading because it looks like it's about eight feet above the ground.

Yeah, those are more like a marine structure.

Like, for example, if you go to San Francisco, walk and long advocate.

That road, you see a bunch of those out there.

They are really for marine purposes, not for like a what we are doing over here.

I fully anticipate what we decide properly is like a little bit smaller than uh structurally, like then what you see over there.

Okay, yeah.

All right, so something that's maybe three feet high above the water.

That's a possibility.

That fall part, okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

And uh just taking up more summer laptop.

So about three, four, something like that, Peter Bugg.

And the the barrier is at the water level only.

Yes, if nothing higher.

Yeah, that is correct.

So I basically it's like a bunch of uh folding device, um, they will be like a kind of floating on uh the water.

And give me a general sense, how big is a float?

How what's the width of the flow?

So like for the rip of the float, it's depending on the option.

For example, if you like a look at like a the uh option one, those are like a pretty small one that you see like a out like a uh in like uh even the shoreline right now, maybe like a two, three feet or something like that.

But alternative B, that is a much bigger one, and they are customizable because some of those actually is decide for the military grade that like you can able to use it to create a physical barrier.

So um we try to like a balance, like a what would be mixed sense and what is something that is easily for us to able to surface.

So uh that is like another factor we are going to consider during the design.

Uh you're the engineer, this probably is more of a question for Brady.

So we've got these um physical barriers.

Um what other policies are in place to discourage people from interacting with the island.

I guess what I'm looking for is tell me that when people check out boats and uh are using the lake, they're somehow informed about restrictions here.

Yes, we work with uh the boat house uh closely on this.

Um they are uh supposed to be uh informing uh folks when they are renting out boats, not or uh paying for use of the lake not to go to the island that the island is not a destination.

Um it sounds great in theory when you have an army of hourly employees that turn over every season, it's not always the easiest to retrain all of them on that.

Um so uh, but that is the policy that we have with the boathouse and that they're supposed to be doing.

They have some signage and something in the your little rental agreement that's a yes, and to build on what Raymond was saying about the barriers, so part of the reason that we're recommending this.

Uh so we've had a couple different buoy systems out there.

Um, after staff has hauled out its third 250 pound buoy caked with bio.

Yeah, uh like a bio smile.

Um that's part of the reason that we're leaning towards this.

Uh what we found uh is that when we had taller white buoys with smaller red buoys in between them, it was very effective at keeping folks away from the island until it sunk.

And then it was extremely hard for staff to maintain, untie it, get buoys out.

I can't tell you the number of tools you would find at the bottom of the lake right now from staff trying to address that.

And so that's part of why we were uh recommending the option that we are is that we think that that system has proven effective in terms of uh recreation users, but also reduces the maintenance for staff in terms of uh having to be able to address it.

Um staff has a small dinghy that we use that can only fit three people.

If one person leans too far to the side, they're in the lake, so trying to lift a 250-pound caked buoy out to clean it has proven rather difficult.

And so this is why we think long term wise overall maintenance, overall effectiveness is why we're leaning towards this alternative from an operational standpoint, in addition to all the points that Raymond raised.

Um, topic, I'll try and move quickly.

So that uh this contract 2344 is a water control structure improvement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the habitat restoration.

But does this have a water control aspect?

Is there anything other than habitat restoration that we're achieving there?

So to be honest, like at this one, it's like a mostly for the hackathon restoration.

But if I say purely from the engineering standpoint, like a what we're looking into is to minimize erosion.

The erosion, like a uh like the erosion of the island.

So like at that, it's like a more like a from the technical standpoint and what we try to accomplish.

But just specifically ask your question, the improvement do not control water.

It's just like a mostly like hackathon restoration and erosion management.

And the other reason for that was that we were combining the design, the study, and the permitting into this.

The actual construction would be its own project.

It wouldn't be a water control project, it would be the island project for construction when we uh move it into a CIP control.

So this is a tangential part of this, and I'll leave it to 30 seconds.

So why isn't uh the uh bridge on the golf course part of this uh contract?

That's been out for a couple years.

So the bridge on the golf course, uh, we are actually in agreement with the uh contractor for construction right now.

We are trying to get a fabrication timeline.

So the reason they're not grouped is because that project started four years ago.

And this one started much like much later than that, right?

Uh good.

We'll move on now to uh public comments.

So uh if anyone online wishes to comment on this item, please raise your hand, let us know.

And that pursues Mr.

England, would you like to proceed?

Yes, thank you very much.

Um, Bruce England was with station drive.

I'm a member of Green Spaces Mountain View, but I'm speaking for myself tonight.

And um we want to speak in support of this.

Um this is important restorative work for that island, and it's uh gonna help with uh to combat erosion.

And the island provides a safe nesting place for skimmers, terns, and other birds in the shoreline ecosystem.

So I look forward to your deliberation, and I assume and hope that you will approve as um put together by staff.

Thanks for all the work to staff.

Bye.

Thank you, Mr.

England.

And we have a second hand.

We have Celia.

Uh Celia's hi.

Um Celia Paymer and I'm a resident of Mountain View, also member of Green Spaces, Mountain View MV.

Um, and I also want to speak in support of the staff recommendation.

Um, one thing that we've been pushing for, and I know many of you commissioners have pushed for, is to view nature and biodiversity as an amenity in itself.

And I like that this plan reflects that this is an amenity to our city and it should be maintained and supported.

Um, so yes, I want to speak in support of the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we have any other online comments?

No, okay.

We'll turn to the uh folks in the room.

We have Dr.

Tracy Freya.

Um I have I don't have a microphone or anything.

I wanted to uh support the staff's plan, and I thank you, Dr.

Wong and Parks and Rec for your work on this.

I uh want to support both alternative two and um alternative C as suggested.

And uh as Sylvie was just saying about the wildlife as amenity to the city.

I was just down there the other day, not with respect to this, just walking, and there were birders out there looking at the island walking one way, there's one bird as I walk the other way, there's another birder.

So people are out there enjoying this island and it's part of mountain being that is important.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um glad to see this project moving forward.

And uh, my name is Shani Kleinhouse.

I'm the environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

We used to be Ottawa now with the bird alliance.

Um it's difficult to balance the predation and that uh and the um disturbance, and it's really important to keep people away from the island.

It's also important that the those um the infrastructure then doesn't.

So I'm sure you'll find the solution.

I'm just bringing that up because you have to balance the two things.

Altogether, that island is a huge resource to our members.

People go to shoreline to enjoy the birds.

There are a lot of people and children, schools, everybody goes to shoreline to see birds.

And so I think it's wonderful that you're moving forward with it.

Um, definitely supporting staff recommendation and hope that they I hope to see this happen.

And if you haven't seen the black skimmers when they hunt, they're the most amazing birds.

They have their beaks and they fly like right with one mandible, one in the water and one above the water, and then they catch things that are kind of stuck in like on the surface of the water and little fish.

And it's just absolutely amazing.

And they don't nest around here other than that.

I think the closest other nesting site is Huster City.

So the mountain view has something really special, and thank you so much for taking care of it.

Thank you for your comment.

Um, anybody else in the room wish to make a public comment?

Uh, we'll turn it to the commissioners for comment and discussion.

And I think in the spirit of kind of moving things along, I'm gonna ask commissioners to just open up with uh uh whether you agree with the recommendation, uh or if we have exceptions to that and then any of the comments you have.

So uh complete uh agreement with the staff recommendation.

Uh with uh alternative two and uh uh with regards to the repair and then alternative C.

Mr.

Richard.

Yeah, I'm also in in agreement.

I think you know, even though alternative two is more expensive, um it's the most robust solution.

You know, if we're really serious about protecting this space as a habitat nesting area, then we should um invest the incremental on that, and then on on as far as the other, you know, alternatives B and C, um B might be a little bit more protective, but if they're really close in the voting on that element, um C is significantly less expensive and looks a lot nicer.

So I would support two and C.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brian.

Yes, I'm also completely in favor of it.

It's uh it'll be great for the birds, good for the lay.

The barrier is the more most attractive one besides all the engineering uh reasons.

So this sounds like make everyone happy.

So thank you for that.

Um yeah, I think I'm in agreement with everyone that I totally support alternative two and uh the enlarged island is well worth the extra money in my opinion, and then the build one building files are turned to C are completely adequate way to keep people away, and um I'm all for reducing the maintenance requirements.

Uh my only caveat would be let's not make them too tall.

And I don't know what exact type obviously it's gonna take some looking from a distance to figure that out, but um would want to avoid having uh any kind of hurt predators.

Okay.

And I too, I mean, if we can't put pickleball carts there, then uh all for this.

I do I do agree with um the attention to aesthetic.

So we absolutely want habitat restoration, but you know, we don't want to turn this thing into a prison compound look.

So uh so yeah, I think we're all what I hear is a consensus, and I would entertain a motion.

Sorry, I would move to uh read it exactly.

Um recommend to approve the completion of the environmental clearance permitting and plans specifications to restore sailing lake habitat island as part of the shore line park water control structures improvement project 2344 with restoration alternative two repairing eroded slopes and expanding the island size and barrier improvement alternative C to drilled wooden piles.

Second we call for vote.

Commissioner Bryant.

Yes, Commissioner Felios, Commissioner Summer, yes, Vice Chair Mitchner, yes, Chair Davis.

Yes, thank you.

All right, thanks everybody.

Uh thank you for calling.

Thank you, Member Public.

We'll now move on to item 5.2.

Which is the uh recycled water reservoir and pump station at Charleston Park, IDF 2340, conceptual design.

And this is a uh fault to review and comment, so we won't be taking a vote, but we will be commenting.

And then with that, we will turn it over to staff for the presentation.

I'll use the last slide.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh my name is Solman Husseini.

I'm an associate civil engineer in the public services division of Public Works.

I'm presenting the recycled water reservoir and pump station design update and the landscaping update at Charleston Park.

Uh this project was brought to PRC during the planning phase.

Uh, since then we've progressed into design and are seeking input from PRC on the landscaping design.

Sure.

Uh to recap the project background in March of 2022, an update to the city's recycled water feasibility study uh was adopted by council, in which the recommendation was to proceed with full build out of the recycled system in North Bay Shore and to evaluate future expansion to East Wisman, the part of the city via Middlefield Road.

Uh the purple pipe you can see on the map is the existing system, and the orange pipes are future expansion pipes within North Bay Shore.

Uh the blue and red pipes are the future alignment via Middlefield and the distribution network in East Wisman.

Uh the update recommended we install a recycled water reservoir and booster pump station in North Bay Shore to help serve our existing customers, as well as those in the future.

Uh the city then proceeded to complete a sighting study to find the most suitable location for this infrastructure.

From the recycled water feasibility study update, um three locations were identified and were included in the sighting study.

Uh sighting study evaluation for the design and construction uh of the future recycled water reservoir and pump station at site A, Charleston Park, Site B, Terminal Boulevard, and Site C, which is the future Joaquin Neighborhood Park.

At the January 28th, 2025 City Council meeting, City Council approved Charleston Park as the site for this infrastructure and authorized staff to move forward with design for a pump station and a fully buried reservoir.

Now, just to give a lay of the land, Charleston Park is in North Bay Shore adjacent to Amphitheater Parkway, sandwiched between two Google buildings, the Googleplex to the west and the gradient canopy to the east.

So as we talk about Charleston Park, I'll briefly mention the land use in the area as shown in this image.

Charleston Park City Parkland is outlined by the yellow boundary, while the Google Plex lease area is owned, which is owned by the city is outlined in red, and the project limits are outlined in green.

The purple shapes represent the future reservoir and pump station.

And as presented in the last PRC meeting, the existing water feature will be removed due to operation and maintenance costs.

So the project is proposing to redesign the park as part of its removal.

So as you can see, the project footprint is still within the yellow Charleston Park boundary.

However, we will be utilizing some of the Google's leased land area as part of this project.

This location was preferred by city staff as it minimizes visual impact and allows for easy maintenance access off of amphitheater parkway, as you can see.

Staff is continuously coordinating with Google regarding this effort.

So one of the key environmental considerations that has affected the design of this project is the burrowing owl habitat overlay zone, referred to as the HOZ.

The figure here shows the various areas in North Bay Shore that are part of the HOZ.

The burrowing owl HOZ is the red band that you can see is buffered from the edge of Shoreline Park and includes the portion of Charleston Park where this project is located, which is circled in red.

Both the North Bay Shore Precise Plan and the Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan have restrictions upon new structures, which can only be four feet above existing grade within the HOZ to avoid perching for predatory birds and to preserve suitable foraging conditions.

And another requirement that influenced the design was not having a net increase in impervious surface area within the HOZ, which I'll touch on in another slide.

The reservoir and pump station will incorporate the existing topography of the area to comply with the height limitation and while minimizing impacts to follow the requirements set forth.

So now that we've kind of established the use area and its requirements, I'll move on to briefly touch upon the reservoir and pump station design.

So as you can see, the pump station is located in the northwest.

It's a little difficult to see, but it's in the northwest of the image in the top left corner.

The existing terrain in this location is sloped with the top of the hill to the west.

So due to the HOZ requirements, as previously mentioned, the pump station will use this topography to its advantage and blend into the existing hillside.

The proposed design of the pump station is kind of like a basement with the pumps housed in a lower level and staff accessing the pumps with stairs as shown in the section views on the right.

There will be electrical equipment above grade, which will be accessible.

And the views on the right showcase this design with the back of the building showing a maximum of a four-foot height.

And a small retaining wall will have to be built on the west side of the building with this design due to the topography that I mentioned.

So now I'll start talking about the park improvements.

So on the left, we have the overall illustrative conceptual layout of the proposed park redesign, and on the right is an enlargement of the plaza.

I'll talk further in detail a little bit about each component in later slides, including landscape features and trees, but this image provides a comprehensive overview of the proposed improvements and the extents of the project.

The park redesign features a central plaza as shown in the enlargement to the right, in place of the existing water feature with 88 pathways to main access points.

And the plaza will feature seating, trees, and decorative pavers.

The intent of this layout is to refresh the landscaping with aesthetic mounds, new native plantings, and lighting, which I'll talk about in later slides.

So the plaza will be designed to be ADA compliant and will have a network of radiating pathways.

These routes will link Googleplex, Gradient Canopy, Amphitheater Parkway, and the southwestern parking lot.

This layout also maintains a direct pathway between Googlex and Gradient Canopy for Google employees.

The highlighted areas in red are part of the existing pathway, which have been confirmed to not meet ADA standards currently.

So the project intends to fix these areas in design.

One question from the committee we received was to point out the east-west connection between the Google buildings.

I have that for you in a separate attachment, which I'll show later.

As mentioned earlier, another component, excuse me.

Another component of the HOZ is making sure we don't add any more impervious surface area than what is already existing.

So our current calculations show that we're removing about 12,000 square feet of impervious area as part of the project and about 3,000 square feet of impervious area within the HOZ for an overall net decrease in impervious area.

The access driveway that you can see to the pump station is proposed to be turf pavers, so that's not counted for in the calculation.

Next, I'll talk about the landscape framework framework, which can be described in three main zones.

In purple, along the western slope adjacent to Googleplex is an uh, you know, the what we're calling the native meadow and hillside grasses, which features a NOMO native grass mix to provide soil stability and habitat for pollinators.

In the middle in blue, we have the shrub and ground cover layer, which will feature low native shrubs like Chaparral Current, Cyanathus, and Yarrow, which are placed over the reservoir and also define the plaza edges to maintain open sight lines.

And lastly, along the eastern edge green, we just have drought-tolerant uh fescue turf, which will support informal play and gatherings along Loaquin Road.

Uh so now I'm going to be talking about the existing tree canopy and the replacement strategy.

So currently 42 non-heritage California buckeye trees surround the water feature, which will be removed as part of this project.

Um, due to grading excavation excavation around the water feature and the addition of 88 pathways, most of these trees will be impacted.

Arborist assessments indicate a low survival rate if they were to be transplanted.

And so of the 42, approximately seven may be preserved, and 35 will need to be replaced.

Removing these trees also provides clear visibility sight lines from the slope into the plaza and into greeting canopy.

Replacement will occur at a one-to-one ratio using larger caliper and adapted native and adapted species that are more resilient to recycle water and drought conditions.

On the right is a photo of the existing buckeyes surrounding the water feature, which are considered to be in fair condition.

And in the next slide, I'll be talking about replacement trees and additional trees.

So as I mentioned, while we're mitigating the 35 buckeyes at a one-to-one ratio, the conceptual canopy plans to add 64 additional trees throughout Charleston Park, which increases the overall shade and biodiversity for a total of 99 new trees.

The green, light green, light green and yellow trees shown on the planting plan on the screen are all new trees, and the black and white trees in the legend represent the 35 buckeys to be replaced.

So as you can see, no new trees are added added within the HOZ due to the height restriction I mentioned earlier.

And uh trees are concentrated along turf edges, um and pathways to provide shade while keeping central areas open for recreation.

And the canopy shown in the plan represents mature tree growth in an urban environment to accurately depict long-term coverage.

Uh central to the plaza is a specimen tree which serves as the centerpiece to the park design.

And so this plan tries to balance openness, visibility, and shade to enhance the user uh comfort and park aesthetics.

And I'll briefly touch on the lightings, furnishing, and landscape features.

So here are some examples of the various site furnishings and proposed features.

The images in the top left show potential seating options, including gathering benches, standard benches and tables, and a stack seating arrangement for the plaza.

The top right has an example of decorative pavers for the plaza as well as the permeable turf pavers that are proposed for the driveway to the pump station.

Um taller existing light poles within the HOZ as shown in the bottom left will be removed and relocated elsewhere in the park.

And uh five existing features currently um over four feet in height will be reused within the HOZ of these light fixtures along primary pathways, which is allowed by the HOZ requirements.

Um, and then new taller light fixture or new tall light fixtures will be added south of the HOZ where uh we can't.

Uh additionally, the project is proposing ballard lighting, as you can see in the middle uh bottom middle picture, uh along the pathways and plaza, which will provide lower level illumination along secondary paths and the plaza, uh, and ensure safe circulation without glare or sky glow.

And lastly, on the bottom right is an example of the existing landscape mounds already at Charleston Park.

Um the proposed mounds uh as part of the planting plan will match this aesthetic with trees and native plantings.

Um, and so now I'll just move on to the some of the conceptual renderings of the proposed improvements I just shared.

So here's an aerial overview of the entire park, including the plaza, tree canopy, native plantings, and pathways.

Uh, you can see the pump station in the top right along with the retaining wall, and the buried reservoir will be located to the right of the screen within the grass area.

Um here's some additional renderings.

Uh, I've included the plan view and the point of reference adjacent to each image uh for your reference.

Uh the top left is a close-up of the plaza looking northwest towards amphitheater parkway.

The top right is the opposite view, uh looking southeast from amphitheater parkway towards the plaza, which shows the turf paver driveway and the pump station on the right.

The bottom left image is the view walking from gradient canopy towards the plaza, and lastly, the bottom left bottom right image is looking southwest from amphitheater parkway along one of the pathways.

Um the pathway on the bottom right image is already existing but will be realigned slightly.

So in summary, uh staff requests PRC feedback uh on falling, uh the Charleston Park layout, which is specifically the father design, radiating pathways, and landscaping framework, and as well as the tree canopy and replacement strategy, including layout, species selection, and the balance between shade and open space.

Uh design for this project is expected to be complete by late of 2026.

And with that, um it's open for discussion.

Thank you very much.

Any uh commissioner questions.

I just had one question.

Uh, what is the approximate grade change between the plaza area and the Google Plex?

It's really hard to tell from what the plan to see this.

It's about um, so the top of the hill to the west is uh and from like the bottom to the water feature area, it's about like uh five to ten feet grade differential.

So it's not super steep, but it's steep enough where we have enough uh slope to uh work with to kind of disguise the pump station.

So uh from that cross section at the pump station, it looks like you know the ground is going down.

So one side of the pump station is sort of the full elevation above where it is exposed, and the other side it's sort of more buried.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

That's all I got.

Right?

Yes, thank you.

So just um you kind of have the the ginkgo seems to be a feature in your plans, but the other trees you have not yet decided how many of one kind, how many of another kind.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

If you could put up the the map of all the pathways, I just want to be clear on where the driveway permeable turf pavers in only in that section.

So if you can see on the top left of the image, uh that little loop that you see, that will all be permeable turf papers.

So uh staff will have access to drive onto the driveway from amphitheater parkway, create a kind of loop around and then exit from it from a different egress on back onto amphitheater parkway.

So they're not they don't have to back up.

Okay, but if somebody were trying to push a stroller, say across, I guess they're they would take a different way if they didn't want to be thumpy on the uh I guess they could take that out of pathway.

Yeah, so the the turf papers will you know grow over time, so it'll ultimately I think you know, from what I understand it's gonna look like grass after it's fully grown.

So uh and then the ingress and egress on amphitheater parkway will be restricted with bollard access, so only staff vehicles can access when they need to.

Um and so when the driveway is kind of overgrown, people won't really know it's so if somebody wanted to go south to north.

They would either take that far left path, which has the um ADA stuff you're gonna fix, presumably, or they would go to a more easternly um pathway or something like that.

Right.

Yeah, commissioner.

Um one of the other reasons we're okay with disrupting the pathway, sort of in that upper corner, that's where we have the least foot traffic.

If you go down that way on amphitheater, you basically hit Google garages and driveways.

There's not a whole lot that way.

Most of the foot traffic is coming from Lots C in the amphitheater in the uh northeast corner, and then or coming between the buildings, and so that area actually gets uh minimal foot traffic compared to the rest of the park, and so that's why we also were more okay with uh making that a maintenance area and maintenance access as the priority versus pedestrian access.

Okay, then maybe I missed it.

Yeah, I guess there's discussions with Google that they want a clearer way to get across where were you thinking that might so um I can pull that up, but I have to there has to be some technical.

Uh well I can have it on the USB so I can plug it in here.

Go up to the screen and point at it.

I mean, I can do that too, yeah.

Uh, if you want to see that, if you can correct me if I miss anything, maybe describe what you're pointing in the case of people.

Sure, yeah.

People online, uh follow up.

So um I'll just talk about it in the frame of reference of the plaza.

So Google is suggesting that they have a separate bike pathway that extends from Googleplex and crosses north over the plaza and into this um uh access point to gradient canopy.

So that would be a separate bicycle pathway.

And then they're also proposing uh an additional pedestrian dedicated pedestrian pathway that extends from the same point that crosses under the plaza more directly to gradient canopy.

And I believe there is a secondary uh pathway that um also extends from here.

I think it's further south, yeah, further south towards I think it connects with this this pathway here.

So they're instead of you know, the the primary direct access that we have that we're showing here is just you know, this kind of like S-curve through the plaza.

They have just in summary, what they want one put one bicycle pathway like this and another pedestrian pathway like this for direct axis.

Okay, I mean, and how would that mess with your landscaping and stuff like that?

Yeah, so I think uh as mentioned in the uh in the memo, uh we haven't coordinated this.

Uh we got these comments kind of late.

Um, so we haven't really evaluated how it would impact the entirety of the landscaping.

But um we can work with uh however uh you know we we decide to frame the discussion moving forward with them.

Thanks.

That's just a full-up question just in the specific so what what is the dedicated dedicated pathway mean?

Google wants it but can other people use it or badge uh so by the dedicated I meant dedicated like if they want a dedicated bicycle pathway I think it means that they only want bicycles like a bicycle path right it's still a city public park you know anybody can access it um this is just you know Google is the primary user of the park as they have a lot of foot traffic in between the buildings but um yeah dedicated doesn't mean only for them and the same goes for the pedestrian walkway correct just so it's shorter.

Okay thank you perhaps a better way is to say it's designated designated different techniques so there'll be no bikes they will use no bikes on any of the other pathways.

Thank you.

Mr.

Philosophy I was just curious I don't want to take anything away from any comment that Shawne wants to make but I guess um but I did get your letter I think all of us got your letter and I just and I know that there was a commissioner that also asked with regards to thank you Mr.

Bryant with regards to uh the palette uh the the planting palette uh being uh commensurate with the north base shore precise plan or really not uh or being deviant from it I guess is the word I'd say and just uh can you comment on with regards to it on on do they mesh or do they not mesh and if they don't mesh why don't they mesh since we have the North Bay shore plan in place already.

Yeah so in general um you know we tried to frame the landscaping design as a try tried to make it as cohesive as possible with what's there what's already existing as well as you know keep in consideration what uh the the what the renovations on the south side of the park uh you know completed in 2021 so um in general the plantings that uh were proposed are sort sort of match with the intent of the North Bay Shore precise plan palette but they don't uh necessarily align exactly some are not there are some non-native species proposed in the uh conceptual planting plan that we shared with URC um but in general you know the intent you know to provide biodiversity and shade and and canopy cover um we think the the the conceptual planting plan that we shared kind of matches that and again this is the conceptual stage we're still open for uh feedback um and can change uh another thing that I would like to add um just from you know re-watching the last PRC meeting is that I think there was some discussion about the existing oak trees there and you know uh how it might not be the best species for uh the new plantings and so um I kind of wanted to just put that out there in in the sense that the the way that the new planting plan shows it doesn't necessarily I know that you know oaks are very central to the North Bay Shore precise plant palette plant pallet um and so that might be one of the reasons why it was considered optional here uh based on the previous direction.

Thank you.

Um yeah thanks for the presentation I guess I've uh didn't try and appreciate you know who's the real user here I think you I spoke with Dr.

Basha you know my assumption is this is the vast majority is Google uh foot traffic and Johnson yeah but there's some weekend use people um do you have any description of use who's using it and how they're using it.

Well, I would I would agree with the general consensus that you would probably discuss with John.

I would say it's primarily Google.

There is public parking um in the southwestern parking lot that I uh that one of the pathways ties into.

The escalator now.

No, that's uh lot C.

What you're thinking of it which is off the screen here to the north.

Um what I'm talking about is uh maybe from the bottom left.

Yeah, bottom left of the screen, um, kind of where you see that text box there.

There's a parking lot there, which is uh tied into the Googleplex uh building.

There are some spaces there designated for visitors.

Um so you know, that's where they can park if it's not at Lot C.

But um in general, I would agree that it's mostly Google.

Okay.

And uh just trying to understand where this came from.

Um who designed it.

So how describe what level of input Google has had so far.

They've been a partner in designing this.

Have you given it to them and they're giving you comments?

Um, this is a city design, is a contractor design those?

Yeah, so this is uh city design.

So what what we've what we've shared so far has all been um, you know, this is this is part of the capital improvement project with the city to expand um the recycled water system as I had shared earlier.

And so part of that project is you know, we hired a design consultant to uh obviously do the reservoir and pump station, but then we incorporated landscape architecture for the park into that contract.

Um so everything that you've seen here has been prepared by our design consultant, Wood Rogers.

Um we have had, so in terms of how we've communicated with Google thus far, we've had like maybe two or three um coordination meetings with them.

Um, you know, that was one of the ways that we had decided on the configuration of the reservoir and pump station.

You know, we kind of got the feedback from them that you know they would be okay with using the leaseland area as part of as the location for the pump station.

Uh they didn't want the reservoir so close to the central of the of the park, uh, which is you know why we kind of not why, but it was part of the reason we shifted it more to the north, so now it's fully buried.

Um so you know, we've been in constant communication with them.

We've had a couple meetings here and there, and you know, as you can see from the memo, you know, they provided feedback upon this latest iteration, um, which is how they came up with those additional pathways at pathway alignments.

And I think I saw something else about amphitheater seating or a potential interest in that.

How would that factor into a design here?

Uh well, too hard to say.

Yeah, we haven't really thought about it that far, but um in in general, you know, it would probably fit somewhere into the plaza.

Um, or you know, we would have to reconfigure some things to make that work.

Uh you know, we haven't really said yes or no to them at this point, um, or had any further discussion about it other than what they've commented.

Okay.

A lot of questions.

I was curious about the uh the the grass pavers.

I can't remember about the exact term.

Those will have to be irrigated, like what what's the idea about your rigation?

Yeah, so um right now Charleston Park is irrigated with recycled water.

Um in terms, I'm not 100% familiar with the uh how turf pavers are irrigated.

I think they do the John, I think you might.

It would it would fall under the same irrigation as the rest of the park.

I would just be I just don't know directly if they have to be irrigated.

Uh I irrigate them.

Um, they'd just be in line, we wouldn't like cut them out of the sprinkler coverage or anything.

All right.

Okay.

Um turn it over to public uh comments.

Uh do we have any on online that would like to comment on this topic?

Mr.

England, please.

Hi everybody.

Yeah, good evening again.

Uh Bruce England on Wismers Station Drive.

These plans sound really good to me, so I want to speak in support of it.

Uh not only am I highly in favor of using recycled water where we can, but um addressing the new neighborhoods that we anticipate in North Bay Shore, East Wisbben and also the NASA areas.

The staff report describes, uh sounds really great, and it's gonna make those communities, those parts of Mountain View, um even more sustainable.

And um, and also the design ideas for Charleston Park look really good to me too.

So um all in all, I'm just really happy with what's been presented to you tonight.

So my support.

Thank you.

Thanks, Bruce.

Anybody else online?

We also have Celia.

So yeah, the floor is yours.

Hi, um, and Resident Mountain View.

Um I agree with Shani's letter, which I you know, I hear you all read.

Um I would just say that it would be kind of in opposition to our um upcoming biodiversity and urban forest master plant um to be removing natives to replace with non-natives.

Um, I don't think the pictures of the backey's really do them justice as they're taken at a time of year when they have drops their leaves and um they don't do it in quite so colorful away quite often, but they're still um a native tree that supports local wildlife.

Um, and especially in this location near to shoreline, um I would hope that we would be planting those native trees.

Um I heard it brought up that they were worried about the salinity of the water, but my understanding is you know, there's a whole new water recycling treatment plant being built specifically so that the salinity is decreased so that trees can be planted to use that recycled water, um, and that we could use native trees for that.

Um yeah, so I I would like the our planting pilot to be in line with both the North Bay Shore Master Plan as well as the biodiversity and urban forest plan that we already have drafts of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So yeah.

So with that, we will turn to folks in the room.

Uh, presume we have some comments from conference.

Again, um, you know, I'm on Parks and Rekin or neighbor city here, and the Parks and Rike had to review the planting plant for the recycling plant that is gonna provide water for that.

Guess what they're using?

The North Bay Shore Precise Plan planting list, and they're using recycled water.

It seems pretty absurd to me that Google has, you have a living lab over there in North Bay Shore.

For 10 years, Google has been replacing everything with natives, native shrubs, native grasses, native trees.

And here, right in between the two buildings, some other kind of I don't even know how this came about.

And I think it's because of that gap that was created when the biologist was not here.

I think had you have the biologist and stuff, this plan would not move forward as is, and definitely not highlight a ginkgo tree of all things.

That's like the antithesis of any biodiversity.

I mean, in China, yeah, they got things eating it, but here not really.

You know, and I can't help it, because you have my letter, and you really need to redesign, you know, what is used there.

But I I would as someone who's on Parks Commission, I want to say something else.

I know this park well.

People play games there, all kind of peak peak up games.

We go through freezing, they play ball, they do all kinds of stuff.

On the 4th of July, the whole park is full of people sitting there to see.

I don't see them accommodated here.

I don't think it's a it's accommodating people who want to walk around.

Yes, there are other places there to do it, and it's very nice for that.

But when I think about what does it look like at night with all these radiating, the plaza and all these radiating pathways, and they're all gonna be lit with whatever lights, whether they're just small or big, it seems to me that it's all being fragmented and not really very useful as as somebody who wants to go and play ball or watch the fireworks.

So I I don't know how you might want to deal with that, and maybe it's not my place to bring it, but I can't help myself as a parks commissioner somewhere else.

The other thing I want to say is about the mitigation of the trees.

Um, as far as I remember, the backeyes were planted to mitigate for the trees of landings, and that's fine.

But when you let the tree get to the age of less than five years old, and then so it's not gonna provide the canopy that it was supposed to provide, and now you replace it again, and it's on one-on-one basis.

Now I know they're planting a lot more, which is potentially not really um, so you can say that more of them are mitigation, but having one-on-one mitigation for a tree that didn't have the chance to grow and provide the benefits that it was supposed to provide as a mitigation tree.

That's a problem too.

Um, just gonna see, and I really think if you go there and see how beautiful the biodiversity is when you use our native species here and all the butterflies that are flying around.

This has to have a very large batch of uh milkwood for I would say, but you know, the Google campus already has that.

Why would you do something that is so orthodox oppositional to what they're doing anyway?

Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments, other I am a user of that park.

Um, we go there and picnic, we ride our bikes.

Yeah, there are plenty of bike paths that beautiful.

Some of probably the best ones in mountain go around that park.

I don't think we need bike paths going through the park.

One of the problems with shoreline is walking along.

There's uh, you have to be careful, don't get ran over.

We don't need more bike paths going through.

There's nice bike path all the way around.

I hate the radiating design.

I'm sorry, it splits everything up.

Why are we doing that?

And maybe, so you're I think if I understood correct, the um, so you're removing the concretes of the fountain and you're counting that as what's being removed versus what's being put in.

I don't think we should be dissecting it all upward paths.

Um, yeah, I don't think we need all those cross pathways.

That's what makes that park nice, is just small pathways.

You can go sit, have a picnic or play ball or whatever it is you do.

I completely agree.

How it should be following our biodiversity goals, and our North Bay Shark precise.

The owls do nest right across from there, right across the street from there, yeah.

64 non-heritage trees is it is wording, but those are important native trees, and I'd like to encourage you to replace them all with me.

I like to not see a single community while um, sorry, took a few notes.

I guess I just feel like it's mostly missing the mark for that area and the goals that we've been trying to attain as a city and as a park and work departments, and I think I think you can do better.

I don't think.

Thank you.

Any other member of the public choosing to make comments?

No hands, I will now come to the commission for comments.

Maybe we'll start inside.

Thank you.

Um, so when I have guests in Mountain View, uh on one of the questionnaires of the biodiversity plan, they asked where do you take people to in Mountain View?

Maybe it was the arts of strategy, and the place I take people to is North Bay Shore.

And I take them on the Google campus and on the Microsoft campus, and I say, look, that this is Mountain View, this is California, high-tech, wonderful, wonderful plantings, it's beautiful.

And uh, and for us to be putting in the palettes that the old follet which was used some years ago in that park, is really good to make us look like the little city that couldn't.

Uh, because you look good, Google has done a fabulous job.

Microsoft has done a fabulous job.

For us to say the consistency of the park, because we planted non-native trees there, we just plant non-native trees again to make the parkings consistent.

I would say let's make it consistent.

Let's plant only natives, and in a few years when we have the money, let's take out the other trees in in Charleston Park and put in native trees.

Um biodiversity doesn't mean that we plant trees from all over the world.

Biodiversity means we plant the trees that want to be here, the trees that support the birds and the butterflies and the caterpillars and all the little green crawleys that want to be here.

Um so in in the in the staff report it it mentioned the areas like an urban park.

It's not exactly an urban park, it's it's under the Pacific Flyway, it faces the bay, faces the regional park.

Um we have an opportunity to do something beautiful, and we should take it.

We can't talk about the biodiversity plan, and then plant a ginkgo in North Bay show.

It's embarrassing.

It's like we don't know what we're doing.

For me, I would really ask my my colleagues on the PRC to say this has to be native.

Otherwise, why bother with all these plants?

This has to be native.

So I I feel I don't know if I should say this, you know, I feel strongly about this.

Um so that was the main the main thing I had to say.

The the location of the of the walkways, that that was interesting about the the radiating walkways, breaking everything down, and then if we have lights along all the walkways, we will have a lot of light there.

And really it's not such a big park that we need so many walkways.

And even if the Googlers walk a little, you know, not a completely straight line, they'll probably survive.

So maybe we need fewer, fewer paths or maybe circular path.

I don't have great um I I was struck by what was said.

I wasn't planning to talk about that, but I I think we need to insist on native plantings.

And those are my comments currently.

Mr.

Mitcher, okay.

Um, so first of all, I was really glad to hear that the cost of the fully buried is only three percent higher than the semi-buried.

Um, that's a really small incremental amount.

I think it's well worth it in terms of the aesthetic benefits, and also I think that you're less less encumbered um with your range of landscaping that you can do without some things sticking sticking up.

Um overall, I'm happy with the the new design.

Um I think it's attractive, it's gonna be a pleasant space.

Um, I like the circular seating layout and the um pronounce a gabian.

Is it gabbian?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Seating aesthetic.

I I like the look of the geometric pavers um shown in the plaza and continue out to the radiating uh walkways.

Um I will be a little different.

I actually like the radiating walkways um for the main plaza.

I think that they are intentional in their destinations.

I think if you look at where they start and finish, you know, one's at the Googleplex, one is at the parking lot.

Um, one comes in from, you know, I think they're very intentional.

I don't personally find them obtrusive, and it's not in the southern part of the the park, the southern part of the park is still gonna be how how it is.

Um I also think that they're gonna be curved and shaded, and I think that'll look nice.

Um one thing I that I wasn't sure about is the transition and going from the geometric pavers to the concrete pathway along the radiated pathways.

I just not sure what that transition will look like.

Um I'm fine with the three different landscape zones, um, the way they blend together and the reasoning behind their selection.

Um I think that I'll like the way the slope between the plaza area and the public parking and Googleplex is addressed through the um sculpted landscaping mounds and the ascending contours.

Um, but it's it's a little hard to envision it.

But I think I think that you've addressed that well.

I like the intentional choice of the grasses um for the western sloped zone.

Um in terms of the planting palette, um, you know, I I would agree I would like to see as many natives as possible.

I would like a much more significant um showcase central central tree than a ginkgo, but I'm I'm hoping that these are sort of placeholders and um can it get adjusted.

And then I was the one who submitted the question.

I the marine strawberry trees, I mean, we got one in our backyard, and they can be really messy.

I wouldn't put any, I wouldn't.

I mean, I'm glad ours is over the lawn.

And even then, I mean some bush, every time you you step on one of those things, so I wouldn't want those anywhere near.

I mean, they're pretty and they got color, but I wouldn't want it anywhere near a pathway or uh or the and we're right now they're I think circling the entire uh central plaza, perhaps anyway.

So that's just my uh my one other thing, other than um trying to go to a a palette that's consistent with the North Bay Shore plan.

Our maintenance staff appreciate that comment.

Yeah, well, yeah, yeah.

So um, and that's that's that's those are my initial thoughts.

There we go.

Um not to repeat a lot, a lot of good with Coach Michener, uh Coach, you're not you're in my judge.

Commissioner Missioner said, I I completely agree with uh I also with regards to the pallet again, native as much native as possible, uh uh in complete agreement on the ginkgo tree.

Um I've got one, they're wonderful, but not here in this project.

It did make a lot of sense to me.

Um if at all possible, if oaks aren't gonna make it, I understand if that's what the concern is, but if an oak can make it, then I think it should be an oak is the uh the the primary tree.

Now, having said that, I know this is gonna go complete it opposite of what I just said.

I know I'm jumping ahead a little bit, but uh being a studious commissioner, I've read the parks and recreation plan that's coming up next Monday, and uh with regards to that, this park has been highlighted as one of our best in Mountain View in that report.

And I wouldn't want to get away too much from how it's serving the public right now, and so while I like the design, I don't want us to forget what the public likes about this park and not to get away from it too much other than the plantings itself, and you know, with regards to the palette on the planting.

And so just maybe keep that in mind.

How is the public using it right now?

Why is it popular?

Why is it popular in the survey that was which you haven't seen a probably, but we have started to see that it's coming forward next week uh on why this park is considered one of our best in mountain view.

And so I just you know, just that comment.

I know that'd be completely in opposition to what you put together.

I I like what you put together, it's you're very well thought out, but um, and I would certainly like the the whole idea of the the way the um uh this the reservoirs being handled.

Wonderful, wonderful solutions, I think.

But uh maybe just keep in mind, you know, why why is this a popular park?

And and keep that in mind is further concepts are put forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna go and order of how you do the set of landscape plans as the landscape architect.

I can't help it.

So starting with the layout of the hardscape I do like the spoken hub um kind of radial design uh I mean obviously that's gonna look best from an airplane uh but the curving pathways are also enjoyable when you're on the ground um one thing I noticed uh and so I'm gonna kind of give two comments that are slightly in opposition I feel like if we keep the northernmost polygon that's right mostly above the water tank we keep that as the shrub uh planting palette that it really you know it's a lot of acreage to have no ability to walk around in and I I would think you would need um you know at least one path maybe more you know going through that area and I understand it needs to be pervious but there's such thing as pervious pavement or you know washed gravel you know it's possible to make a pervious path so um but hearing that uh there is kind of uh appreciation of these open turf fields for you know pickup sports and um you know fourth of July viewing it may be that it would be better to make that as much as this pains me to say it turf I hate turf but I find it acceptable in a park where people are wanting to sit and gather and place ports.

So if if we were going to extend a path through it there's those those uh well they're dark the two darkest paths I would extend that through that area but it's if it were turf it wouldn't need a pathway walk on turf so one way or the other I would like to make that area accessible and usable rather than something that you're just looking at from pretty far away.

So then moving to the grading the existing mounds that were shown are not shaped like what this plan shows I hate to say this but what this plan shows look like buried camels and I spent a lot of time doing grading plans that didn't forms that didn't look like buried camels and they are ridiculous when you do that.

Not to mention they're just kind of like scattered around like they're just anywhere.

So I would like to see those berms become a lot more feathered and buried and rolling more naturalistic if we're gonna do them at all.

No buried camels.

Then moving on to it so it's hard to tell um the overall grade change because there isn't really topography shown in these plans I asked the question about that so it's 10 feet higher on one side as we you remember when you walk down the current waterfall it's a pretty big drop so it's a little hard to figure out how that all comes together with the with the berms but I think it could the they need to be more linear.

And so then that said I'm assuming that the tank the the ground over the tank is really not that much soil there.

And so it's sort of strange to me that we would make these berms and then put a shallow rooted plant on top of them grass is a shallow even native grass you know they're a little deeper rooted but compared to shrubs like the cyanosis for example the pet the berms should have the deep rooted plants on top of them because they won't have very much opportunity to root deeply over this big metal water tank.

So um you know, particularly in a grassy buried camels, that's gonna look completely silly.

So I yeah, I go back to the drawing board with the grading and the strategy about what to plant where, because I do think that you're gonna want to put the deeper rooted plants on the berms.

And then in terms of the planting, I 100% agree with everything that the commissioner said about the plant palette.

We really need to strive to remove the non-native plants.

Um, you know, I made some, I have some suggestions about what we could do.

I I mean, clearly, clearly, um, you know, we're gonna have some buckeyes left.

I would like to see us replant those buckeyes.

I think they're they're a beautiful tree to look at and they're blooming, they they're kind of interesting in the way they, you know, are so amazingly well adapted to the California climate.

You know, they'll be leafing out now where you think, oh, it's nothing's happening out there, and then there they are leaping out, and then they dry up in the hottest part of the year, they're supremely adapted.

Um, and so we don't need to be having olives to show us what a Mediterranean plant is like.

Let's let's go back to some buckeyes.

We don't need any more London planes, we can plant our native sycamore.

There's beautiful campuses all over the Google campuses, and so let's make that substitution right off the bat.

The ginkgo, you know, we drew this uh beautiful tall tree is uh the ginkgo is gonna take 95 years to get to that tall.

We have all of us being ceased by the time it looks like that.

We can't be planting the ginkgo there.

They're so slow growing, it don't, you know, several people have mentioned they're completely lacking habitat value.

I mean, I do kind of like them in certain settings.

Like there's gorgeous hundred-year-old one on the Berkeley campus that isn't beautiful.

Um, but I'd rather see a valley oak in that place, and you know, that'll that's a more celebration of California.

We've all talked about that.

Um so I'd also like to see us eliminate the non-native shrubs, things like that, Lomandra.

I mean, that have no habitat value at all.

We could be planting deer grass and it'll have the same appearance of you know, a spiky accent um plant, and then it can also host a lot of uh, you know, butterfly larvae so um, you know, there's a lot of lot of work I think needed on that plant palette, and then in terms of the plant massing, I kind of feel like it's random.

There's no, so these the radiating paths are a strong design element, and then the plants are just plopped.

So let's have the plant massing support that design that's pretty strong.

Um that said, you know, I do think that the um the idea that the Google put forth about there sort of being a view corridor between the Google Plex and the gradient can be does make some sense, and that and that planting could could support that idea of there being a view corridor because the geometry, you know, the a vista toward that building, I think could be an attractive thing from the upper Google Plex pathway.

So taking that into account with the shape of this massing of trees that you're um doing would be would be meaningful.

Um overall, I I would like to see more of this park be usable rather than something that you're just passively experiencing, and um I think the the plant palette is key to make a dramatic shift.

So that's what I've got.

I'm I'm okay with continuing to move the project forward.

I think it's you know, wonderful thing to have this tank, it's important for structure for sure for the city.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Great comments.

I came prepared to say, okay, so this is uh a common opportunity at a very early stage of a design, and um you know, I think you've well heard the uh plant palette comments.

Clearly that needs to be re-reviewed.

You know, I asked you about who who did this, and you know, it does kind of look like an engineering contract that had a landscape architecture clause in it.

I'm not sure if there's a landscape architect involved.

Um I wasn't really gonna say much about the design because that obviously it's a subjective thing.

You've got commissioners that like it, commissioners.

I find it overwhelming.

I don't see, I think there's an opportunity to have a space that feels if not magical, at least an interesting space.

This looks like a circulation driven solution, is this kind of spiraling vortex, at least in the plan view.

Um it's it's uh you know, uh imprint on the landscape.

It's not a landscape, it's not using the land, other yeah, it it really says there's something very special happening in the center, you know.

There's this, you know, almost a black hole in the middle of this park that everything is focusing on, and you know, I think the the seating and the various park amenities are nice, but I don't see yet that emphasis.

So I I will view the other folks that have said, yeah, let's look at the the use issues, yeah.

Maybe maybe restore some of the uh ability to use it like it was used.

Um I I your comment about plant massing also resonated.

I saw you know, basically line the radiating spirals with trees and then uh scatter some other stuff around.

So um I too like the other commissioners strongly applaud the solution to the reservoir and have a pump sandal.

I think that's fine.

Um I think you heard kind of a uh unanimous opinion on the planned palette, and that needs to be reviewed.

And my personal belief is that the space itself could be more interesting, it could be um used as something more than a set of spiraling circulation patterns.

So and I realize that's just a subjective uh point.

So um I hope that was can we can you want to go through again?

Yeah, well with with all due respect to let's get this meeting quick and organized.

I I have some comments to make, and since I started, I will take it now.

So I also wanted to say that the the design of the reservoir and sinking it, I mean that's just wonderful, and I assume that's the most engineering there that you need to think about, the most work that you need to think about.

And I don't think any of the comments we made today will in any way slow that process down.

We're all I'm certainly very happy with it.

I think all of us were happy with it.

Um and my sense of how this was designed was definitely engineer slash uh landscape architect, and to me, this is a chance to do something really wonderful.

And Google has done it over and over again in North Bay Shore and and so it's Microsoft, and this is our chance to say we're just as good.

We can also find good landscape architects who can make this a place where you want to be rather than a place that you want to go through.

And uh this is an opportunity to show that that we can do it.

Uh I've I've gone to the park several times and I'm I'm glad to hear that some people really enjoy it, but to me it's always been just a place.

No magic, no, no real reason to be there.

But if we if we build it so that it's kind of our introduction to the to North Bay shore to the bay, it could be a place just to be, and then we don't need all these paths.

It can be a sit.

Here's a bench, sit and enjoy it.

So that to me, a a uh a corridor to see one Google facility from the other it's already it already looks like a private Google place five parking places for the for the public and in in the in our strategic plan it says it's a very accessible park in my opinion it's a completely inaccessible park lots of people in not really don't even know it exists so um I I suggest finding a landscape architect who knows about California natives and will really think this through to make the city proud of it.

And I I really hope my my my fellow commissioners let's make a strong statement about natives not like if feasible if you can please please please I would really like us to make a strong statement this is not very sure we are focused on biodiversity which means the the local native habitat we expect that not let's try but this is what we expect I think that'll make a stronger statement to staff if we if we had a motion I would make a motion but as it is I would hope that my fellow commissioners can agree that this is a place to do it.

Well do we feel like we need to come up with a consolidated statement or we think our comments are I mean I think they're all pretty harmonious all that yeah I'm hoping that they're taking it somewhere yeah yeah and we're nothing on the agenda about making a motion or something and if we could just provide some additional context um so what you all have hit on is the wonderful task that uh Salman has been trying to tackle of uh balancing the HOZ which doesn't allow trees adding trees removing impervious space adding pervious space creating a corridor connecting everything while can creating this sense of place and so we have been juggling all of that and so um uh I believe it was uh commissioner missioner brought up the radium pathway design is meant to connect the different elements around where the public parking is where the bus stop is where they where uh folks come up from lot C um we didn't want to uh put anything too extensive over the reservoir so that's why uh that was left open and I don't think we'd want to put a path over it um and we can revisit how to create a sense of space in the middle um while creating a pathway between the two areas but um I think you're gonna have difficulty balancing everything you guys brought up uh as multiple commissioners pointed out you provided conflicting comments in your comments for us to follow and answer um and so we have extensive notes all of us here and I think we can take that back I think the one very clear cohesive one forward is looking 100% native and I think that's something we've heard loud and clear and so I think that's something we can uh move forward on and then um we can also revisit uh we we protect wildlife out in this area so we don't want anything to happen to camels either so we can look at that as well um and I think we can uh balance uh the comments that we've heard and go revisit with the landscape architect is there any questions you guys have any clarifications no we or maybe just just one thing that I would like to point out is that the North Bay Shore precise plan does mention that we can use 20% non-native species right just want to throw that out there that just throwing a bone to the landscape architects and you know and saying that the the the planting plan is not finalized these are just potential species that were um you know floated and uh you know we're working within the confines of of the plan and you know we've definitely heard your feedback walk forward that moving forward but just providing a little bit of resentment but they have to need to make sure yeah there's just a couple additional I mean comments um Richard Summer actually did bring up an interesting point about that whole area in the upper above where the um the reservoir is I mean if there's no can you not walk through I mean or I mean that's a lot of space so it'd be it would be nice to get some use out of that space and and whether it's whether it's more turf or whether it's you know some little pathway with you know not concrete but uh you know I don't know what the material is I want to I'll say compressed it something or other that you can just walk and maybe some benches and proceeding I you know but yeah that's a pretty big plot of land to not take a little bit more out of it somehow um and then I just I again I I'm fine with the pathways I I think that they look real stark when you look at these this map and there's no trees and there's um none of that but like if you look at this diagram it's they're not as they're not as um as obvious so that's my action.

Um just one uh further thought about that area of over the water peg um reservoir.

If if we are unable to put any kind of path I mean we're only talking about like a one foot cross section here there's gotta be more cover than that otherwise none of these plants are even gonna grow um especially not a deep rooted shrub like some they had listed in the pallet to that area um it would be better to keep it as turf because then you can at least go there and you know sit and watch the fireworks or whatever um I I mean I I the the types of you we really need to have more sense of the types of uses here I think that the path network kind of does a pretty good job of following the desire lines like where you start where you want to go typically people will create a path through a space if there is no path because they want to go you know the parking lot to the restroom or you know whatever it is and the the radio path system does pretty good job of accounting for the places people would want to go but it's not accounting for the types of uses that suggesting everyone wants to go to a focal center which I don't think needs to be a vocal I mean a focal point doesn't need to be in the center somewhere well I mean it's bringing up maybe some of the paths could could go around the center which actually was what Google was proposing.

What is actually going to be in the center it's it's a plaza it's benches it's this big beautiful tree that won't be a ginkgo anymore.

Maybe an amphitheater or something that's kind of where the people are kind of gathering in the in the conception of design.

Maybe calling for some public art.

Yeah it could be public art.

But really what if what you're probably going to do is either find a grassy area to sit down on you're gonna throw frisbee or play quitting with your friends or and and in those cases you don't have any interest in the plaza.

But people that want to be around other people it is kind of nice to have a local space.

Right but you know I'm no longer I never was the kind of person who wanted to run around and play with each a lot of people just want to sit on a bench and look at beautiful plantings.

We can have a beautiful area of of California plants and have the butterflies flying there and people will sit and watch.

They certainly do that in Paris all the time you have areas that you can't go into because they say nature isn't working here.

But you have benches around them and you can look I I think this needs to look like a place where people want to be, and it's not about how many trees are we putting here.

Maybe we don't need that many trees because this is an old bash or which it did not used to be a forest.

But you know, California native plantings planned by someone who knows about California native plant is and Google does.

So seeing what Google does seems like a perfect model, especially given that it's right there.

So I would highly recommend looking at Google or talking to Google.

I just want to respond to that.

Um, I wouldn't support eliminating the plaza, but what I do think it's it needs to be programmed.

We need to figure out why people go there, which is actually what you're saying as well.

Uh just to be clear, um, I just want to make sure you understood that you know, we are doing native plantings, uh, as kind of this plant plan shows.

Um, we can definitely incorporate more.

Uh, I just I'm just not sure by native plantings.

Do you are you talking specifically about the trees?

Or are you talking about the entire park in general?

I will take upon myself to say that we're talking about everything.

And there's a lot more of shrubs that have been incorporated, but there is no reason to plant non-natives.

There is no reason.

I mean, you could find that the North Bacial that lets you do 20%, but why why do it?

It's it's right on the shores of the Bay.

It's right next to the marbles that Google and Microsoft have done.

If they can do it, so can we?

Well, uh the the North Bayesian palette gives you the chance to take uh like that the Arbutus Marina, for example.

That's not like straight up Arbutus Unido, it's a kind of a hybrid plant that's in between a native and non-native.

It doesn't have the same type of fruit drop that they're different fruit.

It allows you to do a hybridized native where you're saying, okay, I'm I can um you know take a plant that has been modified, it's not a true native access.

Those don't support wildlife as well.

Well, they do.

I mean, go look at some of the native perennials that have been that are they selected and hybridized, they still support the same animals.

Not scientifically, they don't the same number, but there was no reason.

So are you just I would not plant an abutis anywhere.

Anyway, they they should be able to find that we don't know what that plant is.

I'd happen to just know.

There are landscape architects who know how to do this, and they should use rather than an engineering firm.

We agree on that, I think.

Yes.

Okay, I am gonna call out the discussion here and say thank you, Mr.

City that uh for the opportunity to come at this.

You're I think you proceed a lot of it.

I'd say most of it's consistent and some of it's divergent, and good luck sorting that out.

Um I do think uh getting a real skilled landscape architects gonna be helpful and in uh doing the next step.

So unless there's strong objection, I'm gonna move on.

I don't think we have the size part.

We have a last inputs.

Okay, thank you.

So do you know, I over me.

Okay, we're gonna uh take a five minute break and come back at nine.

Well, nine twelve.

Actually, I'm getting some of those.

I don't know if it's running up, I think, we can do that, we're not give us a hug Resuming here within a minute or two.

Okay, we're going to resume here.

Uh thank you for uh waiting during that break.

Uh item five point three, the solar array senior center among you sports pavilion and mission and sports center, project twenty-four forty-eight.

And we will begin with the uh presentation, I believe, by the senior civil engineer or start all.

We will turn it over to you for the staff presentation.

I share the screen.

All right, good evening.

My name is Farell Saidia.

I'm a senior project manager with the Public Works Department.

And tonight I'll be sharing with you some details about the solar arrays project, which includes the senior center, Mountain View Sports Pavilion, and the Wisdom Sports Center, and some updates about how the project is impacting city trees.

So we'll start off with a summary of the item we're presenting today, along with a secondary advisory item.

So we're here to request your recommendation to remove and mitigate one heritage tree at the senior center site.

However, we're also going to provide an informational update about a site that's outside the heritage tree policy jurisdiction of the city, but that we are following a similar mitigation plan that's on school property.

Those two are under a joint use agreement, which requires joint decisions on any upgrades, including solar array projects.

And in June of 2024, the city utilized the California state energy conservation contracting process, which means that we selected an energy services contractor to move forward with both design and construction at the same time.

So there's two major financial incentives involved in this project.

The PG<unk>E NEM 2.0, which equates to about 9.9 million dollars in utility savings over 20 years.

And then there's the federal investment tax credit program.

Oops, which would bring an additional 1.5 million dollars of project cost reimbursement covered after completion.

So in order to be eligible for these incentives, the project needs to be complete and operational by March 2026.

So these show some of the preliminary layouts for each site.

The senior center in the middle is a combination of both carports and the small roof mount array.

The Mountain View Sports Pavilion is the same thing, a carport and some roof mount array.

And then the WISMAN Sports Center is just a roof mount.

So at the senior center site, our staff's preliminary analysis estimated up to seven non-heritage trees would need to be removed.

And they advised council at the June 2024 meeting that the project mitigation measures would include one-to-one tree replacement ratio with 24-inch box native species trees, either on or off-site.

For the status of the project, currently the design is complete.

The permit was issued in August of 2025 by the City Building Division.

And this site being one of the most busy city facilities, the senior center, construction was broken into two phases in order to reduce impact on the users.

The first phase of construction was completed Labor Day weekend of this year.

The second phase is scheduled to begin in January of next year.

The second phase does have to be tightly coordinated to overlap with another construction project, the Senior Center Electrification Project, in order to reduce impacts on the senior nutrition program at that site.

And as mentioned before, the completion deadline for construction is end of March, which is a tight timeline to make sure we retain the PGE incentive.

So during the design phase, higher efficiency solar panels were incorporated on the solar car ports, which reduced the overall total number of panels necessary to generate the required energy production, and this eliminated the need of the roof array.

So this drawing shows trees that would be removed as X's, kind of numbered here, and then the mitigation replacement trees are shown as the green circles surrounding the site.

The design completion and a more detailed tree survey showed that six additional trees that are located outside the solar carport footprint would also need to be removed due to the branches physically conflicting with the proposed solar panels, and or the tree canopy shade obstructing the system's energy generation capacity.

And a reduction in the generation capacity would compromise the energy savings needed in order to accomplish the project's payback goals.

Also, one of the original seven trees was reevaluated at this time and was confirmed to be a heritage tree.

So this brings the project site to a total of 13 trees recommended for removal and mitigation, including one heritage tree and 12 non-heritage trees.

We did explore three main alternatives to minimize the tree impacts, including extensive tree trimming, transplanting trees, expanding the roof mount solar arrays.

The extensive tree trimming we found would compromise the health of the trees, so that was not feasible.

We did look at transplanting and for I'll speak to these reasons on the next page as to why this was also found to be infeasible.

And then expanding the roof mount.

We did look into that and had it had its own challenges.

There's very limited space on the roof because it's broken up into small sections.

That limits the number of panels that could be installed due to roof edge setback requirements.

And then in addition, the orientation and the geometry of the roof limits us with the number of panels that could be placed on each section.

There's also a separate concurrent project for solar water heating that's going to have panels installed on the same roof that limits any further remaining roof space.

So I mentioned we looked at possible transplanting of the trees on the site.

It was found that transplanting was just not feasible in this case.

Some of the reasons are listed here, like species suitability or root systems in close proximity to each other.

So therefore planting new trees was recommended.

So this is a photo of the one impacted.

This is a photo of the one impacted heritage tree, a sycamore.

The arrow points to the location of this tree in the center of Parport Array 3.

Uh notice was posted on the tree in August, and no appeals are received.

And a notice was also posted over the last few weeks on the tree notifying the public about this meeting as well as notices being mailed out to residents adjacent.

Staff recommends mitigation for the one heritage tree at a two to one replacement ratio using 24-inch box trees and replacing the 12 non-heritage trees at a one-to-one ratio with 24-inch box trees as well.

This would result in a total of 14 new trees planted on site.

The tree canopy coverage within the project is projected to exceed the current coverage within five to seven years.

And a mixture of native and non-native species are proposed based on some site-specific recommendations of the city arborists of this site.

So in addition to senior center, we're here to give you an informational update on the other two school district solar sites.

The Mountain View Sports Pavilion and Wismond Sports Center.

The heritage tree that's going to be discussed at the Mountain View Sports Pavilion site is on school district property.

So that one would fall under school district jurisdiction.

So for the Wisman Sports Center site, there's no trees affected.

So we don't need to discuss that.

And then the Mountain View Sports Pavilion site.

This is the preliminary layout we had for the Mountain View Sports Pavilion.

Staff's preliminary analysis estimated about five non-heritage trees that would need to be removed.

And they advised council at the June 2024 meeting that the project mitigation measures would include a one-to-one tree replacement ratio with 24-inch box native species trees.

The design completion and a more detailed final tree survey revealed that three additional trees adjacent to the solar rays will cause significant shading.

They're right here, these three.

Thereby reducing the energy production as well as branch and comp branches in conflict with the array.

So it's in total, eight trees would have to be removed to avoid this reduction in solar production.

And also, as part of those three additional trees, one heritage tree was identified at this time as well.

This site has a total of eight trees recommended for removal and mitigation, including one heritage and seven non-heritage trees.

So this is a photo of the one impacted heritage tree, and the arrow points to the location, which is on the school district side of the property line.

Staff recommends, like I said, a mitigation of a two to one similar to senior center for the heritage tree with a 24-inch box tree and replacing seven non-heritage trees at a one-to-one ratio with 24-inch box trees for a total of nine new trees.

The school district has agreed to this mitigation plan, and the trees can be planted on site.

And the tree canopy coverage similar to senior center will is projected to exceed the current coverage within five to seven.

This concludes our presentation and we close with our staff recommendation shown here for the senior center site.

And we are planning to go to council to request approval of the senior center heritage tree mitigation plan in December.

Thank you for your time, and now we can take any questions.

Anyone want to question?

So I understand it right.

Our the mitigation plan that we are recommending is only on the senior center because the two school district ones are not in our purviews.

That's correct.

Yeah.

So we could return.

Hopefully it's a slammed on.

I mean, what's what's the um like I said, we've already completed phase one for the senior center, and we're lining things up to start pretty soon for phase two.

So I think we're we're on track.

Question?

Yes.

So in the in the report, there was information about additional trees to the planted senior center, but what we're doing right now is just a recommendation to mitigate one heritage tree.

Yes, correct.

Okay, and and how where is the what will drive the the planting of the additional trees, or I asked about the uh the the media and the berm or what the bioretention try all the words, one of them will be the right one.

Uh the retention is most accurate.

Thank you.

Uh what will drive that happening is is it's written into the the plans that that will happen.

Well, um, so I think we responded, but I can repeat we are going we're adding that to the plan.

So yes, that will be it will affect the plantings that are under in the median currently because it'll be shaded and equipment, construction equipment and trenching will damage some of those vegetation.

So we're gonna work with landscape architect to replace those.

Something that's more.

Right now, all we're talking about is the the one north.

Yeah, that's what we're really thinking for today.

Which of the senior center replacement trees would be considered uh two trees, or does it really matter?

I don't know if we've specifically identified that.

I can pull up the list that we're replacing with.

Replacing the heritage or mitigation for the heritage, I mean it's 14 going in to replace 13 removal, but we could consider any of these three, yeah, as the replacement.

So I don't think we identified probably the western sycamore because that's the one that's coming out is a similar tree to that, right?

But we where were those being planted?

So I might have to pull that point out.

Are they the ones along the path?

They must be the western sycamores are all along the north edge here, those four trees at the top, okay.

Yeah, that will be the western, the four right here.

These are western sycamores, and then these that have a little purple outline down here are Armstrong Maple, and then these along this side here are western red buds.

Okay, great.

I just um one question.

So in April 23, the city applied for the net energy metering 2.0 program reserved incentives for various public facilities, including these three.

Are there other facilities that are also part of a solar project?

That the city applied for the net energy metering.

And those are the only three we're pursuing as part of that because again the the the time limits uh we did explore some other ones, um, but it was determined that they were not feasible either because they cost too much or they didn't have enough recovery.

Okay, it's at various public facilities, including these.

I didn't know there were others.

Right.

Um thank you for that.

We will now uh take any public comments.

Is there anybody online?

Allison, but um, okay, and I don't see anybody in the room, so I assume there's no public evidence here.

Um Mr.

Comments and discussion, anyone want to kick it off.

I mean, I'll just uh um say, you know, I just I mean, I guess we don't have a whole lot to to say on this um one.

I just, you know, for my just side comment from serving on the high school board um during installation of solar car ports.

I I think that there's also a side benefit for cover and shaded parking, which is doesn't I mean it's that's helpful and I think for seniors it it's probably good too.

Um I I thought I mean I'm just gonna comment on on all 14 because I didn't know which ones were the heritage tree specifically, but I just I think it's a sound, I think the proposed locations are sound for those fourteen.

I think the trees five through nine, which are over on the left side um will help muffle some of the pickleball noise um perhaps in time and then also and then the other trees on the top and the bottom um will fill in some of the gaps in the buffer between the senior parking and the adjacent apartment complexes so I'm good with the plan I'm good with planning as well.

I have comments uh so um the the uh western red bud are never going to grow all that big they will not do very much muffling of anything they're beautiful delicate trees but they won't do that much muffling it's a little disappointing to see uh the Armstrong maples they're not natives they're columnar trees so they won't provide all that much canopy either uh so I would be much happier to see trees that are maybe closer to native and provide a little more canopy my my main concern and that's just just to staff to think about the bio return retention um when it was first put in was this great technical step forward for the city and and made the parking lot more attractive and it has not been well maintained for years it's looked unloved and maintained uh putting in the solar panels is is great but what it does it turns that parking lot which right now has trees into a completely car oriented place and so for seniors who arrive they're now going to walk through a place with no trees and this is really this parking lot to me is an entrance into rank soft park but this will now be pretty much of a dead zone just just asphalt and and solar panels so I I highly encourage staff to to do the the bioretention area plant it as richly as possible to bring life back into the parking lot I think it's really important to turn it closer to a people oriented place than a car oriented place and and uh I noticed let me just find my notes again there we go um the this these uh panels are funded through the parkland dedication fund for four and a half million dollars uh which which I found a little surprising that's a lot of money to turn a parking lot into complete heartscape with four and a half million dollars uh council decided it's not uh we can't do anything about it we might have disagreed or not but I think there should be enough money to add as much under planting as possible to that to that parking lot to make it a more living place so I would I would really ask you to think about that and those are my comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bryant raised some good points um I however am um satisfied with the plant palette and I'm also satisfied with the two to one tree replacement or the heritage tree it's it's unfortunate that in order you know to balance the two imperatives of tree canopy and you know energy production that we have to remove the trees from this parking lot but there is this huge benefit of producing a lot of a lot of energy that um we otherwise wouldn't be.

So I guess I'm willing to make that trade-off to accomplish that the goal uh energy production.

Um just incidentally, this topic of kind of the conflicts between tree tree canopy and solar panels.

Um we're gonna be seeing more and more of this, and I kind of was wishing that the biodiversity plan or some of our plans would tackle that question, you know, kind of talk about the balancing and come up with some goals and objectives that would help guide decision making on it.

Um so in any event, I I feel satisfied to proceed ahead with a recommendation to council.

There's really nice the way that's strongly.

Thank you.

Yeah, I too.

Um I'm prepared to support it.

I have to say I kind of on the same thing.

Yeah, as you, Commissioner Bryan.

My concern is the funding source of parkland dedication fund, and I went and looked at the ordinance, and I just, you know, this is a recreation facility.

Um, and to me, the irony that the the funding source is 525 Evelyn.

So if you look at the parkland dedication ordinance and it's overall, I mean, by the narrowest of margins, this is appropriate funding for this, notwithstanding that.

Um that doesn't really have a bearing on my agreement with what's at hand, which is the um heritage tree mitigation.

So the other part was just editorial.

So um I think I discern generally the consensus.

Does anyone want to make a motion?

Oh, just a small other little editor.

I suppose there's no way that the parkland fund can get credits for some of the energy savings.

We'll look into that.

It's tricky accounting, but it's great.

Obviously, counting is a play.

Yeah.

I move that we recommend to the city council to approve the mitigation of one heritage tree at a two to one tree replacement ratio with the planting of two 24 inch box trees for the senior center site.

Second.

We call the boat.

Yes, summer, yes, vice chairman, yes, Chair Davis.

Yes.

Thank you, Sparrow.

Yeah.

Um, mission staff and announcement uh director of the Marshrup.

Done.

Actually, the some notes.

One moment.

In the meantime, sure you have all been reading a certain plan for next Monday.

No one can send to me.

All right.

So, for those of you, if you recall, we had an issue with our heater at Eagle Park Pool.

That replacement project is moving along and it's currently staying on the timeline originally provided, and we look to be back in operation uh next Monday, November 17th.

Um that's that was desperately needed.

Huge thanks to staff to jumping on that.

Um our 2026 winter activity guide is available and residents can start registering for classes next Monday.

Uh and we are getting ready for one of the biggest events of the year, the community tree lighting celebration.

And once again, that's gonna be on Monday, December 8th, 5 30 p.m.

More information to come.

And then uh we have been singing the praises of Lauren Eck.

She is our teen center coordinator.

Um, and just letting you know that she has put in her notice.

Um, so she is has been our fantastic team coordinator.

She actually got picked up by the city of Sunnyvale because of her great marketing ability.

So she's actually transitioning into marketing over with the city of Sunnyville Parks Right.

So sorry to interrupt that this is disapproved.

I tried that um no but she has been a great asset certainly brought a lot of new energy a lot of new ideas and uh yeah certainly sorry to see her go and we will be um recruiting for that position soon um and uh but yeah so she's she was able to get a uh promotional opportunity city of city vale um in an area that she would like to transition to so um congrats to her so um those are mine i don't think brenda has any and again we'll see you on Monday 6 pm 6 p.m that's right and uh kudos on another great uh operator it's great mr menchner pointed out his name here and said he's willing to sign uh you should frame the one where you're the chair because I'm gonna charge my with that no no no sorry i just format yeah for monday i i'm gonna be prepared to address the staff's three bullet point items but i'm assuming that we are also gonna have time to be able to talk about other elements that we want to talk about on the plan it's a 270 page plan and this is our one shot at looking at it so two shots yeah but your first shot anyway yeah so okay so six o'clock start uh what time will the a b group be here seven we we will work with them in advance okay um any other i had a quick question was was your staff involved in the the other as well um we provided some guidance to the city manager's office staff along the way and they they definitely pulled off a great it was magnificent yeah it's just wonderful i wanted to congratulate someone and i will pass that along and i will pass along to our staff because they they did guide um in that success so thank you thank you city staff thank you fellow commissioners thank you to the six people remaining on the video call at 9 42 live during the meeting