Speaker 0: Oh, very nice. All right. So I see. Before I start, she is Public Works director Aaron Smith is back and we are also joined by recreation parks director Amy Wooldridge. Greetings and Dylan Hammond. Refresh my recollection.
Speaker 2: Allan is from our Environmental Services Division in Public Works.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Welcome to you. All right, so who wants to take the lead on this one?
Speaker 2: I'll be giving the presentation tonight. Lara, am I sharing? Mike, your show? Wonderful. Excellent. So good evening again, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, Aaron Smith, Public Works Director. And as you've noticed, I have I'll be giving a presentation, but Dillon from Environmental Services and Amy, our recreational park director, are here for the subsequent conversation. So the presentation item and presentation tonight, we'll cover a brief, brief background on the current state of the drought, and we'll also explore some conservation efforts related to city operations. And I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. We're talking about the 200 or so water meters that support city operations. So parks and landscape in the right away. We are talking conservation population wise, although that's important. The conversation tonight is focused on water that's specific for city operations. Ultimately, we will be seeking input and direction from Council on certain conservation efforts that have an upfront investment of funds will be seeking guidance on whether to move forward with those. And if so, when? Next slide, please. So just for a brief background, it wasn't that long ago that staff was before council in 2014 and 2015. During the drought, then Governor Jerry Brown had called for voluntary 20% reductions at the start of that drought. Alameda had opted to consider those reductions mandatory and moved forward pretty quickly thereafter to identify reductions in city operational water use. They within the next couple of months, we were able to identify and implement a reduction in 29% over city overall city water use. That put us in a really good position because subsequent to that, the governor actually had turned the voluntary reductions to mandatory and we were positioned well for compliance. Next slide. So just to bring us current on this drought, this past winter was the second driest winter on record in Columbia River watershed. That is the famous Maine water source. So following that, in April, you spent months board of directors declared a stage one drought and with that voluntary reductions at 10%. Governor Newsom also issued an executive order this summer in July for voluntary reductions of 15%, and those are statewide. And during that same time, this past summer at the city manager's direction, the city convened an interdepartmental team to start to begin discussions on ways to conserve water. And as shown in Arrow, that's color red. We are here this evening to give a report on those discussions to date and ultimately get gets council's input on next steps. We do and will likely intend to return back to Council sometime next year to update on the status of implementation of these conservation efforts. Next slide. So as I mentioned, the conversation nice about city operations. And if you look at the pie chart on the left, that is broken down in the following categories. And it's probably not a big surprise that parks and landscaping, the public right of way, which is managed by public works, are our biggest water users. The other category is mostly our city buildings. And you may be wondering why is Alameda Point called out separately? Just a reminder that the old navy installed water system is still managed by the city and will be until that infrastructure is replaced with East Bay infrastructure. The master meters that serve that water system are in the city of Alameda, his name. And so it's considered city use. So it's called out separately. We do essentially supply the water delivered to us by East Bay mud to the point. So you'll see that 16% of our water use, our total water use and annual average is 139 million gallons a year. If we were looking to meet the 15% voluntary reductions, we'd be looking for somewhere close to 21 million gallons a year in reductions. Next slide. So the next couple of slides, I'm going to present ways that we can reach those reductions. This first list looks like a lot, but I can go over them briefly. These are conservation measures that staff are recommending to be in place immediately and there's no cost to implement these or there are funds that have been previously appropriated for projects. If these in total are implemented, we estimate that about 10% overall city water use could be obtained. So these measures include washing city vehicles no more than twice per month, turning off any decorative fountains, the fire department doing dry drills whenever possible. The increase of compost around park trees to increase water retention, reduction of irrigation up the marshland. That's the large grass area across the street from City Hall West. Reducing that by 25% and the discontinuation of manual irrigation in various areas throughout Alameda Point. There will be a esthetic impact, although we feel it's reasonable given the large amount of reduction that could be obtained. You can see it's 3.6% overall city water use. In addition, staff recommending turning off the water spigot of the new and smoking launch facility. Amy, can there's questions Amy can speak further about why that's being put forth here. We have a marina village improvement project that was funded. And many years ago, that's getting ready for construction. There's a large amount of long conversion that's part of that project and the long conversions going to drought tolerant landscape. And we also will continue the work and really it's Dylan who is on on the meeting with us here tonight that's just doing an amazing effort and looking at much of the data given to us from East Bay mud at our water use and able to visualize that data and strategically identify areas to target for leaks and reductions in irrigation. So we feel if we focus on this a bit more, we should be able to squeeze out 5% more of additional water reductions. So again, just to summarize these efforts, we feel if we do them and we do them now, we would be on target to obtain a total 10% reduction in total city water use. That's one. These last two slides are specifically where we'd be seeking counsel direction on, since these measures have upfront cost associated with implementing them and they essentially can fall into two buckets. One is smart irrigation, which the slide is touching on and the next slide or lawn conversions. So smart irrigation is using additional sensors to refine the actual amount of water used at irrigated sites. Much of this technology is implemented already in the public right away, especially in new developments and in certain park locations. The 13 or so sites listed here do not have smart irrigation yet, and so this table essentially summarizes the estimated reductions that could be obtained. The cost for all of the sites listed would be an upfront investment of 100,000. And if you see down at the bottom of the table in the middle middle column, we believe this could reach an additional 3.6% reduction in city water use on the column. On the right does note, when you reduce water, it's not only good for the environment and for building resiliency, it's also good for your bottom line since you save money in your water bill. And so just to to look at the economics of this sort of investment, the column on the right presents the estimated utility savings showing that this upfront investment would actually pay for itself in about two and a half years. Next slide. So similar analysis we did for long conversions. I did want to start this discussion here, noting that Eastbay emerged in response to the drought is offering what they're titling a super rebate for lawn conversions that is converting eligible sites from lawn to drought tolerant native landscapes. And if certain criteria are met, the site is eligible for up to $15,000 in rebate. We have listed here city facilities that have lawn that would be good candidates for conversion using just a very basic conversion calculator. We have estimated costs. I did want to note that we would go through a design process, particularly for City Hall and City Hall West, which have historic requirements. We would go through a design process and firm up these estimated costs. But we do think that for purposes of this initial discussion, these these costs are in the range. So sorry to interrupt, but that is the ten minute presentation.
Speaker 1: Oh, we would need a vote to continue on.
Speaker 0: I'll make a motion to give. And this is about how much longer did you think you needed minute tops?
Speaker 1: One minute before.
Speaker 2: I pass it back to you, counsel for your input and guidance.
Speaker 0: Okay, I move that. We give Miss Smith one more minute. I think Councilmember Knox Wade just seconded. Is that correct? Okay, we need four. Yes, that's me. We have a roll call vote, please. Ms.. Whitaker.
Speaker 2: It's invitation.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Sir. Spencer.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 2: It's not quite.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Villa. I may or as Ashcroft I. That carries by five eyes.
Speaker 0: Please continue.
Speaker 2: Sorry about that. I'll be quick. So these sites listed here, we have the estimated costs and estimated water reductions. So if all of these sites are implemented, you get an additional 3% in water reduction. The return on investment is a bit slower for land conversions, but it would be an upfront cost. You can see is about 2.34 million. And if you look at the annual utility savings, it would take upwards of 60 to 70 years to recover cost. But again, economics is not the only value that we apply for water conservation. Next slide, please. So just to quickly summarize, the study uses 139 million gallons of water per year. We're looking to target if we're looking to reach the voluntary reductions at the statewide level, currently that is 15%. The measures that I presented this evening do total 16.6% total. So if we implemented everything, we would be in compliance with the voluntary reductions statewide currently. So again, what we are looking to council this evening I'm sorry, last slide from last minute is that but what is our discussion for council this evening is which of the measures, particularly the smart irrigation and the long conversions are you interested in moving forward with? And did you want to move forward with them now, or do we want to see what occurs with the drought and or what have you of the budget?
Speaker 0: I think that's time. Thank you so much, Miss Smith. Okay.
Speaker 1: So, council, we are.
Speaker 0: Please go back to Gallery. Right. Yes. Well these are they. Yeah. Okay. So and those are the questions in the staff report as well. Okay. I saw council member Herrera Spencer's hand go up first, followed by Councilmember De Sykes ahead.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I have a clarifying question in regards to the rebate from East Bay mud for the 15,000. How many projects do you need to qualify for that?
Speaker 2: But my understanding is each individual meter, which in this case would be each individual site would be eligible for the 15,000. So we could pursue one project. We could pursue.
Speaker 1: All our.
Speaker 2: Measures at nine sites there. The thing that one thing I would mention is the rebate currently is only valid through the end of the calendar year. I don't know if you speak but is will be extending the program, but it is currently valid through the end of the calendar year.
Speaker 4: So can you expand on that? Does that mean that the city would have to have the projects completed by the end of the calendar year or voted on to be approved? What does that mean?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good question, Councilmember. I was not able to get clarity from Eastbay about on that, whether a submittal of an application by the end of the calendar year would suffice to be eligible for the project. So I don't have that information with me this evening.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 0: So we'll just quickly interject that I was texting a little bit earlier with the manager of water conservation at East Bay Med, and I will forward that information to you because she's happy to assist. I don't have the answer to that either. I'm hoping that if the application is submitted by the end of the year, that would suffice. But I.
Speaker 2: Will get. That's my minor, too. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4: My next question is the 2.3 million, where would that come from?
Speaker 2: So right now we would be looking towards the general fund for that.
Speaker 4: Okay. So this would be put ahead of other request for the general fund then.
Speaker 1: Or.
Speaker 2: That's up for discussion really. It's a challenge to bring this forward now. I know that we're we're essentially asking for input in a standalone budget item and perhaps something for the council to consider as to whether to wait until perhaps mid-year when you have other budget items to consider. You know, it's it's it's an imperfect process, but yes, we would. Right now, we're just seeking direction on if we want to move forward with them. We come back with any budget standalone budget amendment.
Speaker 4: So thank you, staff. And in the interest of time, I'll just share that. I do. Thank you for all the savings from that first chart with all the changes in regards. And I do also support the smart irrigation of the $100,000 which pays for itself in a very short amount of time. But I do have concerns about the 2.3 million. And so I would I'm happy to hear from my rest the rest of the colleagues at the say thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilmember de said you had your hand. Up next.
Speaker 5: I had two sets of questions. The first question is for Washington Park. The long conversions at city facilities. Washington Park is 36,000 square feet.
Speaker 1: Where where where.
Speaker 3: Abouts?
Speaker 5: Washington Park is this? 36,000 square feet. Is the green area closest to eighth.
Speaker 3: Street or where?
Speaker 1: Where where are we talking about? Hi. Amy Wooldridge, Recreation Parks Director. It's a smattering, honestly, of areas. It's not one large area, it's accommodation, it's several. It's landscaped areas that are not usable, not generally used by the public. So. Okay. So small areas for example in the front where we planted some trees and put the new sign, some areas over on central, some areas of lower Washington near the tennis courts. So it's it's a mix of areas, mostly areas that are close to the street and not used for for play or by the public. I see. Decorative areas.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you. A second question is on the installation of rain sensitive smart irrigation clocks. Is the reason why Lincoln Park or Franklin Park is not on here is because they already have those things or similar features.
Speaker 1: That's correct. You're absolutely correct that any parks that are not listed are ones that we've already installed. We've been trying to a couple of parks a year to install these smart irrigation meters.
Speaker 5: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: The local next councilmember, they said, oh, and I meant to check with the city clerk. Do we have any public comments on this item?
Speaker 2: You do not.
Speaker 0: Okay. I've got mixed up about which public comment I closed, but I'm closing public comment now on this item. Okay. Further council comments, Vice Mayor Vallas, then Councilmember Knox.
Speaker 1: Right. I just want to make sure for the any sort of vote or conversation on Washington Park that we vote on that separately. I'll recuse myself because of where my home is located, but I'm happy to see this come forward. I think we we've since I've joined the council, we've gone through several droughts now. So I think it's really important that we we do our part to try to mitigate. I think I really like looking at especially the proposal relative to City Hall. I think that there's a huge opportunity for us to do our part and lead by example. So I really commend staff for for their turnaround on this, knowing that the deadlines are approaching and defer to staff in terms of what they think they can take on. I know that the money is is out there. I think that certainly we have a lot we can do. But I want to make sure that we're we're taking things on that we know we can handle. And we're not trying to overexert ourselves relative to just trying to meet this end of year deadline. I think that this is going to be an ongoing issue. And so I'm sure there's going to be continued funding. But, you know, so I just but I'm glad that this came forward and I'm glad that we we see all the opportunities and we can get to work on them.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Knox White. Your muted still.
Speaker 3: Everybody looking at the staff report over there, not at the mute button over here.
Speaker 0: Everyone takes a turn at that.
Speaker 3: The guys had a second. Everything. Vice Mayor Vella said, I appreciate this. I also agree. The only question I have and I don't mean this is a if it's a criticism of anybody else of me in the council, but is whether or not we waited why this was we knew this was coming in March in the drought . And I think the drought is going to be continuing. So anything we can do for significant long term change that Mike is swapping out the lawns for, for drought tolerant gardens, whatever else I think is is fantastic. I appreciate the. The life cycle recoup numbers but at the end of the day, what we really need is just saving water. And if it pays for itself, that's great. And some of this is going to not pay for itself, but also needs to be done in the earlier we do it, the better. But Vice Mayor Miller's point, you know, I know Amy and staff, especially in public works, have their hands full with a lot of things. So, you know, I will support kind of a meaningful timeline, but I but I would support, you know, 100% of this and finding the funds to do it. And we did just learn that we're on another big transfer tax good, another big business sale that just coming through that's going to, you know, one time funds. These are these this would be a good use of one time funds for us for us to consider. And I'm sure everybody in the city has already spent all those one time funds, at least five. But anyway, this to me would be the type of thing that would that would meet that need pretty quickly. So I appreciate this that did to my my direction would be do as much as that as we can as fast as possible without, you know, causing harm.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Not quite. And I'm going to just say that I am very much in agreement with you and Vice Mayor Vella that the time is now to do this. I think the reason it didn't come sooner, the council, the city manager and I heard a presentation by East Bay Med staff to the mayor's conference, but I can't remember what month it was. But it's just I mean, you know, we've had really long agendas, lots going on in front of us. What I'm hoping is that the work that the considerable work that staff put into identifying these potential projects would go a long way toward completing the application. And by the way, I just sent you all the information and an email with the information about this is to be made person who is standing ready and able to to help you. So I would hope it wouldn't require too much more extra work. But I agree. I think we need to do all these things. I really like the idea of the City Hall lawn conversion to drought friendly landscaping. It can be very attractive. It will be very attractive and it's just a great example. We can lead by example. And it's it's so important that we practice what we preach. I mean, we tell our residents to please voluntarily conserve, so we should be doing it ourselves, the one. So I very much support the city manager's recommendation and also his recognizing public works and public works director and the recreation parks director talks about and approves the immediate actions recommended. Additionally, authorize one or two demonstration projects that could utilize is be made incentive funding recommends city hall conversion potentially one of the other facilities listed. The one question I have is how much say the historic advisory board should have in putting in drought friendly landscaping to address the drought to and to achieve water savings? And yet this has to go before the historic advisory board. I'm I'm having a little trouble understanding that. And again, if we're running up against a deadline to apply for the funds, what I mean, I do see that staff believes that landscaping can be part of a historic property's character defining, defining feature. I just wouldn't want to see any delays in what is a time sensitive item. If anyone wants to comment on anyone from staff, wants to comment on how that would be dealt with.
Speaker 2: I don't have much further information in the content that was in the staff report. I consulted with Alan Tai and our planning department and that was his recommendation. In terms of based on what I'm hearing tonight, I do see value in a if we're select about needing to hear more direction on one site many sites. But there are there is some economies of scale from hiring a single design contractor to do multiple sites. So I'll do the same applications for East Bay mud. So there's some value there. I think that we could move forward with the design and come back to council to appropriate funds for the design. And then by the time we're ready to move forward with construction, we would be able to be back at council probably closer to mid-year and council could approve whether to move forward with construction for all sites or maybe phase in how we wanted to do that.
Speaker 0: It will do that and still be able to apply for the $15,000 per project from thinking.
Speaker 2: If we have, obviously we'll have to work with our partners at East Bay Mud, but that if we have designs and applications and by the end of the rebate, that they'd be willing to work with us.
Speaker 0: Okay, that sounds good. Okay. Well, maybe we'll just have to get more information about the historic advisory boards role in all this. I just tend to think that when we're talking about something that is yet another one of our statewide crises, we could find a way to move forward. Okay, so staff direction, do you need a vote? Do we need to do a separate vote?
Speaker 2: And I don't think we need a vote. I'm just looking for general direction. That sounds like we will move forward with the design for the long conversions. And just to clarify, are we all on board of the smart irrigation as well.
Speaker 1: Crucial.
Speaker 2: That that will also include a budget amendment to appropriate those funds. And we can do that at the time. We come back with a design contract.
Speaker 0: That sounds good. City manager love it and then we'll go to you. Councilmember her Spencer city manager please. And mute. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And on the line, on the lines, do you want to do all of them or just two or three projects at this time for the design?
Speaker 0: Well, I would like to for sure do City Hall and then I don't know what is everybody think there's that chart. There were some that were real gas guzzlers. Gas guzzlers. Hello? Different Environmental Concern Council. What do we think? In a city hall with redaction of 870,000 gallons a year. Sounds pretty compelling. Vice mayor, got any thoughts? Officers Club. Washington Park Castle are not quite unmuted first. Go for it.
Speaker 3: I guess my my I you know, if we're giving the direction to move forward with all and to put together a time but a time frame, I think I would be comfortable asking staff to identify which city hall I think makes just complete sense. But beyond that, I think asking city staff to just kind of figure out the timeline in the appropriate order would make the most sense because there might be things we we don't know why one park might be better than the other moment.
Speaker 0: Kind of triage it now. Yeah. Okay. As for Councilmember Herrera, Spencer, she's got her hand up. Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. First of all, I wanted to I appreciate member Vice Mayor Vella bringing up whether or not to refer recusing herself because the park I rent within 500 feet of a park. And so I want to ask for the legal opinion if that would be as a renter, because it's not ownership that I would need to recuse myself.
Speaker 3: Councilmember Spencer in the excess of caution. I would recommend that you recuse yourself.
Speaker 0: At city attorneys. And as I understand it, we're just giving direction. So are we just specifying that the vice mayor and Councilmember Herrera Spencer are not giving direction on the particular parks that they live near?
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: And when it comes back, there will be a bifurcated vote. But for now, yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: Yes, that works.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 4: So I'd also like to follow up in regards to the priorities of, I think like for instance, city Hall, City Hall, West Fire Station, all those types of facilities. But I would prefer looking at first I have concerns about the parks because I would like to know more specific of where we're proposing. For instance, Upper Washington is quite often completely packed with people using it. And part of COVID is encouraging people to be outside. So I would be I would want to make sure we are continuing to allow access to people that use that for picnics and whatnot. And but these other areas are very clearly not not used really. And so that would be my priority.
Speaker 0: Can I just ask Ms. Wooldridge to to touch on this estimated reductions for these different products, because I know you were also extremely concerned about public usage of the parks, because I think I heard you say earlier in answer to Councilmember De Sykes question that these were not the lawn area you might envision. Could you touch on some of the parks? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. In order to get to the square footage, we did completely map it out. So we do have maps per park of where we were proposing. We just didn't include that level of detail in this report. So. I'm happy to address any questions on specific parts, but all of them were. We identified areas and I worked closely, obviously, with our park maintenance staff who know the parks and usage levels quite well. I also worked with our recreation services staff who also are out there with the kids and with the public. So we chose specifically areas that are not that are that are decorative areas, landscape areas. A great example, it actually is a little dog park. So so that whole area of the 29,000 square feet is is the hillside under the trees right on clement. And so it's it's it's a steep little area that people that's not usable and so is a perfect candidate for conversion to drought tolerant landscape.
Speaker 5: When a visitor.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Going to go?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer.
Speaker 4: And my preference would still be to add that those are public documents, to add those maps to this item whenever it returns and the public will have the opportunity to review it as well as council members.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. But I think we can safely say that we're not taking away any usable usable by the public park space. Okay. Anything further? Okay. Lots of great direction. Thank you so much, staff. I know this is one more thing to keep on your plates. I just think this is one of those issues that is also where time is also of the essence. So thank you and good luck with everything. All right. We'll look forward to your updates. Thank you. All right. And thank you, Dylan Hammond and Lisa maxwell. Nice to have you on board to. Okay. We are moving along and we come to item six H. Now I'm here to want to introduce that and I think that also includes a little changing of the guard. Or is Ms.. Butler coming back for this? Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: It's recommendation to reconsider award of the contract for the publication of legal notices and consider providing direction for funding options to assist the Alameda Sun. And I can start while Lois just coming back on and basically this is coming back to the council and after a referral was presented by Councilmember Tasha at the June 20th PD and and so July 20th, I'm sorry, wrong date. And so basically there's two things before you to consider tonight. There is one thing the contract and the second thing, funding options. So basically the council does have an option to terminate the existing contract with the Alameda Journal and could then, you know, pursue entering into a contract with the
Recommendation to Implement Water Conservation Measures in Response to Drought and Provide Direction on Further City of Alameda Water Reduction Efforts. (Public Works 31041500)