HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-12-14 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketsPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 2021—7PM
AGENDA
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. ********BY VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ONLY*******
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020,
to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no
physical location. The meeting will be broadcast on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end
of this agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting online 15
minutes before the item you wish to speak on. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
I. ROLL CALL
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to
limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT
V. BUSINESS
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency-- Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 17, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
– Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
3. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min)
4. Foothills Nature Preserve Policy Updates— (Daren Anderson)— Action (75 min) ATTACHMENT
5. Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy— (Daren Anderson)— Action (30 min) ATTACHMENT
6. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Plan–– (Lam Do) --
Discussion (45 min) ATTACHMENT
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 25, 2022
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC LETTERS
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To
address the Commission, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your
browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+,
Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.
B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself
by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Staff Assistant will
activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to
speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting.
To address the Commission, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to
speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked
to provide your first and last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long
you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1(669)900-6833
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2021 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF TELECONFERENCING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETINGS DURING COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
BACKGROUND In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the
purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the
emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
DISCUSSION At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and
other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021
Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures.
Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via
teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and
Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through January 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees.
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government
Code Section 54953(e)
R E C I T A L S
A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene
by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency
Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and
B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency
in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state
of emergency remains in effect; and
C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the
Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were
subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and
those declarations also remain in effect; and
D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act
to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency
without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the
policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and
E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of
vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County
Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues
to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing
measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and
F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees
about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other
social distancing measures; and
G. The Parks and Recreation Commission has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic
and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while
minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person
meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore,
NOT YET APPROVED
The Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLVES as follows:
1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission has considered
the circumstances of the state of emergency.
2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures
to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some
settings.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such
meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees that occur using
teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who
wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the
statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting
via teleconferencing; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Parks and Recreation Commission staff liaison is directed to place a
resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Parks and
Recreation Commission within the next 30 days. If the Parks and Recreation Commission does not meet
within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the
immediately following meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Staff Liaison Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney Department Head
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 November 17, 2021 8 Virtual Conference 9 Palo Alto, California 10 11 Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Keith Reckdahl, David Moss, Amanda Brown, 12 Vice Chair Greenfield 13
Commissioners Absent: Jeff LaMere 14
Others Present: Council Member Kou 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, 16
I. ROLL CALL 17
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 18
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 19
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 20
Mr. Anderson updated the Commission regarding Cubberley. Resurfacing of the tennis 21
courts is scheduled for spring of 2022. The Palo Alto Soccer Club started their annual 22
seasonal lighting for the Cubberley turf field on November 7th. They will have use of the 23 lights for practices Monday through Friday, 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., and this will extend through 24 March 11th. 25
Mr. Anderson reported that Council discussion on the Measure E site and Byxbee has not 26 yet been scheduled. He will continue to check on this and let the Commission know when 27 it is scheduled. 28
He reported that the capital budget planning process has started informally. They have not 29 yet heard from the City Office of Management and Budget, which is in charge of the 30 capital budget. The schedule for the timeframes for submittals has not yet been released; 31 however, the Community Services Department and the Public Works Engineering staff 32 are now working on preparing and getting things ready. Mr. Do will be scheduling a time 33 for the Ad Hoc Committee to meet with staff, hopefully early next week. They will be 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
meeting soon to discuss projects and timeframes. 1
Mr. Anderson shared details of recent event. The Second Annual Jack-O-Jaunt event was 2
held on Friday, October 29th at Lytton Plaza and was a very successful event, with 62 jack-3 o-lanterns submitted and 550 viewers throughout the event. The Junior Museum and Zoo 4 opened on November 12th to high demand, with almost 5,000 tickets sold for November 5 and December dates, 312 memberships sold since November 1st, and all available tickets 6 in November have been sold out. The JMZ is currently open Friday through Sunday, from 7 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and it will open Tuesday through Sundays starting December 21st. 8 More information is available on cityofpaloalto.org/jmz. 9
Mr. Anderson shared information on upcoming events. A tree-lighting ceremony is to be 10 held at Lytton Plaza on Friday, December 3rd from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. It will include 11 an in-person tree-lighting, youth performances, holiday snacks and crafts and a holiday 12 decorating contest. Applications must be completed online by December 14th, and awards 13 will be announced December 23rd. The Children’s Theater first mainstage production 14 opened in November and sold out with waiting lists for tickets. Classes are running fully 15
enrolled, most with waiting lists. There is an Art Center Studio Holiday Sale taking place 16
December 4th through 5th, and the winter Enjoy! Catalog will be mailed to Palo Alto 17
residents the first week of December. 18
Mr. Anderson referred to the agenda item for the October meeting regarding creation of 19
an Ad Hoc Committee for the Measure E site at Byxbee Park, in which he was tasked with 20
confirming what the City’s process would be for Boards and Commissions to add things 21
to their Council-approved work plans. He has spoken with CSD Director, Kristen O’Kane, 22
about this, and she is looking into the matter. He will update the Commission as soon as 23 he has more information about that. 24
Mr. Anderson said the City Clerk’s Office informed him that the interviews for the Parks 25 and Recreation Commission applicants will be held on November 22nd, and the 26 appointments of the members will be held on December 13th. There are 15 applicants, and 27 the City Council agenda from November 8th has a staff report with all of the applications. 28
Mr. Anderson reported that the grand opening and ribbon cutting ceremony for the 29 Highway 101 Pedestrian and Bike Bridge is scheduled to take place on Saturday, 30 November 20th at 10:00 a.m., weather permitting. The event begins with a speaker program 31 at 10:00 a.m. on the Baylands side of the bridge. Ribbons will be cut on both sides of the 32 bridge entrances on the east and west Bayshore Roads. An ice cream truck will also be 33 available. 34
Mr. Anderson gave a brief update on pickleball activities, stating that staff, the Ad Hoc 35
Committee and members of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club Board met on November 4th to 36
discuss collaborating on cleaning the courts and keeping them looking their best. He noted 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
that the club was very helpful and willing to work and coordinate with staff to keep the 1
courts clean and improve the current maintenance of them. 2
Chair Cribbs invited questions for Mr. Anderson from the Commissioners and Council 3 Member Kou. Hearing none, she closed the item. 4
V. BUSINESS 5
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 6 Recreation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency 7
Mr. Anderson advised that under a new State law, local boards and commissions need to 8 adopt certain findings every 30 days beginning in November in order to continue meeting 9 remotely without following the traditional teleconference rules in the Brown Act. He said 10 City Council has been doing this since November 1st. Each board and commission needs 11 to do their own, and it will need to be done again at the December meeting. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if they would need to have the same motion repeated in 13 December, when they will be meeting less than 30 days from now. Mr. Anderson said that 14 he was told to do it at each meeting. Vice Chair Greenfield said he would understand if 15
they had standing committees meeting during the month that were subject to the Brown 16
Act, and it would make sense that they would need to do that. Otherwise, he said it doesn’t 17
make sense, but he is happy to do it if that’s what they need to do. 18
MOTION 19
Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferences for Parks and 20
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency was moved by 21
Vice Chair Greenfield and seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl. The motion passed, 5-22
0, by roll call vote. 23
Chair Cribbs asked if they would be back to in-person meetings in January. Mr. Anderson 24 said that is the tentative plan, and it would be a hybrid meeting, so the Commission will 25 be in-person and the public can attend remotely if they choose. 26
2. Approval of Draft Minutes From the October 26, 2021, Parks and Recreation 27 Commission Meeting 28
Chair Cribbs requested a revision on the last page, regarding Council Member Kou’s 29 comment about the Parks and Recreation Commission being a fun commission, that it be 30 moved to the paragraph above where the Commissioners were discussing applicants for 31 the Parks and Recreation Commission for the next term, since this is what Council Member 32 Kou’s comment related to. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
MOTION 1
Motion to approve the minutes, as revised, of the October 26, 2021, Parks and Recreation 2
Commission was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by Commissioner 3 Moss. The motion passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 4
3. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates 5
Chair Cribbs noted that at the last meeting, for both the Baylands Tidegate and Sidewalk 6 Vendor policy, it had been recommended that those change to a liaison status, rather than 7 an ad hoc committee, because they have essentially completed most of their job. She asked 8 Mr. Anderson if they needed to send this on for permission, or could just do it, and 9 determine if one of the members of each committee would be willing to act as a liaison. 10 Mr. Anderson thought the Commission could just make the call, but he would be glad to 11 check with the Clerk’s Office. He did not recall any vote of disbanding ad hocs in the past. 12 Chair Cribbs suggested they assume there was not a need to vote and asked if one of the 13 members of the Baylands Tidegate committee would act as the liaison to this group. Vice 14 Chair Greenfield volunteered to do so. Chair Cribbs asked if a member of the Side Vendor 15
Ad Hoc would serve as liaison. Commissioner Brown volunteered to do so. Mr. Do will 16
arrange for these changes on the Commission’s list of assignments. 17
CIP Review - Commissioner Moss mentioned that there was discussion about the general 18
CIP process and whether or not fundraising would have an impact on the process and 19
whether or not they could or should fundraise for some of the CIPs that have not even yet 20
been approved for this year. He said the bottom line was that they can think about it and 21
start preparing, but until the first preliminary list of CIPS comes out, there is not much 22
they can do. He said there will be more to come on that. 23
Dog Park and Restrooms - Chair Cribbs said they have not been able to have a meeting 24 with the dog community. She assumes the restrooms are proceeding as planned, and asked 25 Mr. Anderson to report on this. Mr. Anderson thought they would have more information 26 as they dig into the CIP conversation regarding the different restroom projects. 27
Foothills Nature Preserve – Chair Cribbs said there is a report coming up to the Council. 28 Vice Chair Greenfield said the Ad Hoc continues to meet regularly and is working towards 29 presenting at the December meeting. 30
Fund Development - Chair Cribbs said this is on the agenda for later in the meeting. 31
Recreational Activities – Chair Cribbs noted that discussion about the gym is scheduled 32 later on the agenda. Regarding the racquet court policy, Commissioner Reckdahl said they 33 had one meeting with the pickleball group to talk about the court cleaning. Chair Cribbs 34 said from an email, she understands that Adam is doing a complete review later on of court 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
policy, to answer some questions. Commissioner Brown thought it was more that there 1
were agreements coming and it was part of just a review of the court usage policy. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl said the USTA has a monopoly right now, being the only group 3 that can reserve spaces, and they will be looking to broaden that. 4
Aquatics – Chair Cribbs said they will have the report from Tim Sheeper in January. They 5 have had a good meeting with the lap swimmers, who have formed an unofficial support 6 group for Rinconada and for swimmers. She was pleased to hear the spirit of cooperation 7 that exists and desire to be partners to make the swimming experience better, with the 8 additional protocols required by COVID. The different community groups who use the 9 pool and the different stakeholders are talking, and Mr. Sheeper seems very receptive to a 10 discussion, so they look forward to getting the report. Vice Chair Greenfield added that it 11 seems like more than an informal group, as they seem well-organized, with a name and a 12 list of members. Chair Cribbs agreed, although less formal than a group with bylaws and 13 rules, et cetera. 14
Baylands 10.5 – Chair Cribbs said she has reached out a couple times to the new President 15
of the Palo Alto Soccer Club, and they have traded emails about some additional people 16
to include in a potential meeting but have not set anything up yet. She expects this to 17
happen in the next couple of weeks. 18
Community Gardens: Mr. Anderson reported that they are hopeful to be filling Catherine 19
Bourquin’s position soon. She had been managing that program, so he and Mr. Do have 20
been doing the best they can with support from the Community Garden Liaisons. 21
Cubberley: Commissioner Moss said things are continuing after they talked last month 22
about Cubberley being used while Hoover and Palo Verde are being updated. Since that 23 announcement there has been pushback by parents, but it is moving along. Commissioner 24 Reckdahl said their meeting is on Thursday. There hasn’t been a meeting since the last 25 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Council Member Kou said they are trying to 26 get a joint Council and PAUSD study session together, but that is not firmed up yet. 27
Field Users: Vice Chair Greenfield said he met with some members of Palo Alto Soccer 28 Club at Cubberley Field and discussed some adjustments to the temporary lights, which 29 have been made. They discussed some field permit issues that they have had. Staff has 30 helped sort them out. They talked about issues of field conditions at Stanford’s Mayfield 31 Soccer Complex playing fields, and at El Camino Park. At both sites discussions involve 32 issues of the turf infield material melting. At El Camino Park there are also issues of lines 33 and seams and penalty marks lifting up and disappearing. He has spoken with staff about 34 this, and it sounds like something they will be able to address quickly, getting some glue 35
back on the existing lines. The issue with addressing the fields is a matter of concern. They 36
are moving forward with getting materials, but the timeline for all of it is drawn out. They 37
also discussed the temporary restroom at Cubberley. There is one porta-potty there, and 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
the Club was asking if a second one could be put in at their expense to address the needs 1
at times. This is something that they can move forward with, but it raised the issue of the 2
permanent restrooms that have been planned for Cubberley and approved over two years 3 ago, and they would like to know how they can move the implementation and construction 4 of them forward to address the legitimate need. 5
Chair Cribbs asked if there is any timeline regarding the permanent restrooms. Vice Chair 6 Greenfield’s understanding was the issue right now was to get the Public Works 7 Department to finalize the plans so they can go through ARB and get approved. Mr. 8 Anderson added that as they look at the CIPs, he will be able to get fresh information on 9 timelines for things like this. He said there is always shuffling as the CIP season comes up 10 and they reprioritize timelines for things. He acknowledged this project has been 11 languishing and subject of discussion for a long time and needs to move forward as soon 12 as possible. Vice Chair Greenfield said he appreciates that there are other restroom projects 13 in the queue for Ramos and Boulware, but recommended and hoped the projects would be 14 separated and prioritized to get the Cubberley one done as soon as possible, rather than 15
trying to do them in bulk, since the Cubberley plan has been out there the longest. Chair 16
Cribbs asked if there was anything the Commission should do to try to get some attention 17
on this. Mr. Anderson said he would convey this to the Public Works Engineering team 18
and the rest of the CIP review folks on the City side. He said staff shares that interest, but 19
it is a matter of limited staff and a lot of projects. Also, when they come back to the full 20
Commission to discuss this, they will reiterate that sentiment and the Commission can 21
vocalize it, and they will help share the feedback with the rest of the team. Chair Cribbs 22
asked if he could tell them approximately how long it would take. Mr. Anderson was not 23 prepared to answer at that moment, but would make sure with the next department report 24 or when the CIP comes for discussion he will get a good answer. Chair Cribbs 25 acknowledged it was not easy to have an answer, but she wanted a sense of how long it 26 would take, especially since the soccer groups are asking to have another portable or two 27 installed. 28
Commissioner Moss added, regarding the Cubberley lights, he was happy to see that the 29 footprint is half or less than what it was last year and previous years and is a big 30 improvement. He said whatever prompted that change, it was great. Vice Chair Greenfield 31 thought one of the differences is there is no generator included, simply a solar panel and 32 battery. Commissioner Moss noticed that the solar panel slides out, so the footprint is only 33 one panel. Vice Chair Greenfield said one of the considerations they talked about is that 34 the panel needs to slid up during games so it’s further away from the playing and at a 35
height that is less likely to be an obstacle or hazard. Commissioner Moss noted there is 36
more yellow tape than there was a week ago, and he appreciates that. Vice Chair 37
Greenfield said getting the tape and the pylon cones placed around the lights was another 38
change. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Skateboard Park – Mr. Anderson said they had a meeting with Sam, who has been leading 1
the endeavor and his team. They discussed next steps, to make sure the skateboard 2
community was behind the proposed area they have been looking at Greer Park. He met 3 independently with his team. Since staff is limited right now to lead public meetings and 4 discussions, Sam volunteered to do this. He came back to the Chair and Mr. Anderson and 5 said he had built some consensus around the idea, and they were in support in general 6 around a particular area of Greer Park. He thought the next step would be for Public Works 7 Engineering to hopefully help manage the process. They would hold a community meeting 8 for all the neighbors and the bigger skateboard community, neighbors, other sports users, 9 tell them what they are thinking and ask for feedback. They would come back to the 10 Commission to share that. A recommendation from the Commission would then go to the 11 Council. Commissioner Moss asked if they would help with fundraising, and Mr. 12 Anderson answered that they would. 13
Sustainability – Commissioner Brown said their meetings are ongoing. The latest one was 14 on electric vehicles. All the materials and presentations are on the website if anyone wants 15
to look at it. The next meeting will be on December 9th, on mobility. Chair Cribbs asked 16
if Commissioner Brown had any conversations or interaction with the Bay Area Council 17
and their Sustainability Action Plan. She wondered if different groups are sharing 18
information or are connected with each other. Commissioner Brown said there are a variety 19
of groups that have meetings on this. She didn’t know if that specific one did, but she will 20
check on this. 21
Urban Forestry – Vice Chair Greenfield said they will be scheduling a meeting with staff 22
and the PRC Liaisons to review the details of the PRC-Urban Forestry relationship. 23
Youth Council – Chair Cribbs said she tries to make it to the meetings, but has not been 24 very successful. She hopes to be there either next week or the following week. She said 25 there is a great group of leaders in the youth community, and it is fun to see them 26 develop their ideas and move ahead. 27
4. Update on Fundraising Opportunities from Friends of Palo Alto Parks and the 28 Palo Alto Recreation Foundation 29
Roger Smith from Friends of the Palo Alto Parks and Jack Morton from the Recreation 30 Foundation joined the Commission to give updates on their ability to take contributions 31 through their foundations, as well as the focus of their current plans. 32
Mr. Smith said one of the reasons Friends of Palo Alto Parks was started 14 years ago was 33 the premise that the City would never have enough money to do all the things they would 34 like to do, and should do. Currently, they have 11 different funds. He highlighted two of 35
the funds, including the Bike Palo Alto Fund and the One Bowling Fund. Their 36
organization is a 501(c)3 and has the ability to open new funds for any project related to 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
the City in regard to Parks and Recreation. Next year, they would like to try to access some 1
of the mass amount of money in the city, as everyone in the nonprofit world are attempting 2
to do. They will continue to work with Mr. Anderson and staff, who have been very helpful 3 to them in illuminating which areas they might be able to help with. 4
Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson to share the Friends of Palo Alto Parks website, which 5 shows the “buckets” that people can contribute to. She encouraged the Commissioners to 6 visit the website as well, to learn the different ways to donate, special donations, and 7 opportunities. Mr. Anderson shared the Boulware Nature Plant Garden entry as an 8 example. Chair Cribbs said she is hopeful that once the skate park comes back to the 9 Commission with a plan, that there will be an entry on the website for it as well. 10
Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Smith. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield was interested in Mr. Smith’s opinion on the most exciting work 12 the organization has been able to do in the challenging past year. Mr. Smith replied that 13 their biggest project for the year has been working diligently with staff on the signage at 14 the Baylands which will run from their Interpretive Center over to Cooley Landing. He 15
shared that the signage will be in English and Spanish. Vice Chair Greenfield affirmed 16
their work and commented that it will benefit and provide enjoyment for the community 17
and the region. Mr. Smith mentioned their involvement in the 501(c)3 designation was key 18
for them to get some outside donations to jumpstart the project. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl asked what the process is for adding something to the 20
organization’s projects. Mr. Smith said they just have to know that it is an “honorable” 21
project. They are the keeper of the money, so they make sure it goes to the proper place. 22
He said they can open a project tomorrow, if needed. Mr. Anderson added that the one 23 question that comes up with larger projects like the skate park is whether they can form a 24 partnership and begin generating funds prior to Council approval. He advised that, in 25 checking with the City Attorney’s Office, the answer was no, and that they do need 26 Council approval first for things like that. He said for funding smaller-scale things such as 27 a drinking fountain or bench, they could work with Mr. Smith and his team and see if they 28 would be willing to support it. But when it comes to an asset where the City will be 29 responsible for long-term maintenance of an asset like a skate park or gym, they need 30 Council approval before embarking on fundraising for it. 31
Commissioner Moss, in follow-up, asked whether a CIP would be moved up to an earlier 32 year if there was fundraising, or if they have to put the CIP into a certain year and wait 33 until then to fundraise for it. Mr. Anderson responded that private funds to help support a 34 capital project can get it onto the five-year plan and also potentially move it forward under 35
certain conditions. It is not the only factor, but is an important one when there are funding 36
shortages and they have a share in the cost via a grant or partnership or donation. There 37
are other critical criteria as well. Whether the money is raised or not, if there is not staff to 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
manage the project, it will not move it forward. Secondly, regarding which comes first – 1
funding or progression on the CIP – he thought it depends. For example, they will not 2
plan to have a CIP in place when they go to Council in regard to the skate park. They will 3 state that they have been given a directive to find a location and determine if it fits in the 4 priorities. If Council approves of that, they can then have fundraising start ahead of it being 5 on the CIP, so in this circumstance, he felt they would be able to move forward with 6 fundraising. Commissioner Moss offered another example – the pickleball center at 7 Mitchell Park, which was never on the CIP. 8
Mr. Smith shared that they are very flexible on their side. He thought there may be an in-9 between idea, and if they could legally have non-binding pledges to help them determine 10 if there is enough money out there, they would love to have an account for the skate park 11 or any other projects. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl asked what would happen to the money if they raised money for 13 a skate park but then did not raise enough and the project died. Mr. Smith thought that 14 their assessor in San Jose had raised money for his campaign and then no one ran against 15
him, so he sent all the donors a check back. Possibly, the money would go back to the 16
donors, although that might create a big problem, taxwise. It may be that they think about 17
a pledge instead. He said it seems that there should be a “Friends of the Skate Park,” not 18
for the entire project, but for things that come up over time, that could probably be funded. 19
Mr. Morton added that, as an accountant, in regard to Mr. Smith’s comments, when an 20
individual donates to a 501(c)3 they get a tax deduction, which is often the primary reason 21
for the donation. However, if the 501(c)3 has a change of focus or a change of project, that 22
money belongs to the 501(c)3, which has a commitment to raise money for that thing, but 23 the money stays with the nonprofit. A contribution belongs to the nonprofit, so he felt on 24 the issue of raising money they would not lose the money. Chair Cribbs felt these were 25 very important details, but she preferred that they be confident of raising enough money 26 to cover the skate park, and would not have to deal with that scenario. 27
Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Morton to respond to her initial two questions – the Recreation 28 Foundation’s ability to make contributions and the focus of the Foundation and their plans 29 for 2022. Mr. Morton stated that they are a 501(c)3 with a restricted beneficiary, which is 30 the civic projects in the community. Their priority is to the City of Palo Alto. Since they 31 fund programs, they started with a small horizon – keeping the May Fete parade in 32 existence, keeping the Moonlight run going. At that time there was generally less wealth 33 in the community than there is currently, and their focus was on extra funds so that they 34 weren’t at risk for the amount of money that they got through an appeal, so there would 35
always be some source of funds. He said the Black and White Ball was, for years, a popular 36
event for adults in the community. He felt that initially they funded activities focused on 37
kids which would keep them active. As time went on, they added small projects. He said 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
they don’t have a five-year fund, because their experience has been that recreation is the 1
one place that the City cuts every time there is a constriction in their funding. 2
Mr. Morton explained that the Foundation generally does not look at holding money. They 3 are happy that Mr. Smith’s organization is there to help raise money for capital items, 4 because initially their efforts were focused on ensuring that money given to them would 5 be used in the community. They chose programs for the things that were most crucial and 6 they were things that young people who grew up and went elsewhere would benefit most 7 from. Chair Cribbs asked if it was accurate to say that the Recreation Foundation used 8 special events like the Black and White Ball to raise money and have excess, which was 9 used to support other programs that needed funding. Mr. Morton agreed, but said there 10 was never enough money to fund fields and projects like that, but it was more for funding 11 activities. Chair Cribbs asked if they get contributions from citizens. He said they used to 12 but the demographics of the community have changed that. He said all of the City’s 13 programs are beloved, and they all need funding. The Foundation has never felt they had 14 space to hold money, so anytime Mr. Anderson comes up with needs, the Foundation helps 15
until their funds run out. They try to keep a minimal balance. They have stocks and things 16
they hold, but they are relatively small and none are restricted funds for a certain purpose. 17
They look year-to-year at the City to see where the shortfall is, and they don’t fund city 18
staff, but they fund city programs. 19
Chair Cribbs invited questions of Mr. Morton from the Commissioners. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Morton what the most rewarding or exciting contribution 21
they have made in the past challenging year. Mr. Morton responded that if there is a five-22
year-old riding his bicycle down University Avenue in the May Fete Parade for eight or 23 so blocks, and that is the intensity of the child’s life, then that is the most important thing 24 for the Foundation. If there is a kid that wants to hike a trail in Foothills Park and something 25 gets washed away, and if with $20,000 they can correct that, then that is the most exciting 26 thing. He said it is the joy of the activity. He said when Mr. Smith raises money for things 27 neglected in the City, it’s fantastic. For the Foundation, it is not a single project for them 28 or a single age group. He mentioned the New Year’s Eve Senior Ball, for seniors who 29 don’t get out much, they get to go to a special event, and for them that’s the most exciting 30 thing. Everything the Foundation did was exciting for some group in the community. Their 31 sadness is that money got tight and the type of donors available didn’t quite understand 32 their program as much. 33
Commissioner Reckdahl asked Mr. Anderson how the Recreation Foundation fit into their 34 funding, whether it was for unexpected items or figured in at budget time. Mr. Anderson 35
said it is primarily a consideration of the Recreation Division, so less the Operations and 36
Maintenance team that he is in charge of, but he added that there is a mix. There are some 37
ongoing programs that the Recreation Foundation regularly funds, and then periodically 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
they will reach out to the organization to ask for particular help on a particular item. Mr. 1
Morton explained that Mr. Anderson tells them about a specific idea that is not in his 2
budget and asks if they can help. They look at their funds for the rest of the year, and help 3 out when they can. He said this has become for the age group between roughly four and 4 twelve, things that are big events for them. He said at times they have to say that they are 5 out of funds and can’t help until the next year. A lot of what they do has been COVID-6 limited. The Fourth of July events, things not traditionally funded by the City, but are City-7 perceived activities, they fund some part of most of them. 8
Commissioner Moss commented that he thought the ability to have a May Fete Parade and 9 a Moonlight Run this year after the terrible previous year was fantastic, and he appreciated 10 that. He asked further about advertising. He noticed their huge ad for the Moonlight Run 11 and the May Fete Parade and wondered if they ask specifically for donations in those ads 12 and if they would do so in the future for other things. Mr. Morton said when they get an 13 event like the Moonlight Run and it gets popular they talked weekly about taking over that 14 event. They knew the City would not continue to fund it in those years. But it was 15
something that fit in with the City’s perception of wanting to be community-active, so they 16
have taken it over. He said the Foundation will happily divest themselves of any event 17
where they have confidence that someone will take over and nourish them. Things like 18
checker and chess clubs or limited-ability adult activities at Cubberley, when they can find 19
somebody that will happily adopt them, they are not averse to letting them go, because 20
there are a lot of orphaned activities out there that need help. In terms of how they raise 21
money, they have a small board of four to five people who are program-focused. 22
Commissioner Moss asked again about advertising and whether they have considered it. 23 Mr. Morton said The Weekly will take ads for activities but will not become the appealer 24 of a specific foundation. They do advertise and let the community know what funds are 25 supporting an activity but when there is not a major fundraiser, it is hard to do it. They are 26 often remembered in people’s wills, and they occasionally get an unexpected donation, but 27 never large enough. He said they spend on today because that is when kids needs it. 28
Commissioner Brown remarked there are other foundations in the Bay Area that do a sort 29 of letter-writing campaign to try to promote wills that have been very successful. She said 30 their organization seems very needs-based, and when something comes up that they are 31 able to address the need. She wondered if, prior to COVID, there were any conversations 32 with the City or with Mr. Smith on strategically prioritizing funds with relation to where 33 the financial need is, where the community interest is, and where the history lies, to help 34 think of where funds could be allocated in advance, or if it is more responsive. Mr. Morton 35
said Mr. Smith can focus on a project, and they’ve had other groups build things that Mr. 36
Smith has helped with, but that was not the Foundation’s focus. They initially didn’t have 37
any conviction that the City would ever fund any of the events that they didn’t want to 38
lose. Even in a wealthy city like Palo Alto, when things get rough, community services 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
and recreation are hit. He said they are also entirely volunteer, and they do what the group 1
can do. 2
Chair Cribbs thought there were certain things that the Foundation funds on a regular basis 3 every year, such as the bands for May Fete and other things, and when the City has requests 4 for either a new program or help for an existing program, they also step in. She thought it 5 was good to hear from both organizations, so they can understand the similarities and 6 differences of the two and how they can work together to ensure Palo Alto continues to be 7 the place they want it to be. She is supportive of both, and they all look forward to working 8 with them in the future. 9
[Commissioner LaMere joined the meeting] 10
Commission LaMere thanked both Mr. Smith and Mr. Morton for their years of service 11 and philanthropic work, including the example they’ve set for the community. He 12 appreciated the idea that not funding something for one year is one year that a child misses 13 out on something. Moments go by, and during COVID they’ve stopped doing certain 14 things while childhoods fly by. He appreciated the urgency with which they carry on the 15
Foundation to fund these activities. He hoped a younger generation could take up the 16
mantle as the City changes. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl said they do a great service with so much to fund, more so since 18
COVID has slashed budgets. He shared a sense of helplessness with so many funding 19
opportunities, but not knowing how to help. He said he would love to advertise and 20
advocate for the two organizations. For example, he said many people who are getting up 21
in age have too much stuff, and he would like to know how to go about giving them the 22
experience of going to a park and knowing that they helped to make it better. Mr. Morton 23 affirmed that it is something they have to do right now. If they can’t hold the events, they 24 don’t raise the money that the programs need. He said they need people like Mr. Smith to 25 get major projects going. He thought it would be great, whenever they get a project going, 26 to also have an endowment for the project. Yet, when endowments run out, there is a 27 continual need to raise money. For a wealthy city like Palo Alto, he wonders how cities 28 like Oakland or East Palo Alto manage to do these things. He said he is happy to take 29 suggestions such as lawn signs or cards to hand out at Halloween to raise awareness and 30 financial support for the Foundation. He thanked the Commission for their inspiration and 31 acknowledged the need to find ways to replace themselves down the road. 32
Mr. Smith recounted how Mr. Morton saved the Winter Lodge when they first met. He 33 said they have all been involved in startups, and one of the things they were hoping when 34 starting Friends of Palo Alto Parks was that each park would have a group of people to 35
take care of the park, perhaps a “Junior Ranger” program, but they have not been able to 36
put that off. There are neighbors that say, “This is my park,” but it is generally difficult to 37
do that. He remarked that Commissioner Brown is an expert in the field about how they 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
might try to see big needs and how to fulfill them. They have found that, like with the 1
Magical Bridge, it took a long time to get it going but they hit a place where a few people 2
in the community wrote six-figure checks. There is money, but they just haven’t cracked 3 it yet. It is not magical. He said they have raised money, but not jillions of dollars. 4
Mr. Anderson, on behalf of staff he acknowledged and thanked both men, noting that many 5 times both have called and asked if there is anything they need and how they could help. 6 They have been very supportive, walked the talk, and done much for Parks. 7
Commissioner Moss said this was the reason he brought up advertising. He noted that Mr. 8 Martin has a core group in his network, and he commented that you can’t do everything 9 with a few very wealthy people, but must branch out and get the younger generation 10 involved, the people who are going to primarily benefit from the activities and facilities. 11 He felt that people would donate to such things and suggested entrance fees along with 12 donations. He would like to see almost every event advertised include a note regarding 13 donating to the group, which would help expand the donor community, including the 14 people who benefit from the events. He noted PIE, the similar group for the schools, who 15
advertise heavily to get their funding. 16
Chair Cribbs closed the discussion saluting Mr. Smith and Mr. Morton and their groups 17
for all they have done for their community. 18
5. Create an Ad Potential Fundraising Opportunities for Parks and Recreation 19
Programs and Projects 20
Chair Cribbs said she was requesting a conversation based on the Ad Hoc and things they 21
have been considering. She said a previous Ad Hoc met two years ago and put together 22
reports with some great ideas, and then COVID happened, and she wanted to make sure 23 those ideas and suggestions were not lost. They called this group of ideas Ad Hoc Number 24 One. Chair Cribbs asked Vice Chair Greenfield to speak about the work done by the first 25 Ad Hoc, followed by Commissioner Moss and her. Ad Hoc Number Two, the current year 26 committee, Commissioner Brown and Commissioner LaMere, would then talk about the 27 current situation and fundraising ideas. She asked the group to remember that the City has 28 a budget crisis and that there are few funds and less staff available now to implement their 29 ideas. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield shared from Attachment A, the September 22, 2020, PRC summary. 31 They were in the midst of COVID at the time, and their focus was to address immediate 32 funding and resource gaps, and how to explore opportunities for larger projects. The three 33 approaches they developed for the immediate gaps included updating and promoting a 34 summary of donor and volunteer opportunities for community members, clarifying and 35
publicizing them. He said they tried to clearly document things, and it was like writing a 36
playbook with many different opportunities but each one different. They tried to highlight 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
unique opportunities and, in terms of the bigger, longer-term projects, they were looking 1
into the funding mechanism for them. The overall focus of the group was to put things 2
together so that people could understand it, and to document it, so they can understand 3 where they are, moving forward. One of the obstacles they ran into was the City website 4 was in the process of being updated, so much of their work was put on hold. He said it is 5 now time to revisit these opportunities. 6
Commissioner Moss agreed with this summary. Regarding the bigger picture, he said they 7 have been working on this for a long time. He remembered a meeting with the people who 8 had the very daunting task of spearheading the Library. He said he was excited to see all 9 of the ideas that will be presented by the Second Ad Hoc, and thought they did a good job 10 of taking what the first group started and moving it ahead. Knowing for many years that 11 this subject would have to be dealt with, he thought they were now on the cusp of actually 12 being able to do something about it. 13
Chair Cribbs highlighted the importance of figuring out how to fund a grant writer, so that 14 they could pursue some grants available from government and private foundations. She 15
stressed the situation of the budget and resources of staff as they request and start to 16
publicize the needs and opportunities for contributions. She remarked there is a wonderful 17
Master Plan which has outstanding ideas, which all take time and money, as a structure 18
and foundation for their ideas. Lastly, she said in view of the last couple years, they must 19
be mindful of equity and fairness and including the whole community in the opportunities 20
that exist. 21
Chair Cribbs invited questions or comments from the public. Hearing none, she asked Ad 22
Hoc Number Two to present their ideas. Chair Cribbs commended Commissioner Brown 23 for great points she made in their meetings regarding focus and prioritizing. 24
Commissioner Brown said she became very sensitive to the staffing responsibilities and 25 being familiar with the restrictions of the roles and time constraints. She thought there 26 were opportunities and strengths to take advantage of in terms of making people more 27 aware of opportunities and promoting organizations like the Friends of Palo Alto Parks 28 and the Parks Foundation. Some of her ideas were shown on page five of the report. Taking 29 a page from how Libraries have done funding, she suggested an Adopt-A-Park program. 30 Many library branches have specific branches. For each branch, a “Friends of” or local 31 community could fund through donations. She said she looked at a variety of budgets and 32 some of the library budgets were 90 percent funded by friends and the rest by the local 33 agency, just because there was so much support and the feeling of “That’s my park,” They 34 could take advantage of this by providing the opportunity clearly on the website, hopefully 35
with minimal staff time impact. She suggested having a simple landing page of 36
opportunities to donate on the City website making it easy for a grassroots campaign for 37
people to share the information. She said the committee discussed a giving day, a single 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
day or week to really promote giving, rather than trying to constantly do it day in and day 1
out, and bombarding people with information. She acknowledged the great foundation 2
provided by Ad Hoc Number One. 3
Commission LaMere agreed that the first Ad Hoc did much work to get this started and 4 also Commissioner Brown, who put a lot of thought into it. He agreed with her focus on 5 simplifying things. Lastly, he credited the Chair for pushing the idea and pushing the 6 projects. He felt that they need champions and stakeholders for all of the things they do 7 and with the projects that they look at, because this is what really moves a project, when 8 there are passionate people behind them. He hoped the document could provide a sort of 9 roadmap for people who may be a bit lost. They many have an idea but don’t know how 10 to get it to Council or before the Commission. They don’t know how to raise money or 11 what money is available to be raised. He felt finding stakeholders and being able to give 12 them a roadmap of sorts for raising funds was important. He complimented the Ad Hoc 13 for putting in the time to come up with the different ideas they have. 14
Chair Cribbs said she appreciated and enjoyed the time working on both Ad Hoc 15
committees. She thought everyone had great ideas, such as Commissioner Reckdahl’s 16
lawn signs. She thought there were probably some things to pull out and further summarize 17
and simplify, things that cost little in terms of money and staff time, things they already 18
have that could be pulled together. She liked the one-stop-shop portal idea on the website 19
and would like to work on it to make sure that fundraising opportunities are all in the same 20
place. The current Ad Hoc will go back and further summarize some simple things that 21
don’t cost money and very little staff time, things they already have. She like the one-22
stop-shop portal on the website and would like to work on it to make sure that fundraising 23 opportunities are all in the same place. She also felt there are many partner organizations 24 and stakeholders they could continue to talk to about future plans. She said they ran into a 25 stone wall because the website was being changed, and now the Ad Hoc needs to go back 26 and look at this and make suggestions for a fundraising page. Chair Cribbs said the CIP 27 group will be meeting, so they will be able to see some gaps. She thought the key was in 28 communication, creating a vision and continuing to be in conversation with people who 29 want to help the city continue to be the city they’ve loved for so long. 30
Chair Cribbs added that she hoped to work with the field committees regarding 31 opportunities to do some good work right now on fundraising, but they need to be able to 32 talk together, so she would look to Mr. Anderson for guidance on the Brown Act on how 33 they can do that. She thought once they see some “wins” they will be able to make some 34 exciting things happen. Chair Cribbs asked Council Member Kou if she had any 35
comments. Council Member Kou said it was good to hear her excitement and wanted her 36
to keep going. 37
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Commissioners on what they would like to see 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
done right away. Commissioner Reckdahl said the report looks good and the Ad Hoc has 1
done good work. He thought the City needs to take aggressive action in the sense that Mr. 2
Anderson gets a lot of funding through it. For example, when registering for a class on the 3
Enjoy! Catalog, it would be nice if it could say “Optional donation” or “tax deductible 4 donation to Friends of Palo Alto Parks.” Or, if registering for a $100 class, the option to 5 throw an extra $5 in. Perhaps in-line ads on the Palo Alto website. Perhaps putting up signs 6 for a captive audience sitting on bleachers or on fences of baseball fields. Events where 7 people sit for two hours watching a baseball game, having a sign in front of them saying, 8 “Give to Friends of Palo Alto Parks,” perhaps it would sink in. he thought they needed to 9 look at where the City has captive audiences, and try to target them in those places. Chair 10 Cribbs said that idea should go on their list. 11
Commissioner Brown said, in looking at the notes from the first Ad Hoc, she thought 12 maybe representing it graphically or working it out for things like a new request and how 13 it relates to an Ad Hoc might be an interesting exercise so they could visually look at it, so 14 when an opportunity does arise, they have something to share with them or to show that 15
the process is not that scary. Chair Cribbs gave credit to Commissioner Moss for writing 16
all of those notes out, in specific steps, and it would be great to have it visually represented. 17
Chair Cribbs pointed out Commissioner Brown’s suggestions of good websites to look at 18
from cities that have done good things and had good ideas in terms of parks. She thought 19
it would be worthwhile to look and see what colleagues in other places have done. She 20
asked if they could invite the City of San Francisco Parks Alliance group to give a 21
presentation either at a Commission or maybe at an Ad Hoc meeting about what they’ve 22
done in San Francisco. She asked if staff could suggest what might be better related to 23 Brown Act considerations. Mr. Anderson said he would check on this. He initially didn’t 24 see a problem with them sharing with the full Commission, but he will check into it. Chair 25 Cribbs thought they would provide some useful models of big projects they’ve gotten done 26 over past 10 to 20 years, as well as good reactions to COVID, and programming for that 27 as well. Vice Chair Greenfield commented that he agreed that it would be a good 28 presentation to have for the full Commission and that the Ad Hoc role is really to work on 29 things and bring them back to the full Commission to review. A meeting with the SF Parks 30 Alliance and learning from them as a body would be helpful and appropriate. 31
Commissioner Moss commented, regarding champions and stakeholders, that he firmly 32 believes identifying these is very important for each and every CIP and every project that 33 Mr. Morton is trying to raise funds for. He highlighted the comment about a sign at the 34 entrance to each park and in front of each field inviting contributions for the upkeep of a 35
particular item. He said he didn’t think they even needed to mention a restroom specifically 36
but just a statement that there are a number of projects to help this park, and contributions 37
could be made at certain place. Whether or not there is enough money to do a restroom is 38
beside the point, but getting people to realize that there are constant improvements going 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
on which the public can contribute to would be an easy thing to do. Chair Cribbs interjected 1
that if a sign went up, they would need to have a place for the money to go and approval 2
from the Council for the money to go someplace. Mr. Anderson thought it depended on 3 what they are fundraising for. For example, for a skate park, they would need approval 4 from Council as well as a repository, like the Friends of Palo Alto Parks. 5
Commissioner Moss was thinking if a fund was set up for each park, people could donate 6 to the fund and then the question is, when it finally gets to City Council and they decide 7 to put a restroom in, for example, then money could be drawn from the fund. He wondered 8 if they needed City Council permission to draw money from the fund to offset costs of a 9 project, such as a restroom. Mr. Anderson said that they don’t. Chair Cribbs wanted to 10 make sure she was clear, but asked, if they went to Mr. Smith and asked to have a bucket 11 on his website for each park, and people could put money in it without approval from the 12 Council. Mr. Anderson said this is correct as long as it is not tied to some expectation for 13 a large City project in which the City is beholden to fund maintenance and upkeep. 14
Commissioner Moss had a question about grant writers. He asked if a grant writer is a staff 15
member, or a consultant, and whether they could fund a grant writer without Council or 16
City Manager approval. Mr. Anderson said this has been done both ways. Many staff have 17
written and received grants of varying sizes. The issue is typically that there is not enough 18
staff capacity to do so, especially in his division. It includes not only getting the grant, but 19
also managing the grant, which can extend out for years, so there is a burden that comes 20
with that generous gift of cash. He said, yes, staff could do it and they could also hire a 21
grant writer to chase specific grant funding. For example, if and when they get approval 22
from Council to do some improvements to the Buckeye Creek as discussed long ago, there 23 will definitely be potential for grants. He said maybe part of the CIP funding would be a 24 certain amount to bring on a consultant grant writer who would pursue and get grants for 25 the City. However, he said they do get Council or City Manager approval sometimes 26 before pursuing grants. In certain situations they would need Council approval before 27 pursuing a grant, such as Buckeye Creek. Mr. Anderson said first, the project itself hasn’t 28 been reviewed and approved by Council, and neither has the ability to pursue funding for 29 it. 30
Chair Cribbs invited further Commissioner questions or comments from Council Member 31 Kou. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield commented that he appreciated the great work the Ad Hoc has done 33 preparing the report and materials and furthering the effort. He affirmed Commission 34 LaMere’s comments about champions, and he said Commissioner Brown’s fingerprints 35
are all over the materials and are great work. Finally, he said Chair Cribbs’ passion for the 36
subject and driving of the subject in ways to channel private resources for the benefit of 37
the community is great also. Chair Cribbs said they have a great team and great staff to 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
work with as well. 1
6. Vision for a New Palo Alto Gym 2
Chair Cribbs said this is an item she has been excited about for a long time. She included 3 a memo and discussion. Although they know there is no budget and very little staff, the 4 Ad Hoc tried to work on this subject, and tried to do so without spending too much staff 5 time creating it. The group has been discussing a gym. The Master Plan that called out the 6 need for a gym for many reasons back in 2016 or 2017. She said the Ad Hoc met for the 7 past year on a regular basis to talk about three things they needed to know. First, the 8 location in Palo Alto for a gym if they were able to have one. Second, the needs of a gym, 9 and the kinds of things in a gym that are important. Third, the scope of the gym and if 10 there was the appetite in the community to raise the money for a privately-funded gym. 11 She distinguished two kinds of money to be raised. One, the capital cost of funding a gym, 12 and secondly, the operating costs and ongoing expenses into the future. 13
Chair Cribbs wanted the Ad Hoc to explain their thoughts and where they wanted to go. 14 She also wanted to get the full support of all members of the Commission in thinking a 15
gym is a good idea and not just the Ad Hoc committee. When looking for that support, 16
they must also prioritize the capital projects that they put in their work plan accepted by 17
Council. One was a city gym. One was what to do with the 10.5 acres. Another was the 18
partnership with First Tee, and finally the skate park, which the Council directed the 19
Commission to look at and get back to them on. She also added a discussion about the 20
fields, but said tonight just wanted to talk about the gym. She asked Commission LaMere 21
and Commissioner Reckdahl to comment on this issue. 22
Commission LaMere appreciated the Chair’s desire to research this project and continue 23 to push. Speaking of champions, it takes shape in all forms, whether by citizens or by 24 Commission who have an idea. He said sees a city gym as something that is sorely lacking 25 for a city of Palo Alto’s stature and wealth. He thought a gym could be an anchor of health 26 and wellness for the community and something that should be a priority for the 27 Commission. He said he felt they sometimes get stuck in a dream of Cubberley and are 28 able to push off some ideas of a community center and a gym and place of gathering 29 because there is Cubberley, and Cubberley would get renovated and built. Since 1991, this 30 has not happened, and it is an area of disrepair, with the City owning only eight acres of 31 it. He said they have put time into thinking of different locations and how a gym could be 32 used by every member of the population. It could have areas of accessibility, things for 33 seniors, things for toddlers. It could meet the needs of every citizen in the community. He 34 said much of it comes down to priorities. The City and its citizens make decisions and vote 35
on things and think about things, and make priorities. They can be $40 spent on a parking 36
structure, which is important for business and traffic and flow. Or, $18 million on a bike 37
bridge. There are big projects that have been done, and they are important for the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
community. Some have been awarded some grants, but he pointed out that when 1
something is a priority, funding can be found or things made to happen. He felt for the 2
City not to have a gym and need to always rely on availability at a school or the state of 3 Cubberley, he is very excited to work on and try to push forward this project, trying to 4 come up with ideas and solutions to help it along. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl said one of the things they looked at was locations. There were 6 numerous competing factors in this discussion. One was whether the neighborhood had 7 existing facilities. For example, Ventura has very few facilities, so this would be a center 8 point of the neighborhood; whereas if put in Mitchell Park, which already has a community 9 center nearby, it wouldn’t have as much impact. Another consideration was that having it 10 nearby schools, during the day when the community was not using it as much, the schools 11 could use it. In that sense, Mitchell Park, with three schools nearby, would be a good 12 option. Another consideration is accessibility to youth. They would like to have kids be 13 able to bike to the location. The 10.5 acres has a lot of land, but it is not that accessible to 14 people on bicycles. So again, Mitchell Park or Greer might be a better location. Finally, 15
they considered nearby neighbors. One of the nice things about Ventura is there are not 16
many competing facilities there, but there are neighbors right next door. Outreach would 17
be crucial to find out if neighbors would embrace this or view it as just another source of 18
traffic into their location. If neighbors were a problem then a place like Greer or Mitchell 19
Park, where it could be toward the center of the park might be a better use. He said they 20
haven’t identified a perfect site, but many tradeoffs would have to be weighed. 21
Chair Cribbs said they looked at the many sites listed in the report. There may be a site 22
someplace that is not used for office buildings that could be used for gym that they don’t 23 know about that perhaps a property manager may know. One of the things the committee 24 felt important to focus on was location, so in this report they were recommending two 25 different places. One would be to focus on the 10.5 acres with the idea of looking at all of 26 the stakeholders, including baseball and softball, and see if 22 acres could be utilized – the 27 Baylands Athletic Center and the 10.5 acres, which would give 21 to 22 acres to redo a 28 whole complex. The second option would be to look at Ventura again and try to figure out 29 a way to get some additional land to put about a 1.7-acre gym and parking in that area. 30 They are also interested in what happens at Greer and at Mitchell Park. She said they are 31 probably the least interested in Cubberley, as Commission LaMere expressed. They have 32 waited for a long time for Cubberley. They understand the reasons why they have needed 33 to wait and why it has not worked out, but she said it is just too risky right now, and they 34 need to start a gym on a place where they are confident about the land. She invited 35
Commissioners to offer any ideas. 36
Commissioner Moss said certainly Ventura would get his main vote. However, he wanted 37
to know if it would really be that much faster than putting a bond measure on the ballot, a 38
bond measure for Cubberley and other things. When they did a bond measure for Palo Alto 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Schools they got two swimming pools and two gyms and a theater from one bond measure 1
in one fell swoop. Chair Cribbs agreed and thought it should at least be looked at. She 2
hoped to discuss, first of all, whether the Commission is all in favor of this, or if it is just 3 the Ad Hoc’s idea of what they should do. She wanted to see unanimous consent of the 4 Commission. Secondly, she hoped to get Council Member Kou’s advice on the way to 5 proceed in terms of process, to get the idea to Council and get Council’s direction to pursue 6 it further. 7
Commissioner Brown asked if there was a little bit more background regarding the 8 conversations with the City Manager to date and if the process of bringing it forward from 9 the Ad Hoc to the full Commission and whether it would be a recommendation to the 10 Council for inclusion in the CIP in the future. Chair Cribbs said it was meant to be a private 11 partnership, so that the City would have to have a piece of it, with staffing, and to go 12 through the process. However, the assumption is that they can raise the money, and the 13 model they would use would be the agreement that the Junior Museum had for the City 14 with some modifications about what they learned, both the City and the JMZ, going 15
through the process, because there were some things that they would both do differently. 16
Commissioner Brown then asked about costs. She said the survey that was done of the 17
gyms were mostly privately-funded gyms, and she asked if there was any research done 18
into gyms with public bidding requirements and what the delta would be between the 19
estimate and if it was publicly bid. Also, the 10.5 acres, if there was any sort of additional 20
cost, given the soil conditions. She liked the Burgess Gym example and thought if they 21
could get information from them, publicly available, to create a case study, on revenue, 22
staffing, the accounting of costs, she felt it would be very helpful as the process unfolds. 23 She said there has been a lot of work done since 1991. Chair Cribbs said this is why she is 24 excited about an opportunity to at least have a conversation about it in Palo Alto. She said 25 Commissioner Brown’s two questions could go on the staff list, which Mr. Anderson 26 provided, included in the report, things that staff suggests. Chair Cribbs wanted to at least 27 have a discussion with the Commission about it before finding a way to take it to Council. 28
Council Member Kou asked what motion they will be asking for. Chair Cribbs said the 29 motion would be to suggest to the Council what they are doing and what they have 30 explored so far and asking for their support. Council Member Kou asked if this was the 31 process they had suggested. Mr. Anderson said the Commission can always make a 32 recommendation to Council. The feedback he provided to the Ad Hoc was a long list of 33 things the Council would need to know if they made this recommendation, such things as 34 long term costs, financial plan, exhaustive background details that Council would need. 35
He felt the Chair has tried to get all of that information, and ultimately would like to bring 36
it to Council. He felt that this is a prerogative of the Commission. Council Member Kou 37
said she agreed with this plan. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Vice Chair Greenfield felt the Ad Hoc had done great research and analysis. He felt it was 1
exciting to discuss and envision this idea. It is called out in the Master Plan but is a major 2
project and undertaking, and he thought understanding where in the priorities it fits in is 3 important. He thought it important to step back and specifically talk about the need for the 4 gym as he didn’t think it has been clarified. Although, the City doesn’t own a gym, he 5 wondered if they could better quantify the need for it based on current usage and demand. 6 He appreciated Commission LaMere’s comments about a gym serving as an anchor or hub 7 for the community for both health and wellness and a general gathering point. He asked 8 where they are at right now in terms of gyms and usage with youth groups and adult groups 9 for the gyms at Cubberley, the private gyms, the ones at the YMCA, et cetera. He 10 wondered if they had assessed and quantified the overall demand for gym space from the 11 community. He said it is appropriate to go out and ask for Council’s permission to pursue 12 this first, but he suggested that an important step is to do some community outreach. 13
Chair Cribbs responded that they do know that they no longer have access to Stanford 14 facilities. They do know that both Paly and Gunn are not available to the community in 15
her understanding. Commission LaMere said they are available to rent occasionally but 16
usually only on a Sunday. Sometimes the junior highs are available after 7 or 8 pm, but 17
the high gyms are usually only available on Sundays. Chair Cribbs added that in the past 18
they were unable to open the city to have access to school district gyms until 12:00 at 19
night, for example, to do midnight basketball to keep kids off the streets, et cetera. The 20
access to high school gyms she believes is very limited. She thought it was difficult for 21
other than established groups to rent a facility in Palo Alto, and she felt Cubberley may 22
not be the most attractive place for kids. She said anecdotally they could say they should 23 have a gym in Palo Alto that is City-owned and either City-operated or privately-operated. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield felt that it is clear that anecdotally they do have a need, but he 25 thought City Council may be interested in more specific quantitative data regarding 26 reservations for youth basketball leagues. He said he believes the demand, the shortage, is 27 there. He wondered what programs City staff currently manages in terms of allocating 28 spaces for the gyms contracted with at Cubberley and what information they have about 29 other organizations – basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer, et cetera. Chair Cribbs 30 responded that they could get such information easily, but she felt asking a lot of questions 31 before City Council knows they are embarking on that may not be the best way to go. 32 Commissioner Reckdahl asked if Adam controls the junior high gyms after hours. Mr. 33 Anderson said that is not part of the brokering agreement. 34
Vice Chair Greenfield reiterated that community outreach is a key next step and added that 35
staff input and resources to assess this in terms of what long-term staffing and maintenance 36
support implications would be. Chair Cribbs said the Ad Hoc is getting also information 37
from outside sources regarding operating costs of a gym and creating an endowment going 38
forward if the City were to say they don’t have the resources to operate a gym. She 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
remarked that it appears that they are operating a gym right now at Cubberley, essentially, 1
with staff making reservations and maintenance people fixing things and asked Mr. 2
Anderson to comment on this. Mr. Anderson said there would be a lot more work to do 3 in estimating the costs for a new building, so didn’t think he could answer the question 4 currently regarding transferring the costs of operating the Cubberley gyms over to a new 5 building. Mr. Anderson said he thought the staff at Cubberley are probably managing a 6 number of things at the site. Chair Cribbs said she thought there was a formula that is used 7 to decide the costs of operating a building or a pool or a gym. There’s a multiplier available 8 to estimate costs. 9
Chair Cribbs shared the Ad Hoc’s research on things that a gym would need, including: 10
-Space for three basketball-sized courts which could accommodate basketball, 11 volleyball, pickleball, indoor soccer, badminton or table tennis, with appropriate 12 lines on the floor and equipment storage. 13 -Restrooms, changing rooms (but not including showers, which could be optional). 14 -Administrative offices 15
-Exercise rooms including space for yoga, Zumba, and cardiac programs. 16
-A meeting room and classrooms. 17
18
Chair Cribbs asked for any further suggestions for the list. Commissioner Brown 19
commented that she worried about recommending specific amenities too early in the 20
process, because it is something that could benefit from community engagement and 21
feedback on what the community wants or envisions in a gym. She agreed about needing 22
a bit more information and thought they could use a dollar amount per square footage 23 estimate of getting that information and then arrange those sizes for the gym. Chair Cribbs 24 said the reason they wanted to have at least a summary of what could go in the gym was 25 just to have people understand the vision from the Ad Hoc for the gym, but certainly 26 community outreach would be started. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl said one thing that always worries him is project creep. Everyone 28 wants the Cadillac. Badminton people want badminton. Others want weightlifting and 29 other things, and the project ends up being not buildable, so he was sensitive about 30 specifying amenities prematurely. Chair Cribbs offered that they could just specify three 31 basketball courts. Commissioner Moss remarked whether the changing rooms have 32 showers or not seemed like a no-brainer to him that they would. He also thought it 33 unnecessary to get into all of the details initially. 34
Vice Chair Greenfield agreed about not getting too far into the details. He thought the 35
general vision was great but asked if they have also given thought to what type of space 36
allocation there would be regarding the needs of youth versus adult, versus seniors, versus 37
special needs, as there will be overlap and shared space, as well as time-sharing. He 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
thought it seemed there would need to be some spaces dedicated for specific activities. He 1
said certainly community outreach and understanding the priorities of the community is 2
important. Regarding the three gyms, he asked if there would be separate rooms besides 3 that for smaller-scale activities. Chair Cribbs said that was their vision. If they had three 4 basketball sized courts, then they could accommodate the list of indoor sports described. 5 They would contemplate a couple classrooms and smaller exercise rooms that could be 6 multi-purpose use for seniors or for kids or adults. 7
Commissioner Moss asked if they had used as a model some of the other private gyms 8 they’ve seen in the area. Commission LaMere commented that they looked at other gyms 9 in the area and gotten some cost estimates, but they didn’t have a lot of examples of 10 publicly-funded projects. He added that they could also do more research into that with 11 some nearby cities. Commission LaMere said the gyms they looked at serve different 12 groups. One of them specifically serves a school. Those that serve schools are private gyms 13 serving private entities, but all of them do serve multiple sports and events. He said the 14 Burgess gym would be one example that serves multiple stakeholders in the community. 15
It is the one public gym on the list, as opposed to the four private gyms that are school 16
gyms. These were examples of what the Ad Hoc was looking at in regard to space, 17
additional programming and additional meeting rooms. Commissioner Moss commented 18
that they all have to be ADA compliant and have some of those features. 19
Chair Cribbs asked the Commissioners to view the proposed motion and give their 20
thoughts and comments, and if the Commissioners could support the motion. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl thought the motion was somewhat nebulous in regard to funding 22
and wondered if they should make it clear that it was to be privately funded. Chair Cribbs 23 replied that their thoughts have always been that it would be privately funded, as with the 24 Junior Museum. She did not believe that the Junior Museum has funding going forward. 25 Mr. Anderson said he didn’t believe the operational costs had been finalized. Chair Cribbs 26 thought the agreement that was used would be a model, although they would have to make 27 some changes and additions. She said it has been her thought that, since there is no money 28 and no staff, they will have to figure out a way for the community to fund this so that it 29 would be privately funded. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield thought for Council to be able to support this, it would be important 31 for them to understand that the Commission is envisioning it as a privately funded project. 32 Commissioner Reckdahl said he was thinking they could add something at the end stating 33 that the Commission intends for the construction and operation of the gym to be privately 34 funded and that the Commission should pursue funding sources. Vice Chair Greenfield 35
asked if the Ad Hoc’s intention was for operation to be privately funded, in addition to the 36
construction. Commissioner Reckdahl thought it would be impossible for staff to operate 37
the gym, so they would have to raise enough money to not only build it but also fund 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
ongoing operating expenses. Commissioner Brown commented that since they don’t have 1
that information yet, she would feel more comfortable asking Council to support an initial 2
discovery phase or preliminary phase of a gym by getting information on the cost/revenue 3 of operations, doing a demand assessment, and then the dollars per square foot rather than 4 specific gym amenities. She also suggested putting a timeline on this phase, with a deadline 5 for the Commission to report back with an update, because they are asking for Council 6 approval to utilize staff time and resources to support this phase. Chair Cribbs supported 7 this suggestion. Vice Chair Greenfield liked the idea and advocated wording at the end 8 that the Commission envisions that construction and operation would be publicly funded. 9
The Commission, along with Mr. Anderson and Council Member Kou, discussed at length 10 the content and wording for a proposal to the City Council. Their discussion included: 11 -Assessment of demand for a gym 12 -Analysis of potential cost, on a cost-per-square-foot basis, and potential revenue 13 -A timeline for a preliminary exploration phase with clear benchmarks and an 14 expiration date 15
-A vision for funding of construction as well as funding of operations 16
-A discussion regarding potential for a bond measure as a means of funding 17
-Whether or not to include potential locations 18
MOTION 19
Motion for the Parks and Recreation Commission to support investigating a plan, design 20
and construction of a new public gymnasium was moved by Commission LaMere and 21
seconded by Commissioner Moss. The motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 22
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER 14, 2021, MEETING 23
Mr. Anderson advised that the Foothills Nature Preserve policies would be an action item. 24 He said Adam Howard had discussed the possibility of having court usage on the agenda, 25 and potentially CIPs, which he needed to confirm. Mr. Do said he thought December might 26 be premature for a report because it was potentially not solidified. Mr. Anderson said he 27 and Mr. Do would discuss this in more detail. He did not want to miss giving the full 28 Commission a chance to weigh in and for the public to vet it. He said they will do their 29 best to make that happen at the next meeting. 30
Chair Cribbs asked if there was a way to do anything about the skatepark, or if they would 31 need to wait until January. Mr. Anderson said he wants to move forward with it very soon 32 and would love to have it on the December agenda. He has a request in to one of his 33 colleagues to see if they can help lead the next step, so it is contingent on that. He said he 34 was loathe to say again that he is short on staffing, but unfortunately this is the case on the 35
skatepark project. Chair Cribbs said there was no reason to apologize, as the Commission 36
has discussed budget and staff shortage throughout the meeting. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Mr. Anderson said he wanted to put on people’s radar that they were thinking for the 1
January agenda they would have updates on Golf and Aquatics, Tree Protection, and 2
potentially the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan coming back to the 3 Commission after a very long delay. He looked forward to meeting with the Vice Chair 4 and Chair to discuss agenda planning in more detail. 5
Commissioner Moss asked for an update on the Baylands signage project. Mr. Anderson 6 said he would incorporate this into his next Department Report. 7
Council Member Kou commented that the December meeting date falls on a Policy and 8 Services meeting date, so she would not be in attendance at the Parks and Recreation 9 meeting. Given it would be her last meeting, if she is not assigned to the PRC for the next 10 year, she wanted to comment that it was an absolutely enjoyable year being Liaison to the 11 Parks and Recreation Commission. She said it was, in fact, a very fun committee, but the 12 amount of work that the Commissioners do is also tremendous, and she wanted to say a 13 big thank you for all the work they do. Chair Cribbs responded that she has been very 14 happy that they have had a Liaison who was so interested and present at every meeting, 15
because that is not always the case, and it is very helpful, and they appreciated her 16
commitment. 17
Commissioner Moss said he had the same thoughts, and appreciated Council Member 18
Kou’s participation. It made their job easier and upped their game to have her there. He 19
wanted to make sure as she goes through the arduous process of finding new Parks and 20
Recreation Commissioners that the cohesiveness, calmness and patience of the group is an 21
important aspect that needs to be promoted, and he appreciated having Council Member 22
Kou participate. 23
Council Member Kou responded by thanking Commissioner Moss for all his years of 24 service as well. She asked what he would do with all of his time now. She also thanked 25 Mr. Anderson and Mr. Do. Mr. Anderson said it has been wonderful having Council 26 Member Kou and they are very grateful. Vice Chair Greenfield added his thanks for her 27 engagement and support for the past two years, commenting in his time on the Commission 28 they have not had the same Council Member repeat a term and it’s been great. Council 29 Member Kou shared that the nature environment is very important to her, and she has 30 learned a lot being on the Commission and has enjoyed all of the moments. Mr. Do thanked 31 her for her service and enthusiasm. 32
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 33
Commissioner Moss wanted to mention that the Searsville Dam project has been ongoing 34 for about ten years, trying to figure out what to do with the dam in the Jasper Ridge 35
Preserve at Stanford. The reason it is important for the Commission is first, it’s a good 36
model for the Buckeye Creek project, because even though Stanford is very wealthy, they 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
are going to be going for federal and state grants to work on this project. It is a major flood 1
control project that will affect everything downstream, half of which is Palo Alto, all the 2
way into the Baylands. If they remove this dam it will have major implications for flood 3 control, which is exactly the same issue that the Buckeye Creek Project is dealing with, so 4 it will be a good model for them to watch over the next year or two to see how they get 5 their grants and how quickly they can move, and all of the agencies that they need to deal 6 with, including the Joint Powers group. Secondly, he wanted to mention that he 7 appreciated very much the JMZ tour that he had, and he is looking forward to the opening. 8 He appreciated the statistics from Mr. Anderson about how well-received it is. Thirdly, he 9 brought up resurfacing the Cubberley tennis courts in the spring. He said with that there 10 will be demand for lighting in the fall and winter of 2022 and 2023. He encouraged the 11 Commission to see if there is some way to have temporary lights, like the ones at 12 Cubberley Field, and that they find a way to get the tennis players association to help fund 13 the placement of temporary lights for the Cubberley tennis courts. 14
Chair Cribbs wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving and said she is thankful to be serving 15
on this Commission with all of them, and she is very thankful for the staff and all of Mr. 16
Anderson’s work, as well as Mr. Do’s. 17
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 18
Motion to adjourn by Vice Chair Greenfield, seconded by Commissioner Moss. 19
Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 20
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2021 SUBJECT: FOOTHILLS NATURE PRESERVE POLICY UPDATES RECOMMENDATION The Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc Committee (Ad Hoc) and staff support a Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommendation that City Council adopt the following policies related to Foothills Nature Preserve:
1. Continue the current practice of allowing 500 visitors at any one time and adjust the visitor limit range to allow 400 to 600 people at any one time at staff discretion 2. Prioritize capital budget funds towards the infrastructure improvements to mitigate increased visitation outlined by the Infrastructure Stakeholder group (noted below) and PRC review of the infrastructure plan details
3. Maintain the existing daily use fees, standard annual passes, free entry days, free library entry passes, and free entry for pedestrians and bicycles 4. Adapt free entry policy for select groups to simplify entrance station operations, facilitate entry fee enforcement on weekdays, and expand the list of permanent disabilities to be more inclusive:
a. Change the existing active military and veteran free entry policy to a free annual pass for active military and veteran policy b. Change the existing student driver free entry policy to a 50% discount on an annual pass for students aged 16 to 24 and require that the student be present for entry
c. Expand on the existing free entry policy for vehicles with a Disabled Person
Placard/License Plate to include a free annual pass for people with permanent disabilities as defined by California State Parks (developmental, hearing, speech, visual, mental, or physical disabilities) 5. Do not pursue implementation of a reservation system at this time
6. Update the dog policy under Towle Camp rules to state: when the preserve is closed, dogs
must be confined to campsites, and must be in a tent unless supervised and accompanied at night 7. Request that the Palo Alto Fire Department recommend actions necessary to mitigate wildfire safety concerns related to eucalyptus trees, campfires, and BBQs
BACKGROUND On November 2, 2020, City Council passed the following motion regarding Foothills Nature Preserve (Minutes):
A. Open Foothills Park to the general public by removing limits on non-residents, while
maintaining the maximum capacity of 1,000 persons and providing residents first access to reservations for all facilities. B. Amend or delete outdated and duplicative code language.
2
C. For the first 90 days, temporarily limit the capacity to 750 people at any one time. D. Return to Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission with proposals for fee, capacity, and park management/environmental integrity studies; and
E. Direct staff to use the renaming process to consider renaming Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve. Foothills Nature Preserve opened to the general public on December 17, 2020. On January 26, 2021 (Minutes), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) discussed several items related to
Foothills Nature Preserve that were referred to them by City Council (fees, discounts, rules, and enforcement policies). Included in this discussion was a concern that the pending ordinance and emergency ordinance scheduled for February 1, 2021 City Council Consent Calendar (attached to Agenda Item Number 3) did not include an option for an annual pass, which could limit frequent park users from visiting the park if they must pay a daily entrance fee each time they visit. The
PRC also discussed the limitation on number of visitors allowed in the park at one time, which the emergency ordinance limited to 400 people, not to exceed a maximum of 500 people. On February 1, 2021 (Minutes), City Council approved the ordinance and emergency ordinance for a $6 vehicle entry fee and visitor limit of 400 people at one time, not to exceed 500 people for
Foothills Nature Preserve. On February 11, 2021, the PRC held a special meeting to discuss an annual pass option and the visitor capacity limit for Foothills Nature Preserve (Minutes). On February 22 (Staff Report and Minutes), City Council adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills
Nature Preserve, established an annual pass including several discounts and fee waivers for entry to Foothills Nature Preserve, adjusted the visitor limit to Foothills Nature Preserve, and identified groups (e.g. visitors with reservations in Towle Campground) who do not count toward the visitor limit. Staff began collecting vehicle entrance fees for weekends and holidays beginning Saturday,
February 27, 2021.
On February 23, 2021 (Minutes), the PRC reviewed and discussed a range of Foothills Nature Preserve Daily/Annual Entrance Fee and Visitor Limit policy considerations. This included some policy guidelines that had been recently adopted by City Council but had not previously been
commented on by the PRC. The PRC agreed to support some guidelines, while referring additional
details back to the Ad Hoc Committee for additional assessment and follow-up recommendation. On March 23, 2021 (Staff Report and Minutes), the PRC discussed several Foothills Nature Preserve policies and voted unanimously (6-0, 1 absent) to recommend that Council adopt an
ordinance to amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to include several new vehicle entry fees and
discounts for Foothills Nature Preserve, including new fees for medium and large vehicles/buses, free entry on six specified days per year, free passes to be distributed at libraries; and free entry for student field trips and all fourth-grade students; and direct staff to permanently remove the nine hillside BBQs at Foothills Nature Preserve to help improve fire safety.
On May 10, 2021, City Council (Staff Report) approved the Parks and Recreation Commission’s March 23 recommendation.
3
DISCUSSION The Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc met numerous times over the past eight months to review the following Foothills Nature Preserve policies:
• Visitor Limit
• Infrastructure Improvements
• Entrance Fees and Passes
• Reservation System
• Bicycle Access at Gate D
• Dogs in Foothills Nature Preserve
• Wildfire Safety
• Film and Video Policy
Visitor Limit On December 17, 2020, when the preserve first opened to the general public, the temporary visitor limit was 750 people at any one time. The high number of visitors and the 750-person limit resulted in traffic and parking challenges in the preserve. Park Rangers had approximately 200 contacts for
parking violations in Foothills Nature Preserve and Pearson Arastradero Preserve in the first four months of 2021 (175 parking violation warnings and 27 parking citations). Historically, Rangers issued fewer than 9 parking citations per year. On February 22, 2021 (Staff Report and Minutes), City Council adopted an ordinance to authorize
the City Manager (or designee) to establish the a capacity limit of Foothills Nature Preserve in the range of 300 people to 650 people in order to protect health safety and welfare of preserve users, and to protect the natural resources in the preserve; and/or due to limits in parking, facilities, or staff availability. Staff have used 500 people (200 vehicles) at any one time as the visitor limit since February 2021. The preserve has not reached capacity since April 5, 2021. Park Rangers
have observed that there hasn’t been traffic or parking issues in the preserve while the 500-person limit has been in place. Foothills Nature Preserve entrance was closed to entry due to being at the visitor capacity limit (500 visitors/200 vehicles at any one time) on 16 days in 2021, with multiple closures occurring
on some weekend days. The preserve has not reached capacity since Easter weekend on April 5, 2021. In January 2021, prior to implementing an entrance fee, there were approximately 42,000 visitors. This is 321% higher than the historical average of visitors in January. In March and April, after
the vehicle entrance fee was implemented (staff began collecting vehicle entrance fees on weekends starting on February 27), there were approximately 27,000 visitors per month. The visitation in March and April was a 125% higher than the historical average.
4
• 2021 (January through September): 264,057 visitors / 138,365 vehicles
• 2020 (January through September): 162,342 visitors / 86,757 vehicles
• 2021’s visitation is an increase of 107.5% from the 3-year average (2017-2019), which was
approximately 127,287 visitors in 65,516 vehicles
• In 2021 and historically, approximately 59% of visitation occurs on weekends and holidays
Ad Hoc Recommendation
The Ad Hoc recommends continuing the current practice of allowing 500 visitors at any one time and adjusting the visitor limit range of 400 to 600 people at any one time. When the visitor limit was reduced to 500 people at one time and a weekend entrance fee was
implemented, preserve visitation and capacity have been noticeable more manageable. Previously
observed issues with visitors going off-trail, increased traffic, and parking issues were greatly diminished. The Ad Hoc noted that continuing to allow staff flexibility to make minor adjustments in the visitor limit would be helpful in addressing unforeseen circumstances that may impact preserve visitation.
The Ad Hoc supports narrowing the visitor range because having fewer than 400 visitors at any one time is unnecessary to prevent traffic and parking problems. A visitor limit of fewer than 400 visitors also leads to frequent preserve closures due to reaching capacity. Having more than 600 visitors at one time seems to contribute to problems with traffic and parking, especially in the more
popular areas of the preserve.
5
Infrastructure Improvements
In January 2020, the City Manager assembled a stakeholder group (consisting of representatives from Grassroots Ecology, Friends of Foothills Park, the Environmental Volunteers, Stanford
University Haas Center for Public Service, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Los Alto Hills, and the Chair and Vice Chair of the PRC) to identify and recommend improvements at Foothills Nature Preserve. The stakeholder group developed a list of infrastructure improvements aimed at protecting the habitat and improving visitor safety and experience. Examples of some of the proposed improvements include split rail fence to encourage visitors to stay on trail, a pedestrian
pathway throughout the preserve to allow visitors to avoid walking on the roadway, better defined parking spaces, additional crosswalks and speed bumps to improve pedestrian safety, and additional signage to guide visitors. When the preserve first opened to the general public, the visitation increased significantly. There
were issues with people hiking off trail and parking in inappropriate places. Staff responded right away by adding signs, caution tape, and cones to guide visitors to stay on trail and to park appropriately.
There currently isn’t funding or staff available to document and complete a conceptual plan set with cost estimates. Staff will submit a capital budget request to fund the development of improvement plan in Fiscal Year 2023 and for the construction of the improvements in Fiscal Year 2024.
Ad Hoc Recommendation The Ad Hoc recommends moving forward with infrastructure improvements as soon as funding is available and allocating capital budget towards the infrastructure improvements outlined by the
stakeholder group and PRC review of plan details. While reduced visitation has lessened the immediate urgency, these improvements remain important for visitor safety and habitat protection. Entrance Fees and Passes
The Ad Hoc reviewed the current Foothills Nature Preserve entrance fees and various options for
free or discounted entry.
• Daily Use Fee: o Vehicle Capacity 9 passengers or less --$6 o Vehicle Capacity 10-24 passengers -- $30
o Vehicle Capacity 25 or more passengers with a group permit--$60
o Pedestrians and Bicycles - Free
• "Standard" Annual Passes o Resident and City Employees $50
o Non-Resident $65
o Seniors 25% discount (resident or non-resident)
• "Special" Annual Passes
o Low-income Visitors (resident or non-resident)
o Vehicles with Disabled Person Placard/License Plate-- Free
o Fourth Grade Students-- Free
• Free Entry Days
o First Friday in October (10/1/21)
o First Saturday in December (12/4/21)
6
o Third Monday in January (1/17/2022)
o First Tuesday in March (3/1/2022)
o Last Wednesday in April (4/27/2022)
o Third Thursday in June (6/16/2022)
• Free Entry for Student Drivers
• Free Entry for Active Military and Veterans
• Free Library Entry Passes
There have been 11,436 paid entry fees since staff began collecting the entry fee on weekends and
holidays starting on February 2021. There have been 1,552 uses of the annual pass during weekends for a total of 12,988 paid entries into the park on weekends and holidays. There have been 1,036 instances park entries where the fee is waived, accounting for 7.4% of all weekend and holiday entries. By far the largest category of waived entry is for student drivers with 678 recorded
entries, which accounts for 65% of free entries and 4.8% of total visitation entries for weekends
and holidays. Staff anticipate implementing weekday fee collection via an automated machine starting March 2022.
Foothills Annual Pass Sales February 2021 - October 25, 2021
Q3 & Q4
FY 2021
FY 2022
YTD Total Percentage
Regular Annual Pass 444 98 542 76%
Low Income 7 0 7 1%
Veterans and Active-Duty Military 8 3 11 2%
Senior 121 35 156 22%
4th Grade 0 1 1 0%
TOTAL 580 137 717 100%
Ad Hoc Recommendation The Ad Hoc supports the current policy and recommends no change for the following:
• Daily Use Fees
• Standard Annual Passes
• Free Entry Days
• Free Library Entry Passes
The Ad Hoc recommends three changes to the entry fees and passes:
• Change the existing active military and veteran free entry policy to a free annual pass for
active military and veteran policy
• Change the existing student driver free entry policy to a 50% discount on an annual pass for students aged 16 to 24 and require that the student be present for entry
• Expand on the existing free entry vehicles with a Disabled Person Placard/License Plate to
include a free annual pass for people with permanent disabilities as defined by California
State Parks (developmental, hearing, speech, visual, mental, or physical disabilities)
7
These changes are aimed at simplifying entrance station operations, reducing entrance queues, ensuring that entrance fees can be fairly enforced once weekday entry fee collection begins (targeting March 2022), and making the disabled free entry policy more inclusive of people with
different types of disabilities.
Active Military and Veteran Free Entry The Ad Hoc recommends that the active military and veteran free entry would be changed to a free annual pass option. The reason is that it will not be enforceable on weekdays when staff are not
present at the entrance station.
Student Driver Free Entry The Ad Hoc wants to support and encourage youth and students to visit Foothills Nature Preserve. Unfortunately, there have been some challenges with the existing free entry for student drivers. It
has resulted in confusion for many park visitors, in particular the fact that the student needs to be
driving the vehicle. It has led to a number of arguments with park visitors at the entrance station, which sometimes contributes to vehicles backed up waiting to get into the preserve. The Ad Hoc recommends that the student driver free entry be changed to a 50% discount on an
annual pass for students aged 16 to 24 and requiring that the student be present for entry. An
additional challenge with the free entry for student drivers is that it will not be enforceable during weekdays when the entrance station isn’t staffed. Staff will not be able to identify student driven vehicles on weekdays. The Ad Hoc does want to support and encourage youth to visit the preserve.
Vehicles with a Disabled Person Placard/License Plate Free Entry
The Ad Hoc recommends adding an additional free annual pass option for people with permanent disabilities as defined by California State Parks (https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30236), which has a 50% discount on their passes for people with permanent developmental, hearing, speech, visual, mental, or physical disabilities. The Ad Hoc noted that the City’s existing free entry
for vehicles with disabled person placard/license plate would be more inclusive if it included
people with different types of disabilities. The Ad Hoc recommends modeling the program after the California State Park example, which requires an applicant to submit an application signed by a doctor in order to get the free annual pass. These applications will not be processed at the preserve, but rather online or in person at the Lucy Stern Community Center.
Reservation System While visitation at the preserve is approximately 107% higher than the historical average, the preserve hasn’t reached capacity since April 2021. A reservation system would be complex to implement, and likely unnecessarily limit the total number of people who are able to visit the preserve. If visitation increases in the future to the point that the preserve frequently reaches
capacity, a reservation system can be considered. The Ad Hoc Recommendation The Ad Hoc does not recommend pursuing a reservation system at this time.
8
Bicycle Access at Gate D In August 2021, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) voted to request that Transportation Department staff work with Parks and Recreation to allow bicycle riders to enter
Foothills Nature Preserve from the Pearson Arastradero Preserve through Gate D.
In 2005, City Council designated countywide trails within the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve and a pedestrian trail through Foothills Nature Preserve to connect the Pearson Arastradero Preserve with the adjoining Los Trancos Open Space Preserve in exchange for a funding pledge of $1,000,000 from the Santa Clara County Park Charter Fund, and a pledge of $1,000,000 from
the California Coastal Conservancy. The Palo Alto Municipal Code 22.04.150 was amended to allow access to the general public for use of Bay-to-Foothills trails and allow the general public (pedestrians only, and not persons on horses or bicycles) to access the preserve at two additional designated points-of-entry for the sake
of using the Bay-to-Foothills trails within Foothills Nature Preserve. The entry points were through an existing gate (Gate D) into the Pearson Arastradero Preserve and through an existing pathway (Gate Z) into the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. On September 21, 2021, the PRC Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc met with PABAC
representatives on to discuss bicycle access through Gate D. PABAC representatives explained that there was no point in opening the trail to more than pedestrians in 2005 because people entering through Gate D were supposed to stay on the Bay to Ridge Trail. They believe that there is no reason why that gate should stay closed to bikes, since it is legal to bike on either side of the gate (Foothills paved one-way road on one side and the Pearson Arastradero trail on the other side.
While they acknowledge that there could be a safety concern about bikes coming down hill on the one-way road, they believe that adequate signage would ensure that bikes coming through the gate would travel in the appropriate direction on the road. They also pointed out that if Gate D were open, it would increase trail connections and increase recreational bike riding opportunities. They
noted that the people who have biked through Pearson Arastradero Preserve to get to Gate D will
have no problem biking up the steep one-way road. PABAC representatives mentioned that if Gate D were open to bike access, it would likely be publicized by bicycle clubs and the access point would be used by the bike clubs for group rides.
The Ad Hoc noted safety concerns about bicyclists potentially going down the hill against the
traffic on the one-way road and going onto the Foothills Nature Preserve trails, which is prohibited. Bikes on trails and bikes coming down the one-way road are existing problems that are difficult to address. The Ad Hoc also pointed out that Open Space doesn’t have enough staff to monitor or enforce these issues. Since the Foothills Nature Preserve opened to the general public in December
2020, visitation to the preserve has increased significantly. Some Ad Hoc members noted that the
increase in vehicle traffic in the preserve heightens the concern about potential car/bike interactions on the one-way road. The Ad Hoc questioned whether there may be an environmental impact from increased bicycle traffic in the preserve. One member of the Ad Hoc (Reckdahl) stated that the people who are going to bike illegally on trails would do it regardless of changing the
access through Gate D, and that the rule only punishes the rule followers. Commissioner Reckdahl
also suggested the idea of a pilot program of opening Gate D to bike access for a limited time frame to see if it causes any issues, although there are concerns about the challenge of ending a pilot and stopping bike access once the practice has been in place.
9
Ad Hoc Recommendation The Ad Hoc doesn’t have a unanimous recommendation on whether to open Gate D to bicycle
access. The Ad Hoc noted the following benefits of opening Gate D to bicycle access:
• Increase connections between open space preserves
• Increase recreational opportunities
• Provides an additional safe route for bicycle access (avoiding Page Mill Rd.) However, the Ad Hoc is concerned about the following potential impacts:
• Bikes going the wrong way down a narrow one-way road
• An increase in illegal use of bikes on trails
• Impacts to already limited staff resources to monitor and enforce issues
• Challenge in reversing course if a pilot opening of the gate is attempted and is unsuccessful
Dogs in Foothills Nature Preserve The Ad Hoc reviewed the City’s dog policies in Foothills Nature Preserve and found that the existing municipal codes for leash requirements (dogs must be leashed and under physical control at all times while in the preserve) and exclusion of dogs from the preserve on weekends and
holidays are appropriate. The Ad Hoc noted that the current rules for Towle Camp don’t require that dogs stay confined to the campsites at night. The Ad Hoc and staff researched other agencies policies for dogs in campgrounds and found the following:
• California State Parks allow dogs in their campgrounds (https://www.parks.ca.gov/dogs) with the following conditions: Dogs must not be left unattended, and overnight campers must keep their dog in a tent or vehicle.
• Santa Clara County Parks allows dogs in their campground
(https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/Activities/Camping-Yurts/Pages/Camping-Family-Camping-Sites.aspx) and require that the dogs be confined to tents or vehicles at night.
• San Mateo County Parks doesn’t allow dogs in their campground
(https://parks.smcgov.org/huddart-park-regulations).
The Rangers noted that it isn’t common to have dogs in Towle Camp because the majority of campground reservations are on weekends, and dogs are not allowed on weekends.
Ad Hoc Recommendation The Ad Hoc recommends that the rules for dogs staying in Towle Camp should be updated to state:
When the preserve is closed, dogs must be confined to campsites, and must be in a tent unless
supervised and accompanied at night.
Wildfire Safety
At the City Council study session on foothills fire mitigation strategies on August 30, 2021, staff
discussed a July 28, 2021 fire safety field survey of Foothills Nature Preserve and Pearson Arastradero Preserve, which highlighted the following observations:
• The general feedback was that the status of this year’s wildfire prevention work, and what
is still visible from previous year’s work, appears highly effective.
• There are several eucalyptus trees that should be pruned or removed
10
• Support the closure of the campfire circles at Towle Camp for the remainder of the camping season
• Noted that the campground fire circles and the BBQs at Foothills Nature Preserve are well-maintained and low-fire risk There were several comments from City Council regarding these issues and a request to return to
Council with options for Council’s consideration. A date has not been set for when this topic will
be brought to City Council. Eucalyptus Trees Open Space staff surveyed the eucalyptus trees (noting the number of trees and approximate size)
in Foothills Nature Preserve and Pearson Arastradero Preserve. There are approximately 65
eucalyptus trees in the preserves, and 41 eucalyptus trees that appear to be on Stanford property adjacent to Pearson Arastradero Preserve. Removal of the eucalyptus trees, the required biological surveys, and the required native tree
replanting mitigation for the 65 trees inside the City preserves would cost approximately $350,000.
If City Council directs staff to remove the eucalyptus trees, staff would get price quotes from vendors for the removal of the eucalyptus trees and the required mitigation tree replanting, and work to identify a funding source. Selectively removing the trees over a multi-year period could reduce the level of impact on the wildlife habitat they provide.
Campfires and BBQs The two campfire circles at Towle Camp are typically open with a permit during camping season (May 1 through October 31) and prohibited on Red Flag Warning days. No campfire permits were granted this year due to the severity of the last year’s fire season. During camping season, there
are regular requests for campfire permits, at least one per day. The campfire circles could be
removed to further reduce fire risk in Foothills Nature Preserve. If City Council directs staff to
remove the campfire circles, the removal could be accomplished with existing staff resources. The BBQs in Foothills Nature Preserve are typically open all year, except on Red Flag Warning days. While there are signs at each BBQ informing people not to move the ashes, there have been issues with people putting hot coals from BBQs into dumpsters and causing dumpster fires. There
have been observations of park visitors walking away from BBQs and leaving them unattended. Staff maintain a minimum of 10’ vegetation clearance around BBQs and campfire circles.
Staff completed a survey of BBQ and campfire policies from a few neighboring park agencies for reference:
San Mateo County Parks
• Only allow charcoal for the BBQs, and during high fire risk days they may close select BBQs. If a person has a paid picnic area reservation, BBQing is allowed even on the high fire risk days.
• Do not allow any wood burning fires in the park. Do allow charcoal BBQs in their
campground.
11
California State Parks
• Allow wood fires and BBQs
• On Red Flag days, no wood fires and no BBQs are allowed (propane camp stoves are allowed)
• Have had issues this year with abandoned campfires
• State Parks typically have staff or campground hosts staying overnight in the campground to monitor issues Santa Clara County Parks
• Allow wood fires and BBQs (charcoal only). They require a 10’ clearance around BBQs
• On Red Flag days wood fires are prohibited, but charcoal BBQs are allowed. Camp stoves or gas grills are permitted on red flag days.
Loch Lomond Recreation Area
• BBQs have been banned for rest of the year Staff developed a few options to further reduce the fire risk of the BBQs for City Council’s consideration:
• Close the BBQs during fire season (April 1 to November 1)
o Dates may be adjusted as needed per direction from the Fire Department o The BBQs could be chained down to prevent their use during fire season and education signs added to explain the closure
• Remove all the BBQs (8) in Towle Camp and the 8 BBQs in Orchard Glen Picnic Area that boarder the vegetation and creek o These BBQs are located in more remote areas and are closer to vegetation than the other BBQs
• Remove all BBQs in Foothills Nature Preserve (8 in Towle Camp, 28 in Orchard Glen Picnic Area, and 2 in Oak Grove Picnic Area) Ad Hoc Recommendation
The Ad Hoc is concerned about fire safety issues highlighted in the August 30 City Council Study
Session related to eucalyptus trees, campfires, and BBQs in Foothills Nature Preserve. An additional concern is the limited resources available to monitor campfires and BBQs. The Ad Hoc recommends that the Palo Alto Fire Department provide guidance on actions to mitigate wildfire safety concerns related to eucalyptus trees, campfires, and BBQs. Film and Video Policy The Ad Hoc reviewed the existing film and video policies for the preserve and recommends a broader consideration of policy changes which would apply to all Open Space and Parks. This discussion has been placed on a separate agenda item. TIMELINE
• February 2022-- Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to City Council.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2021 SUBJECT: OPEN SPACE AND PARKS PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM POLICY RECOMMENDATION The Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc Committee (Ad Hoc) and staff support a Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) recommendation that City Council adopt the draft Open Space and Parks photography and film policy (Attachment A).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ad Hoc drafted a policy that specifies when a permit is required and clarifies what type of activities may be allowed.
• “Photography and Film” is defined as the recording on any medium of still or motion
images
• Personal Photography and Film
o No permit required
o Non-commercial
o No impact on vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use
o Maximum duration of one hour
• Low-Impact Photography and Film
o Permit required
o Generally associated with smaller shoots
o No significant impact on vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use
o Maximum duration of two hours
o Not permitted on weekends and holidays
• High-Impact Photography and Film
o Not allowed
o Generally associated with:
Medium/large commercial shoots
Significant impact to City-owned property or public right-of-way
Traffic control/street closures
Shoots with multiple cameras, photographers, assistants, and talent
BACKGROUND Open Space staff receive approximately 5 to 10 photography and film permit requests per year.
Existing City of Palo Alto Parks and Open Space Regulation on Photography and Film
R1-21A. COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILMING
No person shall photograph or film for commercial purposes in City Parks or Open Space except pursuant to a permit authorizing such activity or except for those
activities associated with and supportive of City programs or City-sponsored events. For the purpose of this section, “photograph or film for commercial purposes” means the recording, on any medium, of still or motion images that
involves the use of professional models or commercial articles filmed or photographed for the purpose of commercial advertising, or the use professional casts, settings, or crews in any motion picture, television, or similar production. This section shall not apply to the commercial operation of cameras as part of the bona fide reporting of news, or for small photo or film events, consisting of a
single photographer or videographer with a total group size of no more than 24 persons (permit is required for exclusive use of any area of park land), as long as all other rules and regulations are followed. A. Applications shall be submitted not less than ten (10) working days before the proposed use.
B. No sound amplification equipment, which will disturb the peace, may be used in connection with any photo shoot, except when used by City employees or safety officers for purposes of crowd control. C. No permit shall be granted for any event between the hours of 8:00 PM and 9:00 AM without the prior approval of the Director. D. No permit shall be granted when the closure would result in hampering prompt access to an area or location by emergency vehicles.
The current permit process for photography and film in Open Space and Parks is through the Special Event Permit Application: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/community-
services/parks-and-open-space/special-event-application-2019.pdf.
DISCUSSION
The Ad Hoc reviewed the existing photography and film policy as part of their review of multiple policies relating to Foothills Nature Preserve. Because the photography and film policy applies to all open space preserve and parks, this policy was separated as its own agenda item.
In general, the Ad Hoc believes that open space and parks are not appropriate locations for
commercial photography and film due to its impact on vegetation, habitat, wildlife, and visitor experience. In addition, limited staff resources cannot provide proper oversight for this type of activity. This could be re-evaluated in the future if appropriate staff resources were available.
The Ad Hoc drafted a policy that specifies when a permit is required and clarifies what type of
activities may be allowed.
• “Photography and Film” is defined as the recording on any medium of still or motion images.
• Personal photography and film, which is non-commercial, will not have an impact on vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use, and has a maximum duration of one hour, is
allowed without a permit.
• Low-impact photography and film, which is generally associated with smaller shoots that do not significantly impact City-owned property, the public right-of-way, or vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use, may be allowed with a permit. Low-Impact photography
and film may be a commercial activity. It is not allowed on weekends or City holidays, and the maximum duration is limited to two hours.
• High-impact photography is not allowed. It is generally associated with medium and
large commercial shoots with multiple cameras, photographers, assistants, and talent. It significantly impacts City-owned property or the public right-of-way either by utilizing a large area of City-property, negatively impacting the property, or requiring traffic control/street closures.
The Ad Hoc recommends the following be adopted as the photography and film policy for Open Space and Parks:
Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy Photography and Film Permit overview
• Photography and film is defined as the recording on any medium of still or motion
images
• Permits are not required for personal photography and film
• Permits are required for low-impact photography and film
• High-impact photography and film are not permissible
• Please allow a minimum of two weeks (14 calendar days) for permit approval and
processing
• Permit fees may apply
• Parking is limited, and vehicles generally are not permitted outside of designated parking lots and roadways
• The use of drones is not permitted
• To protect wildlife and habitat, access is limited to designated trails (see exclusions
below) and established use areas such as turf and picnic areas
Personal Photography and Film—No Permit Required
Permits are not required for photography and film that meets all the following requirements:
• Non-commercial (still, motion picture, video, digital, and other)
• No impacts to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use
• 24 or fewer people
• Duration of one hour or less
• No exclusive use of parks and preserves (blocking trails, parking spaces, roads, pathways,
or any public access)
• In compliance with all municipal codes and park regulations. Municipal Code and Park Regulations may be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Open-Space-
Parks/Open-Space-Preserves/Rules-Regulations
• Examples of personal photography and film include photography that does not require additional permits, small professional group shoots with limited subjects and crew (e.g., one photographer, 1-5 subjects) such as an engagement or immediate family photography
session, and shoots with no impact to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use.
Photography and Film--Permit Required
Low-impact photography and film may be permitted. This is generally associated with smaller shoots that do not significantly impact City-owned property, the public right-of-way, and other visitors use of the park or preserve. Permits cannot be issued for shoots that will have any
significant impacts to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use. Low-impact photography or film requires that a completed Photography and Film Permit application be submitted to the manager of the desired park or preserve. The application will be reviewed, and a permit may be granted once all fees and forms have been submitted. Wedding
photography and film may, depending on the circumstances, require a permit and fees. Permits are required for photography and film that includes:
• Commercial shoot (as defined in Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Regulations R1-21A)
• Duration of up to two hours
• Multi-camera shoot
• Additional lighting, sound, and other equipment
Permits for photography and film will not allow the following:
• Commercial shoots that significantly impact City-owned property or the public right-of-way, either by utilizing a large area of City-property, negatively impacting the property, or requiring traffic control/street closures. Typically, these shoots include a crew with multiple photographers/cameras, and assistants and talent.
• Shoots on weekends and City holidays
• Shoots during park closure hours
• Duration of shoot for more than two hours, including set up and tear down
• Exclusive use of a significant area within a park or preserve
Photography and Film Permit Application Conditions
All permit applicants shall accept and agree to comply with the following photography and
film general conditions:
1. Utmost care will be exercised to ensure that wildlife, habitat, and natural/historic/cultural resources are not disturbed or impacted.
2. Photography and film of wildlife will be permitted only when such wildlife will not be
approached within 100’, fed, harmed, or otherwise disturbed from their natural behavior. 3. Drones are not allowed.
4. No employee of the City of Palo Alto may work for the permittee in any capacity
whatsoever while in uniform or if directly involved in supervision of the permittee. 5. Amplified sound such as gunfire, sirens, public address systems, and other similar noise-producing equipment are not permitted under any circumstances. Other amplified sound such
as music requires an additional noise abatement permit for a level more than fifteen dB above
the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more. PAMC 22.04.180/PAMC 9.10.050 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-83686#JD_22.04.180
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-66214#JD_9.10.050 6. Production vehicles shall park according to an approved parking plan.
7. Areas of filming shall be cleared, and the site left as found at end of each day’s shooting. 8. Smoking, vaping, or any open flame are not permitted.
9. Exclusive use of any significant areas is not permitted, including:
• Closing roads and trails
• Off-trail access
• Access to trails less than 48” (must allow at least 5’ of trail width for other park visitors to pass)
• Use of generators requires an additional permit and fees (see Special Event Permit Application)
11. Fees will be determined during the permit review process and will be discussed with
applicant prior to permit issuance. A refundable deposit of up to $1,000 may be required to ensure compliance with permit conditions. The amount, if any, to be refunded to the permittee is solely at the discretion of the City of Palo Alto.
12. A permit is required for all groups of 25 people or
more https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Open-Space-
Parks/Open-Space-Preserves/Rules-Regulations
13. Permit fees for Parks and Open Space range $324 - $2,163 (this is the same range for special event permits)
TIMELINE
• February 2022—Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to City Council.
Attachment A
Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy Photography and Film Permit overview
• Photography and film is defined as the recording on any medium of still or motion images
• Permits are not required for personal photography and film
• Permits are required for low-impact photography and film
• High-impact photography and film are not permissible
• Please allow a minimum of two weeks (14 calendar days) for permit approval and processing
• Permit fees may apply
• Parking is limited, and vehicles generally are not permitted outside of designated parking lots and roadways
• The use of drones is not permitted
• To protect wildlife and habitat, access is limited to designated trails (see exclusions
below) and established use areas such as turf and picnic areas
Personal Photography and Film—No Permit Required Permits are not required for photography and film that meets all the following requirements:
• Non-commercial (still, motion picture, video, digital, and other)
• No impacts to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use
• 24 or fewer people
• Duration of one hour or less
• No exclusive use of parks and preserves (blocking trails, parking spaces, roads, pathways,
or any public access)
• In compliance with all municipal codes and park regulations. Municipal Code and Park Regulations may be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Open-Space-Parks/Open-Space-Preserves/Rules-Regulations
• Examples of personal photography and film include photography that does not require additional permits, small professional group shoots with limited subjects and crew (e.g., one photographer, 1-5 subjects) such as an engagement or immediate family photography session, and shoots with no impact to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use.
Photography and Film--Permit Required Low-impact photography and film may be permitted. This is generally associated with smaller shoots that do not significantly impact City-owned property, the public right-of-way, and other visitors use of the park or preserve. Permits cannot be issued for shoots that will have any
significant impacts to vegetation, habitat, wildlife, or visitor use.
Low-impact photography or film requires that a completed Photography and Film Permit application be submitted to the manager of the desired park or preserve. The application will be
reviewed, and a permit may be granted once all fees and forms have been submitted. Wedding photography and film may, depending on the circumstances, require a permit and fees.
Permits are required for photography and film that includes:
• Commercial shoot (as defined in Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Regulations R1-21A)
• Duration of up to two hours
• Multi-camera shoot
• Additional lighting, sound, and other equipment
Permits for photography and film will not allow the following:
• Commercial shoots that significantly impact City-owned property or the public right-of-way, either by utilizing a large area of City-property, negatively impacting the property, or requiring traffic control/street closures. Typically, these shoots include a crew with
multiple photographers/cameras, and assistants and talent.
• Shoots on weekends and City holidays
• Shoots during park closure hours
• Duration of shoot for more than two hours, including set up and tear down
• Exclusive use of a significant area within a park or preserve
Photography and Film Permit Application Conditions
All permit applicants shall accept and agree to comply with the following photography and
film general conditions: 1. Utmost care will be exercised to ensure that wildlife, habitat, and natural/historic/cultural resources are not disturbed or impacted.
2. Photography and film of wildlife will be permitted only when such wildlife will not be approached within 100’, fed, harmed, or otherwise disturbed from their natural behavior. 3. Drones are not allowed.
4. No employee of the City of Palo Alto may work for the permittee in any capacity whatsoever while in uniform or if directly involved in supervision of the permittee. 5. Amplified sound such as gunfire, sirens, public address systems, and other similar noise-
producing equipment are not permitted under any circumstances. Other amplified sound such
as music requires an additional noise abatement permit for a level more than fifteen dB above the local ambient at a distance of twenty-five feet or more. PAMC 22.04.180/PAMC 9.10.050 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-83686#JD_22.04.180 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-66214#JD_9.10.050
6. Production vehicles shall park according to an approved parking plan. 7. Areas of filming shall be cleared, and the site left as found at end of each day’s shooting.
8. Smoking, vaping, or any open flame are not permitted.
9. Exclusive use of any significant areas is not permitted, including:
• Closing roads and trails
• Off-trail access
• Access to trails less than 48” (must allow at least 5’ of trail width for other park visitors to pass)
• Use of generators requires an additional permit and fees (see Special Event Permit Application)
11. Fees will be determined during the permit review process and will be discussed with applicant prior to permit issuance. A refundable deposit of up to $1,000 may be required to ensure compliance with permit conditions. The amount, if any, to be refunded to the permittee
is solely at the discretion of the City of Palo Alto.
12. A permit is required for all groups of 25 people or more https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Open-Space-Parks/Open-Space-Preserves/Rules-Regulations
13. Permit fees for Parks and Open Space range $324 - $2,163 (this is the same range for special
event permits)
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: LAM DO
SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2021 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FY 2023-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report. No action is recommended. BACKGROUND The FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan will guide the City in the planning and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over the next five years. It is being
developed in coordination with all City departments responsible for capital projects. After the City Manager presents to the City Council a citywide Proposed FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review the CIP Plan in April or May 2022 to evaluate the program’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The PTC will then forward
its recommendations to the Finance Committee and City Council. Council adoption of the CIP Plan is anticipated in June 2022. The FY 2022-2027 Proposed Capital Budget will include the Capital Improvement Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds.
Every CIP has a project page that provides details regarding the project description, justification, significant changes, schedule, funding, budget source, and other details. The following is a sample of a project page for Heritage Park Site Amenities Replacement, PG-21000:
2
3
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy-2022-city-budget/adopted-budgets/capital-budget-book-web.pdf DISCUSSION For Fiscal Year 2022, improvement projects completed or anticipated to be completed from CIP
funding include:
• Palo Alto Bowling Green fence repair
• Entry signage in Open Space at Foothills Nature Preserve, Baylands Nature Preserve, and
Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center
• Cubberley tennis court repair
• Magical Bridge Playground surfacing and repairs
• Lytton Plaza fountain base repair
• Boronoda Lake removal of aquatic vegetation
• Ramos Park renovation
• Cameron Park renovation This review and discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission is for CIPs proposed by the Community Services Department. These CIPs are pending reviews by a citywide CIP
committee, the Office of Management and Budget, and the City Manager’s Office.
4
The following are projects being proposed by the department for FY 2023:
The list above includes $835,000 for on-going annual projects consisting of trail and pond maintenance, emergency repairs, court re-surfacing, and replacement or repair of benches,
signage, fencing, walkways, and landscaping.
In June 2022, Council will review and approve the FY 2023-2027 Capital Plan. It should be noted that City Council only approves the budget for the first year of any five-year CIP Plan and the remaining four years are to be used for forecasting and planning. Attachment A
lists all projects the department has under consideration for the five-year CIP Plan. The
attachment also includes a total by Fiscal Year and area of expenditure. Funding The funding for CIP projects comes from a variety of different sources. The majority of CIPs are
funded through the General Fund. Projects that meet the criteria of Impact Fees (which include
amenities that increase the capacity of a park) may utilize Park Development Impact Fee funding (e.g. a new park restroom). Projects at the Cubberley Community Center may be able to use Cubberley Funds, which is an account that the City contributes funds which were previously paid to the Palo Alto School District under the Covenant not to Develop Agreement.
Prioritization
The method for prioritizing projects has evolved through the years. In the past staff applied a priority matrix and ranked projects based on the following criteria:
• Council Direction
• Leverage Funding (Private/Public/Grants/Impact Fees)
• Health and Safety Requirements
• Code/Legal Requirements
• Operational Needs and Efficiency
• Sustainability
• Community Priorities
5
• Revenue Generating Potential At present, projects are prioritized based on a combination of the criteria listed above, as well as
feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and
addressing Catch-up/Keep-up projects as a priority. Catch-up and Keep-up are terms used by the City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee that evaluated the City’s infrastructure in 2011. Catch-up projects are ones that were identified previously as a priority need for repair or replacement but were never implemented. Erosion repairs to Buckeye Creek is a good example
of a Catch-up project because it was identified many years ago as a need, but wasn’t addressed.
Keep-up projects are the ones that are forecasted to be necessary for repair or replacement in a coming year. An example of a Keep-up project would be replacement of park amenities that will have reached the end of its anticipated useful life such as the sample Boulware Park Improvement project which also incorporates a park expansion.
CIP Process Timeline
• November: Staff begin planning for the next capital budget and meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee to discuss prioritizing the projects.
• December/January: Staff submit the department’s proposed five-year capital improvement projects to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Administrative Services Department.
• February/March: OMB reviews all departments and makes recommendations.
• April: City Manager reviews and presents to City Council a Proposed FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Plan.
• April/May: Planning and Transportation Commission reviews the Capital Plan to ensure the projects comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
• May: Finance Committee reviews capital plan.
• June: City Council reviews and adopts capital plan and budget. Attachments Attachment A: CSD Proposed CIP projects FY 2023-2027
Community Services Department CIPs
FY 2023 - 2027 *
Approximate Amount
*Scope of Project *Program Area Fund
CIP FY23
Parks
Dog Park Installation and Renovation- PG-18001 150,000$ Adds or renovates a dog park Parks
Park Impact
Fees
Rinconada Park Phase II (Design)
500,000$ Phase II Parks General Fund
Open Space
Foothills Nature Preserve Improvements
75,000$
Repair Sunfish Bridge Island and
design to replace Buckeye Creek
grade control structures and
pedestrian bridge Open Space General Fund
Other
Byxbee Park Completion (Construction)- PE-18006 2,450,000$ Being developed in the BCCP
Byxbee Conceptual Plan Open Space
Park Impact
Fees
On-Going CIPs 835,000$
On-Going CIPs for court surfacing,
playground repairs, fencing,
walkways, and trail and pathway
upkeep. Parks & Open Space General Fund
Parks and Recreation Commission
CIP Update 12-14-2021
1
Subtotal FY 2023 4,010,000$
CIP FY24
Parks
Bol Park Improvements- PE-16000 600,000$ D.G. pathways, lighting, fencing, and
irrigation Parks General Fund
Golf Course Driving Range Turf/Netting (design &construction)- PG-
18000 770,000$ Replace driving range netting and
synthetic turf Parks General Fund
Johnson Park Renovation (design)- PE-21002 (1of2) 450,000$ Pathways, playground, fencing, and
irrigation Parks General Fund
Mitchell Park Improvements (design)- PE-18010 (1of2)
350,000$
Playground (East Meadow), renovate
water play feature, wood arbor,
fencing, irrigation, and turf. Parks General Fund
Park Restroom Installation- PG-19000 350,000$ Add a new park restroom Parks
Park Impact
Fees
Rinconada Park (Phase II) Construction
2,500,000$ Pathways, restroom remodel, park
amenities Parks General Fund
Robles Park Improvements (construction)- PE-18015
866,000$
2 playgrounds; basketball court
surfacing and retaining wall, fencing,
pathways, irrigation, and turf
renovation.Parks General Fund
2
Werry Park Playground Improvements-PG-22000
250,000$ Playground, benches, picnic tables,
trash receptacles Parks General Fund
Open Space
Baylands Levee Repair For Public Safety Access - OS-09002
350,000$ Repair of eroded levee Open Space General Fund
Foothills Nature Preserve Project (2 of 2)
400,000$
Design of Buckeye Creed grade
control structures and Design of Los
Trancos trail pedestrian bridge.Open Space General Fund
Foothills Nature Preserve Restrooms
100,000$ Design for repair or replacement 3
restroom facilities Open Space General Fund
Pearson Arastradero Improvements (construction)- PE-21001 (2of2)
300,000$ Fencing, Signs, gates, bridge decking,
and trail improvements Open Space General Fund
Other
On-Going CIPs 835,000$
On-Going CIPs for court surfacing,
playground repairs, fencing,
walkways, and trail and pathway
upkeep. Parks & Open Space General Fund
Subtotal FY 2024 8,121,000$
CIP FY25
Parks
3
Dog Park Installation and Renovation- PG-18001 150,000$ Adds or renovates a dog park Parks
Park Impact
Fees
Johnson Park Renovation (construction)- PE-21002 (2 of 2)
1,500,000$ Pathways, playground, fencing, and
irrigation Parks General Fund
Mitchell Park Improvements (construction)-PE-18010 (2of2) 1,000,000$
Playground (East Meadow), renovate
water play feature, wood arbor,
fencing, irrigation, and turf.Parks General Fund
Park Restroom Installation- PG-19000 350,000$ Add a new park restroom Parks
Park Impact
Fees
Seale Park Improvements -PG-14003 330,000$ Playground, picnic tables, fencing,
pathways, and turf restoration Parks General Fund
Open Space
Foothills Park Nature Preserve Restrooms TBD Repair or Replacement of 3 restrooms
facilities Open Space General Fund
Other
On-Going CIPs 835,000$
On-Going CIPs for court surfacing,
playground repairs, fencing,
walkways, and trail and pathway
upkeep. Parks & Open Space General Fund
Subtotal FY 2025 4,165,000$
CIP FY26
Parks
Heritage Park Site Amenities Replacement - PG-21000 175,000$ Pathways, benches, picnic tables,
playground arbor, and storm drainage Parks General Fund
4
Peers Park Improvements-PG-14001
250,000$ Irrigation, benches, and drinking
fountains,Parks General Fund
Open Space
Pearson Arastradero Improvements (design)- PE-21001 (1of2)50,000$ Fencing, Signs, gates, bridge
decking, and trail improvements Open Space General Fund
CIP FY27
Parks
Hoover Park Improvements - PE-18012
1,100,000$ Pathways, Baseball backstop,
benches, picnic tables.Parks General Fund
Open Space
Foothills Park Irrigation System Replacement
900,000$
Replace irrigation valves and section
of main water line to 27.5 acres of
turf Open Space General Fund
On-Going CIPS Funded Every Year
Art in Public Places AC-86017
varies based on
development Arts and Sciences
General Fund
and
Development
Fees
Benches, Signage, Fencing, Walkways and Perimeter Landscaping -PG-
06003 175,000$ Parks General Fund
Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair - OS-09001 100,000$ Open Space General Fund
5
Open Space and Trails and Amenities OS-00001 175,000$ Open Space General Fund
Open Space Lakes & Pond Maintenance- OS-00002 45,000$ Open Space General Fund
Park and Open Space Emergency Repairs-PG-09002 125,000$ Parks General Fund
Athletic Courts Resurfacing - PG-06001 215,000$ Parks General Fund
Subtotal On-Going CIPs 835,000$
* Projects, budget, scope, and fiscal year are subject to
change
Working File for Planning Purposes
6