CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Meeting Date: February 1, 2021
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Subject: Ives Park Calder Creek Naturalization Project – Approval of Preferred Concept Recommendation: Receive the report, provide direction to Staff on Preferred Alternative Funding: Currently Budgeted: _______ Yes _______ No ___X__ N/A Account Code/Costs authorized in City Approved Budget (if applicable) ___AK_____ (verified by Administrative Services Department) INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE:
The item is to request Council receive a presentation by Wilding Studio on the Calder Creek Naturalization Project – Approval of Preferred Concept
BACKGROUND:
The approved Ives Park Master Plan includes the concept of naturalizing Calder Creek as it runs through the Park.
The City is working with WRI (Waterway Restoration Institute) and a Switzer Foundation Fellow, Jessica Hall, to help envision what the naturalization of Calder Creek could be, both within Ives Park, as part of the Master Plan, as well as up- and down- stream conditions. Conceptual approaches to restoring Calder Creek through downtown are also being explored as part of the project.
The Planning Commission, which serves as the City’s Parks Commission has had three meetings with WRI/Switzer Fellow (“WRI”) to date, the first two included an overview of healthy creeks and daylighting projects and a discussion of design values/basis. The third presentation to the Planning Commission was held on December 14, 2021. At this meeting, WRI presented three potential design alternatives for naturalizing Calder Creek in the Park, including potentialstream alignments developed in a design charrettewith members of the Ives Park Subcommittee (two Planning Commission members, Members Fernandez and Oetinger) and City staff. The Planning Commission was asked to provide feedback and direction on the preferred alternative(s).
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the options, and are recommending two options to City Council to consider (Option B and C as discussed below). Both options would require changes to the 2013 adopted Master Plan. The WRI team will provide a presentation including background on the project and the alternatives to Council at the meeting. A liaison from the Planning Commission will also attend the City Council meeting and be able to discuss the Planning Commission’s recommendations with the Council.
The options presented are based on different approaches to the stream alignment. The Ives Park Master Plan as well as the three Options are presented on the following pages.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
Ives Park Master Plan
The adopted Ives Park Master Plan was adopted in 2013, and conceived of Calder Creek in two sections:
a ‘capped’ section on the southwest portion of the park west of the pathway that leads from the Willow Street entry by the pool to the ball field concession stand, and a naturalized section throughout the rest of the park. The capping of the creek allows for a larger community event space than is currently available in the park for events such as Apple Blossom Festival, Peacetown concerts, Shakespeare in the park, etc.
The Ives Park Master Plan proposes to cap a portion of the creek to create a Great Lawn event space. This strategy requires the removal of the redwood trees along the southwest portion of the park where the creek is capped. While these are non-native trees, they are beloved by many community members and provide shade within the park.
The remainder of Calder Creek follows a channelized alignment, which does not have a stable hydraulic geometry.
This means that it will be more prone to erosion, sedimentation, bank failure, and other problems that are both maintenance and safety issues. In such situations, “hard engineering” solutions such as grade control structures, channel walls, etc., are often employed to “control” the perceived problems. ‘Capping’ a creek can also be difficult to get a permit for from regulatory agencies, even if it is already in a culvert as it is in this area. It may also make securing grant funding for the project more difficult.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
Option A: “Constrained Creek” – This alternative proposes a channel alignment that takes up the least amount of space within the park, using a little more space than the existing channel. It is called the Constrained Creek for this reason. These constraints make it the least stable creek alternative, more prone to eroding and shifting, therefore needing grade control and other engineering measures as a part of the final design. The resulting effect would be less natural than the other alternatives, but still more natural than the current condition.
Impact to Ives Park Master Plan:
This option is based most closely on the adopted Master Plan, although there is no ‘capping’ of the creek in the southwest corner of the park, and the event space for concerts would need to be relocated to the green lawn and playground area east of the poolstructure. This design is also the leaststable creek design. This alignment proposes to conserve some redwood trees that would be removed in the Master Plan concept.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
Option B: “Updated Charrette” – This concept is based on an alignment and layout developed with the Ives Park Subcommittee/staff in an online charrette. The stream in this alternative has an appropriate level of channel length and sinuosity that makes it a dynamically stable channel. This means minimal “hard” engineering would be needed to maintain public safety. The meanders in the channel create opportunities for activity nooks such as picnic areas, and art walk installations, and also help to create larger space for a great lawn. The is a low maintenance stream alignment that moves the creek away from the redwood trees.
Impact to Ives Park Master Plan:
The biggest change in Option B would be the elimination of the second gathering lawn east of the pool/south of the existing playground. It would instead retain the playground area in the general current location (with a possible expansion). The event space in the southwest portion of the park would need to be a slightly smaller event space created by the creek channel, which would curve further north toward the ball field; this option would potentially retain some of the redwood trees within the lawn/event space as well. The Commission felt this option had potential to enhance the creek’s health; create creek-side spaces and opportunities to interact with the creek; and, retain all the major components of the Master Plan, and recommended this to Council for consideration.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
Option C: “Stable Planform Creek” – This alternative was developed in response to a request to develop an alignment that explored what the ideal creek alignment would be, regardless of other constrains within the bounds of the park. This option opens up space within the park to create a more centrally focused great lawn/event space; add a nature play/fairy tale forest area adjacent to the creek. However, as discussed below, this option would require elimination of the ball field. The creek in this alignment is dynamically stable with ideal sinuosity and channel length, meaning it would be in its most natural condition with minimal engineering at crossings and outlet.
As a result, the stream channel is lower maintenance. As with Option B, its form creates opportunities for picnic areas and other activities to nestle into the meanders of the riparian corridor. This option may make securing grant funding for the project from Park measure sources more difficult given the removal of the ball fields.
Impact to Ives Park Master Plan:
The biggest change in Option C would be the removal of the Little League field to accommodate a more meandering and natural creek form, and the creation of a larger community event space than in the Master Plan or other options. While the Commission expressed respect and appreciation for the Little League organization, the Commission also discussed that the ball field takes up about 25-30% of the park space while providing only limited access of number of community members and time usage. The Commission felt, if there were other locations better suited for the ball field, particularly given the limited space in the park, this option could be worth exploring. The space could be very useful for crowd gatherings such as music/stage performances, etc., freeing up the rest of the park for general usage. The main issue with the fields being used for events is being maintaining the grass field in pristine condition. In its current condition, sharing the space, with minimal impact is not possible. Alternatively, the Commission would like to explore options that might achieve an equitable sharing arrangement of the fields; one option for example, would be for the field to be converted from natural grass to a synthetic material.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
The Commission recommended the Council consider this option, preferring it because of the opportunity to greatly improve the creek alignment and Creekside exploration areas, as well as the potential to create a large and vibrant community space in the central portion of the park. However, the Commission did recognize that this would be a significant change to the programming of the park and needs to be carefully considered by Council.
Staff has contacted the Sebastopol Little League organization prior to the City Council meeting and anticipates their submittal of further information regarding the usage of these fields for the Council to consider as it discusses the various options.
GOALS:
The Calder Creek Naturalization project relates to the following City Council Goals and General Plan Actions:
Council Goals:
Goal 2- Maintain, Improve, and invest in the City’s Infrastructure, including parks; Goal 4 -Maintain and Enhance the City of Sebastopol as a Walkable/Bike-able Community and Enhance the City’s Commitment to Promotion of our public’s health by Creating and Participating in City and Community Programs, Services and Policies;
Goal 4.1 – Create a Safe, Healthy, and attractive Environment for Residents and Visitors; Goal 4.1.3 Implementation of the Ives Park Master Plan; Goal 4.1.4 Evaluate public commons and land and identify opportunities to enhance benefits to the community.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public comments submitted to date are attached to this report.
Staff has also contacted the Sebastopol Little League organization to discuss this item and anticipates their submittal of further information regarding the usage of these fields for the Council to consider as it discusses the various options. Staff anticipates receiving public comment from interested parties following the publication and distribution of this staff report. Such comments will be provided to the City Council as supplemental materials before or at the meeting. In addition, public comments may be offered during the public comment portion of the agenda item.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to schedule meeting date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Council’s direction to staff, the Fellow, and the Planning Commission tonight will not commit the City in any fiscal way.
The Implementation of the Ives Park Master Plan, and any adjustments to it, will have future Capital Improvement costs. These costs are not known at this time, but would be included in a future Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) presented to the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommended two options to the Council to consider: Option C and Option B (in order of preference). Both of these options would require modifications to the Ives Park Master Plan, with Option B less extensive, and Option C more extensive.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
Staff recommends the Sebastopol City Council receive the report and provide direction regarding the preferred alternative. Staff will work with the consultant to develop the preferred alternative, which will be presented to Planning Commission and then again to Council later this spring/summer.
The Council could also provide direction to staff regarding future planning for updates to the Ives Park Master Plan based on the preferred Option.
Attachments:
Public Comments
Draft Planning Commission minutes from December 14, 2021 Additional information:
The prior presentations to the Planning Commission on this project can be found on the city’s website:
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/Meeting-Event/Planning-Commission/2021/Planning-Commission-Meeting-ofAugust-24,-2021 https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/Meeting-Event/Planning-Commission/2021/Planning-Commission-Meeting-ofOctober-26,-2021 https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/Meeting-Event/Planning-Commission/2021/Planning-Commission-Meeting-ofDecember-14,-2021 The Ives Park Master Plan, and additional background on this project, can be found on the City’s Parks Planning page:
https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/City-Government/Departments-Services/Planning/Parks-Planning Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
1 UNAPPROVED DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SEBASTOPOL
MINUTES OF December 14, 2021
PLANNING COMMISSION:
The notice of the meeting was posted on December 9, 2021.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Fritz called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. and read a procedural statement.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Fritz, Vice Chair Oetinger, and Commissioners Burnes, Fernandez, and Kelley
Absent: Commissioner Douch (excused)
Staff: Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
John Jay, Associate Planner
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
October 12, 2021
Vice Chair Oetinger moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Kelley seconded the motion.
AYES: Chair Fritz, Vice Chair Oetinger, and Commissioners Burnes and Kelley NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Fernandez
ABSENT: Commissioner Douch
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: None.
5. STATEMENTS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Calder Creek Naturalization Project – The Consultant/Fellow, WRI, will present design options for discussion and input.
Director Svanstrom presented the staff report.
City of Sebastopol
Incorporated 1902
Planning Department
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, CA 95472
www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
2 Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation, presented and was available for questions.
Chair Fritz asked for Commission questions.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
Is there any possibility or design that makes sense that would save all the trees, or is that not attainable in trying to set up a sustainable creek? Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
I think the Updated Charrette is the most certain in terms of being able to preserve the most trees. I think that it does actually preserve all of the trees in concept right now. There are issues because the grading will impact the roots and because by moving the channel out of its current alignment, the way you deal with the void the old channel leaves that, could impact the roots as well; that’s a consideration with all of them. I think that Stable Planform 1 has a fighting chance of being able to preserve the redwood trees similarly. As we go through here, on the Constrained Creek one the first batch of redwoods can be preserved, the second batch I think get too impacted by the floodplain of the channel and the grading.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
On the Stable Planform you mentioned the events area that could be graded. Would it have extra runoff water or absorb some of that? What effects do you think that would have downstream, or what does that create?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
I don’t really think of it as creating more runoff per se. In this scenario the lawn will run off some water, but you have this vegetated buffer that is being created by the restoration and that’s going to mitigate a lot of any impact from that, and the lawn itself is permeable. In your typical lowest flow storm or smaller storm event it’s going to still absorb water. In a higher storm it might be more likely to run off. You’re going to get more sheet flow off of it, but that would be true of any kind of landscape area in a really severe storm event.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
Maybe runoff wasn’t the proper term. Is it going to absorb generally more water and keep maybe farther downstream from flooding? Does it create help with all of that? I’m just looking to see what the effect of that is.
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
Superficially speaking, I don’t know that it creates more or less benefit, because you’re not increasing paving and you’re not necessarily decreasing paving. In all these scenarios the amount of paving is about the same. The ball field itself is a permeable surface, so removing the ball field doesn’t necessarily reduce runoff.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
With drought conditions we have been under and the potential for more drought to come, with some of the fields that you have, and the rose gardens, and some of the planting, is it possible to have an element to this where there could be some rainwater capture to use for irrigation to maintain some of this beautiful landscaping that is there? Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
That is a definite option. If you could work with some of the existing topography and existing paved areas to do some storm water capture that would definitely be something you could do. Also, I think it’s really important to have a landscape that is low water using.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
3 If you’re taking on any of these scenarios there’s a certain amount of re-landscaping that would be inherent to the work and that could really focus on the water-using plants outside of the riparian zone.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
I was looking at the larger lawns that obviously take a lot of water to maintain, so would that be out of your scope, looking at rainwater capture for this? Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
I could certainly recommend some areas for capture. I’m probably not going to be designing at this level. The roofs around the pool building and where there are roofs, just being able to have rainwater capture systems in place around that would be examples of things I could identify.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
Just because we have a master plan for the park that shows the Willow Street and Jewell Avenue end of the creek capped, did you give that any thought or consideration, and in particular if you did or if it were capped, is it possible then to change some of the grade issues that require the modulation of the creek as it winds its way downhill? Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
Our involvement in this really came from the desire of folks to think about restoring and protecting the stream, and capping it would be working in a different direction from that, so that was never a consideration for what we were doing. Basically, if it were capped the amount of stream that would be left open, we would be applying similar kinds of processes to it, so it would still need to have a ratio of 1.3 for stream length. It would just be a shorter overall length that we would be doing that within. There would still be a lot of the same issues; it would just be those issues for a smaller segment of the park.
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute One of the issues capping would create is permit issues. I have about 25 years into the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the regional boards don’t want to write permits for capping creeks at this time in our history; they want to see restoration projects. The other barrier to capping is trying to attract grant funds. We have a number of state grant programs that we typically use for these kinds of projects, but the guidelines written into these state programs are for restoration of the natural resources, public access, interpretive signage, that kind of thing.
We wanted to not create institutional and funding barriers.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
I mainly wanted to bring this up because it was in the master plan, and now we have it on the record that you have answered that question and the considerations that are in place.
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute The other thing that struck me in terms of the difference between these plans and the master plan is the master plan seems to take out all the redwoods and this plan goes over backwards to try to save redwoods, and what we were hearing from a number of community members is that redwoods were very important to them, so that is another part of this story.
Linda Kelley, Commissioner
Was analysis done of the amount of shading that will be lost with any of these plans? Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
4 Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
We haven’t done a shade analysis. I would say that there is possibly going to be a temporary impact with grading, and I think some of the effort to preserve the redwoods shows that there are ways to work around the existing trees and that’s something that we would definitely endeavor to do, but once you have the riparian corridor in place you’re going to have more shade, because those trees that are supported by the stream and that are important for the steam’s health will be increasing the amount of shade you have.
Linda Kelley, Commissioner
I don’t know a lot about redwoods and how much water they actually use. Are they deep rooted? I know that I have planted them on my property up in Mendocino Country trying to create a little circular area for shade, and I’m surprised that after irrigating them for ten years that they’re thriving in a very hot area off of Cobolo Road, so I don't know why they’re doing so well. I know some people consider them trash trees because they’re very difficult in a built-up environment with respect to how far from buildings and how big they get, that kind of thing. Just for my information, I know we want to save trees, but also what’s an issue with the redwoods?
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute I think you might be a little worried about would this design sustain a water-loving tree like redwoods. The redwoods are maybe not typically native to Sebastopol; however, they do inherently occupy the floodplains and the tops of terraces of streams; that’s where they like to live. What we’re trying to do is, if possible, create some floodplain area for them, which are where you would find them in a state park up near Mendocino or Humboldt Counties, or even up in our local redwood park. We’re going to see if we can create that sort of floodplain and terrace environment where redwoods can thrive, but the fact that they’re located near a creek means they probably have a pretty good water supply, so I’m not too worried about their sustainability.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Any of these options are so inspiring to imagine what could happen to Ives Park, so it’s super exciting. I’m so happy we have this opportunity with you guys, because any of these would be so much better than what is there. Jessica, you did talk a little bit about the void in the oak with the old channels. How are some ways that you deal with that? Do you have to take out all the concrete and fill it in? How exactly does that all work? What is that process?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
That’s something we need to explore more in depth. There might be some partial fill, but the roots are currently established where they are. They get oxygen through the relationship they have to the soil and how permeable that soil is, and so when you cover those roots it’s like you’re starting the roots out and so they will die and then you lose that root and we all know that that has impacts. There’s a certain amount of impact that the tree can handle, and part of what we have to evaluate is how much of that system is being impacted by everything that’s happening with the restoration design. The City works with an arborist, Becky Duckles, and she’s wonderful and has been very helpful and informative with giving us some baseline information about the redwoods there that relates to this. We think that moving forward there will probably need to be some more careful study to really drill into it—not the tree, but the issue.
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute Your question may be broader than that. What happens to that whole channel in any of these designs is after we’ve got a completely designed project and it’s permitted and you’re Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
5 going into construction, crews come in and demolish the concrete and they carry it away, and then you have excavators re-grade the channel to the right dimensions and the length, so the old environment just gets removed, including the fencing, and a new creek gets graded. The regulatory agencies require a cofferdam where the creek has to be put in a pipe during construction so you don’t mess up the water quality, and so you basically take away what you see there now and you replace it with a very different cross section and natural environment.
Paul Fritz, Chair
In your Updated Charrette option you say the stream length is on target for stability. Does that mean that you think you can reach the appropriate 1.3 ratio with that scheme? Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute Yes.
Paul Fritz, Chair
This is a general question going back to Kathy’s question about the master plan. When we met with you earlier you talked about grant money available to do this restoration work. If you go to something like the Stable Planform option, which is a completely different park, how does the grant money work in terms of this is grant money for the creek restoration, but obviously there are a whole bunch of other aspects of the park that it hits upon? How is that grant defined and how do we get other grants to supplement that to be able to do the rest of the work? Obviously, if you do something as extreme as the stable plan form you want to be able to do the rest of it too. We can’t just do the stable plan form and leave the rest of it in a who knows what state at that point, so could you talk a little bit about that process?
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute I’ve raised funding for a lot of these projects. Typically you combine several state agency grant programs; they’re very user-friendly. A program like the California Natural Resources Agency’s River Parkways program is very open-ended about what they fund. They fund creek restoration, flood plain restoration, bridges, paths and trails, and interpretive aspects.
Over in the city of San Pablo they helped fund a complete redevelopment of a baseball field area. Some local governments do look at redevelopment monies, although that’s been less available in recent years. The Coastal Conservancy will fund a very broad range of features that are contained here. My guess is if I was giving you an assignment to do fundraising for this I would call in the Coastal Conservancy and the California Natural Resources Agency as two good partners to try to make something like this happen, thinking of the whole park, not just pieces of it.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Then, Kari, obviously any of these schemes completely transform the master plan, so what is the process for dealing with that? If we say we want to go ahead with stable plan form, how do we then revisit the master plan and make that adjustment so they conform to each other?
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
The current Ives Park master plan, I know it’s about eight years old, was adopted by Council, so any changes to it would need to be approved by Council. The process I would recommend, because any of these, even the Constrained Creek, because it doesn’t cap the creek, whatever the Planning Commission is recommending, and if there’s a first, second, third choice, that might also be helpful, bring that to the City Council for a check-in; if we can do it in January that would be great. I’ll work with Jessica and Riley to get that Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
6 scheduled and make sure that Council is accepting about whatever direction the Planning Commission is interested in recommending and pursuing. Then we do know that there will other details that need to be fleshed out in terms of any other adjustments to the master plan, and Council is aware of that. I did discuss that this creek design and naturalization project would likely result in some changes and updates to the master plan, and to me it made sense since you can’t just put the creek anywhere, as Jessica explained. There are certain aspects it wants to be, and obviously the pool is already built, but looking at the creek would help inform the changes to the master plan, so let’s work on this project first. I think with this meeting, and then going to Council with whatever the Planning Commission recommends pursuing, and certainly Jessica has done a good job of trying to make sure some of those other elements are in here, but if there needs to be a little bit more of any update to the master plan after that we can work on that as staff and the Commission.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I appreciate, Jessica, you incorporating all of the elements that were in the master plan. I think you’ve done a good job of capturing all the various pieces in each of these schemes, so we can at least know we have the same program that we’re working with if we decide to move forward on one of these and know that we can get all those pieces in; that’s good to know.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
To tag on what you had said, Chair Fritz, I was wondering about the financial implications for the different scenarios as well. I appreciate that the grants are available and it’s something we can do, but with these presentations do we have any type of financial differentiation, like what the Constrained Creek versus the Stable Planform would be, or is that something that comes later on down the road?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
That would typically come later. I will say you have some infrastructure around the ball fields that would have to be worked around in either scenario and you want to be careful of.
I’m not sure how much that would impact that cost estimates in the different scenarios. I mentioned the sewer line crossing the creek, but there are some sewer cleanouts for a lateral, and we don’t have information about where that lateral connects to the main. All of that would impact the design as well as costs, depending on how you address that.
Chair Fritz opened public comment.
Lynn Deedler, a member of the public
I have lots of comments and lots of thoughts about each of these plans, but also I feel a bit overwhelmed. This is an awful lot of information to absorb and to really think out and put all the pieces together. Are there going to be public workshops coming up where we can look at a big drawing up on a board and talk and work on one plan at a time and look at the details of that? The other thing is will there be large copies of each one of these plans that are made available to us to look at, think about, and mark up? There’s the triangular island at the corner of Jewell Avenue and Willow Street. It halfway looks like they’re incorporated into each of these plans, but I can’t tell for sure. Are they or are they not? Runoff is calculated in a city that’s highly developed with lots of road surface and rooftops, and that drains a lot more water than natural ground. How is the calculation made from the many different surfaces? Do we really need barbeques? Santa Rosa is putting in new parks with lots of benches and picnic areas at Howarth Park and they don’t have barbeques. People come with preheated food or propane barbeques that seem to work fine. I look at those barbeques in Ives Park that we have and they’re hardly ever used and they create a cleanup problem and an obstacle problem. For the space that they take up I always question why we Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
7 have them in these days. One thing I wanted to point out is back by the Fire Department corner where it goes onto Jewell there’s a big grove of redwood trees, and that seems like something that’s totally overlooked in every plan I’ve seen, including our current master plan. That seems like an opportunity to save just a few pine trees and make a nice, solid backdrop to a very private, interesting nook, but right now all those trees have crowded and grown together so tightly that all the lower branches don’t have much leaves and you look at the Fire Department parking lot where you could be looking at a beautiful background of redwoods, and these are left out of many plans.
Josho Somine, a member of the public
My name is Josho Somine. I’m trained as a landscape architect and I’m also on the City Climate Action Committee. I appreciate all the work and research that’s gone into this and all the considerations. I feel like I’m playing catch up on this whole process to a certain extent, so I’m going to raise a few issues and forgive me if they’ve already been addressed in your previous discussions. I’m really sympathetic to naturalization and the aspirations and ethics involved in that, but this is a pretty urban park and as such it’s main user groups, aside from the summer events that bring a lot of people but happen for a pretty short time, are young children and homeless people, frankly. These populations have really different needs, obviously, but issues that come up with respect to that are safety and visibility. A naturalized stream channel tends to be noteworthy for its density and shrubbery, and if we’re really talking about having these little pockets tucked in all the way along there where it’s hard to see through, how those pockets might get used is not programmable for the City and in some ways goes against the concerns of safety and visibility that are inherent in this kind of urban situation. That’s just one consideration.
Secondly, upstream of the park a little bit west of Jewell Avenue is a longstanding hobby farm that is packed with all kinds of different livestock and with no riparian buffers. In any rain event a certain amount of manure is washing directly into the creek—this is about a block away from the park—so we really can’t assume that the water quality in the creek is that good overall. I wonder if there’s any consideration to something along the lines of constructed wetlands or those more intensive rainstorm water details? Finally, there’s a really long stretch of the creek in what you’re calling the Railroad Forest on the other side of Petaluma Road where the creek is already exposed and there’s a lot more space there. In terms of flood mitigation, habitat creation, and just channel manipulation I would suggest that there’s more potential over there for an ecological impact than actually in the middle of this park, however sweet the aesthetics of it could be within the park setting itself.
Joan, a member of the public
Thanks for the presentation. It’s really informative and inspiring to see these possibilities. If we went with the more constrained approach and the stream length, as you’re characterizing it, is less stable, what would that mean? I’m guessing that means it would need some rock of some other way of stabilizing, but I’m curious to hear from your perspectives what that would require if we did go with that more constrained approach.
Then on the fully stable plan form, which personally I would love to see, I guess it’s really more of a topic for the whole Planning Commission, but I wonder about the feasibility of eliminating the ball field. I’m sure that’s been raised, but I’m curious to hear folks talk about that, if you think that there’s any possibility of allowing the creek that extra room by eliminating the ball field that is very heavily used and dearly beloved by a portion of the population. I just want to thank you and look forward to seeing the progress.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
We did have one question in the chat asking where the first bridge was on one of the scenarios. I don't know if Jessica can maybe address that when we go through the questions.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
8 Paul Fritz, Chair
Thanks for bringing that up, Kari. Yes, let’s go back to the questions, starting with Lynn’s question about future opportunities for public comment or being able to get copies of the proposed plans. I know at tonight’s meeting we’re going to be making a recommendation to the City Council, so obviously it’s going to the City Council after this, but will there be any other public comment opportunities?
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Yes, Chair Fritz. We will be bringing the Planning Commission’s recommendations and these three schemes to the City Council, but certainly I can work with Jessica to put these up on the City’s website so they’re available for people to download and study them more thoroughly. It will be at least month before it goes to the City Council, so there should be plenty of time to do that, and so that will be another public comment opportunity. Then of course Jessica and Riley are going to be working to further develop whichever scheme is recommended, and that will come back to the Planning Commission with additional public comment, and I think for that one we should make sure we schedule it so that we can get the drawings published ahead of time so they’re in the packet and people can study them before the meeting as well. This is kind of an interactive workshop and work with the Ives Park Master Plan Subcommittee, so these are works in progress, and then of course the final design would go to City Council for approval as well, so we’ve got a few public meetings coming up.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Then the question about do these three plans incorporate the kind of street like how Willow Street curves around into Jewell Avenue, are these kind of the current configuration of the park?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
That’s a great question and feel a little bit busted because I didn’t mention that. I did make an assumption based on some of the alternatives that the City had sought input on previously. I’m not sure I’m saying this right, but Kari provided me with some potential ways of dealing with that intersection and I did bump out the park a little bit and take advantage of one of those concepts. In the beginning of the presentation I mentioned we have these zones where we’re looking at the creek, and one of those zones is in that intersection, depending on different approaches to how you deal with the traffic flow there, and so we will be playing around with that a little bit more and present Kari with some ideas for that intersection that are more about the creek in relationship to that traffic flow.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
And just to clarify a little bit further, the incorporation of that bit of roadway and median is in that expert master plan. I believe it was after the master plan, but a couple of years ago at least, that W-Trans, the City’s traffic consultants, did some engineering to bring some options to Council. I don’t recall exactly which was recommended by Council, but all of them were viable, and so I sent that to Jessica and feel that further discussion on that intersection is valid as part of this project.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Then, Jessica, can you talk a little bit about how your water hydrology calculations take into account the non-permeable surfaces throughout town?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
9 The initial restoration planning that we’re doing is using regional references for sizing the channel itself and thinking about things like the stream length. What does need to happen that’s a little bit outside of our scope is we’re going to do some preliminary hydrology, and Riley can speak to that more clearly than I can. What’s really pending is a hydraulics and hydrology study, and GHD is working with the City on exactly that kind of thing, so what we’re hoping is that if one of these scenarios or some version that comes out of this is seen as worth pursuing that that could be integrated into the work that GHD is doing with the flood modeling.
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute We can’t do the design without hydrology, so there’s kind of a chicken and egg thing here.
We have gone to the Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Management Design Manual and they recommend using a multiple regression analysis that the U.S. Geological Survey has formulated, and so we’re following the Sonoma County Water Agency recommendations for how to calculate the hydrology. We’re also using the hydrology that was calculated by the consulting firm report for the park from a few years ago and which nicely overlaps with the U.S. Geological Survey multiple regression analysis, so we’re using standard engineering practice in terms of coming up with our own hydrology estimates. We’re looking forward to having those fine-tuned or confirmed by the engineering firm.
Paul Fritz, Chair
The question about the barbeques and the redwood grove, that’s something I think the Commission needs to think about as we talk about the future of the park and any revisions to the master plan, so I don’t think we need to discuss that right now. Then, Josho’s questions about safety and security, and how brushy and how many hiding places this kind of will have, and how do you prevent that from happening? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
Something that came up in two of our earlier presentations, and Riley has spoken to this point before as well, is you can select species in your landscape plan that provide visual access into recessed areas, so if that were to go forward definitely part of what we would be doing is thinking about the creek corridor from a surveillance standpoint, maintaining that line of sight throughout, and that would important to do. I think we all live and deal with some of these issues in urban areas and are familiar with those needs for physical security.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Any thoughts about the question regarding the little upstream farm area and issues on water quality or how to deal with that?
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute Yes. Jessica and I have met with five property owners immediately upstream and we provided them with verbal reports on what they could do to enhance our stream corridor, stop excessive erosion and deposition, which we did see upstream, and also create riparian buffer zones along the creek where people could plant dogwood willows or other riparian species that could uptake nutrients on the corridor. There’s a real water treatment function of streamside trees that has been quantified, and so we’re encouraging that kind of plant growth along the stream corridor. I hope to work with Lynn Deedler and/or others to set up a workshop situation where those property owners can, under our supervision, collect some plant material and actually plant it along their stream corridor; I would like to do that sometime in January.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
10 That’s exciting. We heard the comment about the Railroad Forest and that’s something we talked a little bit about; it’s a little bit outside the scope of what you’re looking at right now.
Then Joan’s question about the impact of the Constrained Creek option and how can we deal with the less stability of that option?
Ann Riley, Executive Director of Waterways Restoration Institute If we can stream the channel and the floodplain we’re going to have deeper flows and higher shear stresses and there are several ways to deal with them. There are very dense plantings on the channel bank in some situations, like in the downstream portions where the channel is overly shortened because it’s going into that High Street culvert, and we would want pretty dense plantings near the channel, use some rocks as ripple zones, or even small step pool configurations if we’ve got like a 2% or 3% slope in one area because we can’t flatten it enough. We are not going to have a design that contains riprap in it, meaning rocking the sides of the channels. I was going to emphasize the use of soil bio-engineering, which is in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Service engineering manuals for how you bundle plants to handle certain shear stresses, and I think in our basis of design report we will be estimating those shear stresses in pounds per square foot so that we have a quantitative view of what that’s going to look like.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Regarding the feasibility of eliminating the ball field, I don't know if any of us have an answer to that at this point, Joan, but that’s certainly something that both the Planning Commission and the City Council, probably more the City Council, will be taking into consideration. I’m sure that will be somewhat controversial; there are people that love the ball field, but that’s probably an ongoing part of this conversation. Then, Jessica, if you could talk about the question about the first bridge location. I think it was the sketch you had shown about where the sewer crossing is and adding a bridge there.
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
If you know where the sewer line is in the park presently, that’s where we would be thinking about a bridge potentially.
Chair Fritz asked for Commission deliberation.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
I live up Jewell and a lot of people walk down Jewell and enter the park, and right now we walk along the stream all the way to High Street when we go into town. In the third option, which was the Stable Planform design, the stream is moved farther away from that central, main corridor. I suppose it’s a bit of an alternate walk. I think right now one of the pleasant things is that when you walk through the park you walk along the water, and the first two options have that feature. It seems like if we have barbeques they should be gas barbeques, but again, since most people walk through the park along the existing trail it seems weird that you’d have your barbeques and picnic areas right along the main thoroughfare; they are currently tucked away in areas that are more private and I think that’s a good idea. I don’t think a rose garden is necessary; it was something that was established because people wanted one and there was a committee that worked on it, and we don’t have that right now. Knowing that there is a place where someday there could be a rose garden might work, but I don’t think it’s an essential feature for the park. I was also concerned about water quality in the park if people are walking through it, but it occurred to me that one of the educational programs could be something where the schools routinely test the water and then learn their computer skills by posting information about the water quality, which people could see by putting their phones up to a QR code and it would give them an updated rating of the water as a way that we could all know that the water was Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
11 safe to walk through. Those were my main first takes on looking at the plan. I know that the ball field is really important to a lot of people and I’m not prepared right now to try to eliminate it. I don't know how other people on the Commission feel, but for all the reasons I’ve mentioned I’m leaning toward the middle plan, the Updated Charrette, because of the way it uses space in the park. In particular I like that the children’s playground, again, is right along the main walkway but is protected a bit by the pool building, which means it won’t be as windy there. I agree that the redwoods over the firehouse are kind of a wasted spot and right I can’t see that these plans find use there, because I know it’s an entrance to the park too, but maybe eventually something else could come of that, or at least the trees could be thinned somewhat.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
There’s a lot to be said as far as different options and opinions as far as the ball field. We have an opportunity to create something very special that we have not had an opportunity to do before, and we have a master plan that was developed without this very critical information that we have now, and it was developed with “what if” scenarios not really knowing if we had the funding or the abilities to do it, and then it sat on the shelf. We should take this very valuable information that we have, the flow of the streams, the engineering studies, etcetera, and create a master plan around that. I feel that our current master plan is not relevant to today’s information that we have, it’s 8-9 years old, and to try to fit in this type of thing, whatever the opinions are, would be a mistake. There’s a lot to it that we can talk about, but I think it’s a great idea to have some public input and scenarios, but again, based on our starting point with the streams and what needs to be done for their health, and move forward with that. I like the Stable Planform scenario, but again, there’s a lot to be considered with the ballpark, because taking that space as open space for events frees up the rest of the park, but that’s getting into details. So, that’s my opinion and I’m really excited about the possibilities.
Linda Kelley, Commissioner
I very much agree with Commissioner Fernandez about us moving forward with this momentum. The political fight that would happen around the ball field is going to be pretty insurmountable, even though I love the openness of that particular plan. I was wondering if we could create a plan that would give us the opportunities that the Stable Planform gives us if the ballpark had to remain for another ten years or so, but then if it is relocated at some point we’ve already designated that area in this plan? Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
I think the Commissioners did a really great job in summing up the presentation. I remember at a few meetings past we did talk about the ballpark issue, and I can’t remember who brought it up, but I didn’t realize how many ballparks there are in Sebastopol, and they were saying that this ballpark is already underutilized, so I’m wondering, whoever said that, if we can get an idea of what the usage is and where the pushback would be, because perhaps we can regroup and re-channel some of the usage of the baseball field to one of the other fields. I think the openness and the freedom of the creek in the Stable Planform option is a better usage of the land.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Commissioner Burnes, I believe that was a member of the public. I haven’t vetted that as staff. I know some of those fields aren’t necessarily public, but in terms of the usage I would think it is something that if the Commission likes the Stable Planform option we would want to outreach to the Little League folks to understand their usage of it.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
12 I think the momentum to get into a political battle over a ball field is not worth it, so that’s a realistic consideration.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
That ball field has lights that work at night until 10:00 o’clock, and I’m not sure which of the other fields could accommodate those lights, because this ball field is particularly situated that the lights don’t affect very many people except if you’re up on Calder; sometimes you see the lights through the trees up there and you hear the noises, which are usually joyful sounds.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I agree with a lot of what’s been said. I think that the Stable Planform design is great; it really feels like a city park for everyone. It celebrates the creek, but it accommodates a lot of different functions that are in the park now, but some of the functions that are in the park now don’t work really well because they were just shoehorned in over time and not really thought about holistically. I love the approach of thinking about the design of Ives Park from a holistic standpoint; it’s almost like a blank slate. If we were starting from scratch, what would we do with it? I’m personally excited about the Stable Planform option.
I also think that’s going to be a big political battle, so Plan B for me would be the Updated Charrette option, because the goal should be to have the creek as stable as possible. I’m concerned about doing this whole exercise and ending up with a potentially not ideal creek length, and that’s the whole point of this, so I’m not in favor of the Constrained Creek option. If we’re going to all this effort, let’s do the best we can. If we can’t get as far as the Stable Planform option, then I would go with the Updated Charrette option. I would like to push this to the Council saying we should look at this Stable Planform option and open dialogue with the Little League people, which I’m sure they’re not going to like, but the City Council is the entity to make that decision and they’re looking at what’s best for the whole community and hopefully not one group over another. Again, that’s a much bigger conversation, but I personally think there’s a lot to like about the Stable Planform option in so many ways. If we were making recommendations to the Council tonight I would recommend that they seriously consider this Stable Planform option with the understanding that obviously something has to be worked out with the Little League, but that ball field takes up so much room in the park for such a small number of people in our community that are able to use it. I see that this park could be such a great celebration of Sebastopol if we went with the more intense rethinking of it. We could create a place where people wanted to be, because people go to Ives Park, but they go there because it’s the park that is by their house, but is it really a great, exciting, thriving place? In many ways, I would say no. We do have events there like Peacetown that draw lots of people to the park, but just think of Peacetown on that green event space, and the Stable Planform scheme would provide that much better place for that kind of event to happen. I agree with what other Commissioners have said about reaching for the highest option. At least at this point, that would be my suggestion, and if we have to dial it back because we just can’t make headway about the ball field, then we know where to dial.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
I’m on the exact page as you, but one of the issues we’ve had in Sebastopol is we’ve become a really aging community and it’s very hard to attract young families here for financial reasons of housing. While this correction is not serving a large part of our community now, do we want to take young children into consideration with respect to how important the baseball field is? However, as I’m saying this I feel like this park would attract all these young families if we went for the Stable Planform option, because it’s so much friendlier. A lot of families don’t bring their children to Ives Park right now because it feels a Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
13 little uninviting. So, just a consideration of trying to attract young families into the community, while pricing of course is a whole other issue.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I appreciate that, and I can hear where you’re coming from, but to use that field you have to be in Little League. Even when the charter school was downtown and they would go to the park for recess they were not allowed on the Little League field. I think I’d have a slightly different attitude towards the Little League field if other people in the community were allowed to use it.
Deborah Burnes, Commissioner
I didn’t realize that. Thank you.
Paul Fritz, Chair
If that could be a part of this conversation, if the Little League made some compromises and said when we’re to using it other people could use the field, that could be a nice outcome, because right now it’s very exclusive.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
I agree with that concept that if you’re not using facilities you should be able to rent them to other people but still be able to maintain them through the rents to help with that process. I would love to go to the ballpark too. I think it’s a real issue, but that money helps with the maintenance in our small town. Right now there’s a huge part of our park that the City doesn’t need to maintain, and those are things we need to look at in a practical way.
But yes, I would love to have the Stable Planform. I think it is beautiful. Not being able to walk along the water on the way through town, you can always take the other path that would allow you to walk along the water. I just hate to ask our Council to jump through all those hurdles and to deal with that; I feel like public money might go another way. It seems hard to tear apart a ball field that we already have. I would rather take out some of those in the Laguna and restore those areas before I took this one out. But yes, in a dream world I’d go with the Stable Planform as well; I just don’t live there right now.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
I fully agree with the comments Chair Fritz made; very well put together. If there’s a way to share the ball field, that would be my thinking. The problem is they keep it in such pristine condition that any kind of events in there would tear it up; you’d have to do something like AstroTurf or something like that, which is not very Sebastopolian. But it really would open up the rest of the park, because we’re trying to fit in a space for events in between trees and put stages in places that aren’t really made for that and it takes away from the rest of the park. I totally support Little League and I’m not saying let’s do the Stable Planform option; I think it’s just something that we need to talk about. There are quite a few other options. I believe it was Lynn Deedler who did a report on all the different types of parks that we have; there are quite a few per capita. We have more than I think any other city in the County, and so again, we just want to open up conversation about that. I also agree with Chair Fritz that if we’re going to do it, let’s do it right, let’s not constrain ourselves. The creek is really what we should be planning around, not the other way around.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I feel like this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and we’re at the point where we should at least have the conversation about the ball field. Ultimately, what to do with it is going to be a City Council decision, but it sounds like the consensus of the Commissioners is that we all really like the Stable Planform option and I think we should recommend that Council take a serious look at that with the understanding that the ballpark is obviously a big issue that Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
14 we’ll have to deal with, but again, we might as well start high. It’s easier to start high and dial back than to start low and push it up another notch.
Evert Fernandez, Commissioner
You’re right, and one other thing that’s very important is we need to tie in a way for maintenance to be able to keep up this park. We are all in favor of opening space, but then we just move along without anything there to maintain it and we just expect that the same crews maintain it and somehow they’re going to be taken care of, so part of this deal and structure has to be to come up with funding or a plan to be able to maintain this park, to have someone on staff that understands that part of it who could be part of the Park Commission, but that’s a crucial part and should be included in our recommendation.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I know we’ve talked previously about the idea of having some kind of Friends of Ives Park or some kind of organization like that. If we were able to actually pull this off and do that Stable Planform and make this a really fantastic downtown urban park, we’d probably get a lot more members of the community interested in being a Friend of Ives Park, because Ives Park would be the kind of place that you’d want to be its friend. It’s kind of hard to love Ives Park right now, so it may be easier to do some fundraising for ongoing maintenance and taking care of Ives Park if we could really pull something like that off.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Once the deliberations are done it may be appropriate to make a motion for a recommendation. The discussion I’m hearing tonight is if this was a blank slate and nothing was there the Stable Planform is the preferred option, with the Updated Charrette as a secondary recommendation Plan B. I can work with Jessica. We’ll write the staff report and want a Planning Commission liaison or two at the City Council meeting when this goes to them to discuss taking a serious look at the Stable Planform option; it sounds like that’s where the recommendation is going. I will definitely want to reach out to Little League in terms of the options and make sure they’re aware of this project. They may see creek naturalization and not realize what that all entails in terms of revisions to the master plan. I also want to thank Evert for his comments on the maintenance, because I’m seeing some of this new tonight as well, so a work in progress. With respect to the Stable Planform, the one comment I would have is most of you know that I’m an avid dog person, but I would probably not want a dog park. I think it’s a little small, but we also have the amazing dog park at Ragle Park just up the road, and the County maintains one. It would a huge maintenance issue that would probably be best left at the regional park that’s literally across the street from City boundaries, but I would be interested to hear what Commissioners think about that. Probably when I visited Ives Park the most was when I was training my dog and getting him used to little kids and people.
Paul Fritz, Chair
I appreciate that, Kari. I kind of like the idea of having a dog park in Ives Park because it’s the densest part of Sebastopol; there are a lot of people that live around there and I certainly see a lot of people walking their dogs in my neighborhood. It would be nice to have a dog park you could walk to. People in my neighborhood that do take their dogs to Ragle Park tend to drive there, so I like it for that option. I do appreciate the increased maintenance issues around having a dog park, but I’m happy to hear any other comments.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
Since you’re talking about that area of the park, there is an entrance to the park in that back corner as well, and if there were no ballpark there something more could be made of Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
15 that entrance coming into the park. I would certainly add that to the plan as something that should be looked at a little bit more closely eventually if there’s no ballpark.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Yes, it’s a little hidden. It sort of comes between the fire station and the Ceres Project building. Is that the one you’re talking about, Kathy?
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
Yes. I think in some plan it was intended to have wheelchair access or something, or maybe I’m confused, but some of it is a ramp and some of it is stairs. But I think more could be made of it, even now, because people don’t even know it’s there.
Paul Fritz, Chair
One other thing I want to throw out there is the thing I really liked in the Constrained Creek option was when you talked about downstream and cross the bridge you had the terraces down to a little beach-like area. I had a really great vision of that and I missed it in the other schemes, so I just want to throw that out that I really like that idea, having almost a little amphitheater kind of thing stepping down to the creek; I think it would be a nice feature.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
Chair Fritz, one other thing regarding recommending one option and then a secondary option, I just got a note from the project manager from GHD, who is joining us on this meeting, that the scope we have with them is to assess two alternatives in terms of their hydrology, so they could look at all of those in terms of the pros and cons before we go to Council. It seems pretty clear the Constrained Creek option isn’t preferred.
Linda Kelley, Commissioner
The point you brought up about the exclusivity of the ball field being Little League, it seems like a couple questions need to go forward in terms of legal counsel. Do you know how long the lease is, or is it just forever? Also, what if someone did bring a lawsuit, like an ADA lawsuit or an environmental lawsuit, in terms of us not using public monies for a park property that we can’t all enjoy? I think there is really something to that question that you brought forward, Chair Fritz.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
I can respond to that, Chair Fritz. The lease terms are pretty flexible. It’s not a forever lease; it could be terminated. Obviously, there’s some good will in the fact that the Little League has invested in the field in terms of the lights, the maintenance, the fencing, etcetera, but there is a tension in the fact that others are not able to use it. I think that’s all something we can phrase for the Council to consider.
Paul Fritz, Chair
Yes, and my understanding is that the Little League does all the maintenance, so we’re not using City funding to maintain something that’s just for the Little League, but I think that is why they exclude everyone else. As Evert mentioned, they keep it in pretty good condition and if they did allow anyone to use it and tear it up, then they have more maintenance to do. But again, that’s a bigger question for the City Council to think of in terms of the highest and best use for the full community and is having a ball field there in everyone’s best interest?
Chair Fritz asked the Commission for a motion.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
16 Commissioner Fernandez made a motion to recommend to City Council Option 3, Stable Planform, as the preferred option, with a secondary choice of Option 2, Updated Charrette, and further recommend that the City Council consider revisions to the master plan in accordance with the option as it moves forward, and also consider maintenance requirements of the schemes.
Chair Fritz seconded the motion.
Chair Fritz asked for further Commission discussion. Hearing none, he called the question.
The Commission voted as follows:
AYES: Chair Fritz, Vice Chair Oetinger, and Commissioners Burnes, Fernandez, and Kelley.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Douch.
Kari Svanstrom, Planning Director
We normally have a Planning Commission liaison for items based on the schedule. I don't know if there are any particular people who would like to join as a second, or recommending Ives Park Subcommittee as the representative. We can also talk about this later on the agenda if we need to.
Paul Fritz, Chair
That’s a good idea. I think maybe, Kari, we need to know when it’s going to be scheduled. If you can let us know, and then we can figure out who is available. I think having a Committee member would be a good idea, and then whatever the other liaison; I think two people is good to have there. Thank you so much, Riley and Jessica. I never thought that we would be able to do something like this, so it’s very exciting. Thanks for being here.
Jessica Hall, Fellow of Switzer Foundation
Thank you for having us.
Commissioner Fernandez announced that he would be leaving meeting.
B. Housing Element Update – The City’s Consultant, 4LEAF, will present an update on the Housing Element, including initial survey results and next steps.
Director Svanstrom presented the staff report.
Elliott Pickett, Associate Planner, and Jackie Criger, Assistant Planner, of 4LEAF, Inc., presented and were available for questions.
Chair Fritz asked for Commission questions.
Kathy Oetinger, Vice Chair
How do we know that ADUs or JADUs are affordable and what categories they would fit into? Do we have information on that? Does staff have any record? I could imagine a small ADU going for quite a lot in this town and not qualifying anyone. AB-1397 was saying that non-vacant sites may not be used again in 2023, so if we designated an already built site for housing and it didn’t get used the last time, are they saying we can no longer consider that because nobody picked that site?
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
1 Kari Svanstrom
From: City Council
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:39 AM
To: Una Glass ([email protected]); Sarah Glade Gurney; Neysa Hinton; Diana Rich; Patrick Slayter - City of Sebastopol ([email protected]) Cc: Lawrence McLaughlin; Kari Svanstrom
Subject: FW: Ives Park Creek Restoration
Good morning
Please see email below. This item is on the Feb 1st Council Meeting.
Thank you
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Sebastopol, along with any attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt.
Due to the COVID-19 Shelter in Place Orders by the County of Sonoma and State of California, some City staff continue to work remotely; but all City staff is answering phones and emails and making in person appointments when needed. If you need to speak to the City Hall Offices, please call 707-823-1153 and City staff will answer your call and refer it to appropriate staff. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Mary Gourley
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: 707-823-1153
-----Original Message-----
From: Stef's <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:22 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Ives Park Creek Restoration
Good Morning Council Members and Mayor of Sebastopol,
I am sending this email after just hearing that you have been discussing a creek restoration in Sebastopol with a possible option that would eliminate the baseball field at Ives Park.
I am all for restoring the creek, but NOT at the expense of the children in our community! Why not just rip out the pool, playground & the Art Center while you’re at it?
As a member of a family that homesteaded in Sebastopol in 1854, I know that all members of my family would oppose you removing that baseball field! The city of Sebastopol should be focusing more on making the city MORE appealing for families, and removing that baseball field would do the exact opposite for our town! I am asking that you chose a different option, if the restoration of the creek is a must. Taking out Polly Field (the name of the baseball field) at Ives Park, should NOT even be considered an ‘Option’! As a taxpayer of the city of Sebastopol, I am STRONGLY opposed to removing the baseball field at Ives Park to restore the creek!!
Thank you for your time,
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
2 Stefanie Maddocks
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
1 Kari Svanstrom
From: Mary Gourley
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 7:42 PM
To: Kari Svanstrom
Cc: Lawrence McLaughlin
Subject: FW: Polley Field - Ives Park
Good evening
Please see email below. I believe this is related to the Ives park item on Feb 1st Council Meeting? Thank you
Mary Gourley
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: 707-823-1153
From: JOAQUIN&MICHELLE CARRERAS <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Mary Gourley <[email protected]>
Subject: Polley Field - Ives Park
Mary:
Are there plans or discussions about removing the baseball field and or lights at Polley Field in Ives Park?
Please let me know I would like to be part of this discussion if the rumors are true.
Thank you.
Michelle Carreras
Former - Sebastopol Little League President
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
1 Kari Svanstrom
From: Susan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Kari Svanstrom
Subject: Re: Proposed Plans for Ive's Park Restoration
SO SORRY! Please cancel comment.
IT should read NO DOG PARK at this location and we are dog lovers..... Maintenance, noise pollution. - Would much prefer making it a place for children.
Susan Fink
Michael Burson
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:19 AM Kari Svanstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you for your comment, I will add this to the staff report going to Council next Tuesday.
Kari Svanstrom
Planning Director
From: Susan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 6:38 PM
To: Kari Svanstrom <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proposed Plans for Ive's Park Restoration
PLEASE dog park at this location.
AND we are dog lovers!
Susan Fink
Michael Burson
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
1 Kari Svanstrom
From: City Council
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:46 PM
To: Una Glass ([email protected]); Sarah Glade Gurney; Neysa Hinton; Diana Rich; Patrick Slayter - City of Sebastopol ([email protected]) Cc: Lawrence McLaughlin; Kari Svanstrom
Subject: FW: Parking and Polley Field
Good evening
Please see email below.
Thank you
Mary Gourley
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
7120 Bodega Avenue, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: 707-823-1153
From: Loretta Castleberry <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 7:19 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Parking and Polley Field
January 24, 2022
Dear Sebastopol City Council,
We have been disappointed in the non-action of the Board for the past five years over the Morris Street parking. Now, finally, it seems like you have listened to the taxpaying members of the community. Please approve the proposed parking restrictions for Morris Street and the rest of the City.
Just when we thought you were really starting to do something positive for our City, we hear of the proposal to illuminate Polley Field from Ives Park. First, Mrs. Katherine Ives donated the area to the City, in 1940, to be used for a playground and recreational area for children. Any other use of the park would dissolve her agreement. Since 1940 the community has donated time and labor to make the pool, playground, and ballfield the treasures that they are.
Newcomers to our City have no idea of the support and history of our City.
Polley Field is the only baseball field in the City with lights. The only other Little League fields with lights are in Petaluma.
It is the most used piece of property in the whole City being used by children and families for Little League, and by adults for the softball league. Groups can use the ballpark by reservation. Little League families have worked hard to keep our fields in top condition without financial support from the City.
Reading the comments from the Design committee we laugh to hear them ask “how many fields do kids need?” Each field must be a different size depending on the age group and sport of baseball or softball. The Little League already rents fields from the schools for the little players. Polley Field is designed for the Major League teams. Clayhan Park is designed for the 50/70 and Senior teams. A little research into this issue could have prevented this embarrassing statement.
The creek that you want to develop sits right next to a major Sebastopol sewer pipe that services the entire west side of Sebastopol. Any damage to those pipes would be environmentally detrimental and cost thousands of dollars to fix or replace. The water that should naturally dump into the Laguna is currently blocked behind the post office annex building. I am not sure if the Laguna Foundation would welcome any discharge.
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022
2 Rotary has donated thousands of dollars and hours of work to all our parks in Sebastopol including Polley Field. Just recently they paid to rebuild the Ives Park playground. I imagine they will not want to support future projects if this goes through.
You have shown time and again that you do not value our children of Sebastopol. Morris Street homeless have been detrimental to the safety of our children walking or riding to the ballpark or walk or to the high school. The park is not safe for them to play in. Now, you want to take away the Little League field. All we can say, is shame on you! PASS THE PARKING ORDINANCE AND SAVE POLLEY FIELD!
Chip & Loretta Castleberry
Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Item Number 10
City Council Meeting Packet of February 1, 2022