HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-22 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
March 22, 2016 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, David 13
Moss, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Anne Cribbs 15
Others Present: Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Kristen O'Kane 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Kristen O’Kane 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 22
23
IV. BUSINESS: 24
25
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 5, 2016 Parks and Recreation 26
Commission Retreat. 27 28
Approval of the draft January 5, 2016 Minutes as submitted was moved by Commissioner 29
Hetterly and seconded by Vice Chair Knopper. Passed 7-0 30
31 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 23, 2016 Regular Meeting.. 32 33
Approval of the amended February 23, 2016 Minutes as corrected was moved by 34
Commissioner Hetterly and seconded by Vice Chair Knopper. Passed 7-0 35
36
Draft Minutes 1
APPROVED
3. Update on the Status of the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study. 1
2
Chair Lauing: The next item of business is an update on the status of the Baylands 3
Boardwalk Facility Study. I want to make sure who I have the speaker card here for. 4
That's a later one. Thank you. For the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study, there's a 5
discussion targeted for about 40 minutes. Who's going to lead that? 6 7
Daren Anderson: I'd like to introduce Megha Bansal and Hung Nguyen, both engineers 8
with Public Works Engineering. They'll give you a briefing on the Baylands Boardwalk. 9
10
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 11
12
Megha Bansal: Good evening. I'm Megha Bansal, engineer, Public Works. In October 13
2015, we presented preliminary findings from the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study 14
to the Commission. The Study is now complete, and today we would like to provide an 15
update on the Study, its findings and discuss the next steps. The agenda for today's 16
meeting includes project overview. We will present findings from structural and site 17
conditions assessment of the Study, improvement options identified in the Feasibility 18
Study, and recommendations will be discussed. A high-level schedule with key 19
milestones will be presented. Also we would like to get your feedback as we move 20
forward and discuss any questions you may have. Starting with the overview. As 21
presented in previous meetings, the existing Boardwalk is deteriorated. It was closed in 22
2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The City then hired Biggs 23
Cardosa Associates to conduct the Feasibility Study and provide to us its current 24
condition and provide recommendations for short-term and long-term improvements to 25 the Boardwalk. The Feasibility Study includes the repair, rehabilitation and replacement 26 options. Also based on preliminary findings of the Study, minor repair was performed to 27 a 200-foot segment of the Boardwalk. That includes a section from Nature Center to the 28
first overlook of the Boardwalk. That was the only portion that had fair to satisfactory 29
condition. This portion of the Boardwalk is now open to the public. The last of the 30
structure is in poor condition, and I will discuss that next in the structural assessment. As 31
I just mentioned, the Boardwalk is structurally unsound. The structure includes a 32
superstructure and a substructure. The superstructure is basically the deck and railing of 33
the Boardwalk. The substructure includes foundation and supports, posts and bracings. 34
All these structural components exhibit heavy weathering and excessive corrosion. Some 35
of the structural components are missing; some sections are broken. Especially damage 36
to the foundation has led to the segment of the structure. That is why the Boardwalk is 37
undulating and uneven at certain areas. The Study also looked at several site constraints 38
including environmental conditions, subsurface conditions, hydraulic conditions and 39
access and ADA compliance issues. Environmental conditions. The project is located in 40
an environmentally sensitive area that has several endangered species such as salt marsh 41
harvest mouse and Ridgway rails. Implement any major improvements to the Boardwalk 42
Draft Minutes 2
APPROVED
would require assessment of the environmental impacts, constraints, mitigations and also 1
approval from various permitting agencies. Subsurface conditions. The existing project 2
site consists of highly compressible and plastic clay soil that also contributes to the 3
settlement of the structure as well as it cannot support heavy loads. Also, there is shallow 4
groundwater in the area. Due to the close proximity to the Bay, the soil and water in the 5
area is expected to be corrosive in nature. Next is hydraulic conditions. The Feasibility 6 Study includes analysis of the tidal effects, storm surges and sea level rise. Based on the 7
current projections, the existing Boardwalk would be flooded at 100-year still water level. 8
In other words, there is 1 percent annual chance of flooding of the existing Boardwalk at 9
current condition. By 2030, there is 10 percent annual chance of flooding of the existing 10
structure. That means with time the probability of flooding increases. Considering 50-11
plus years of design life of the proposed Boardwalk and considering moderate climate 12
change effects, the existing Boardwalk deck would need to be raised to reduce frequent 13
flooding. The next item that was investigated was access and ADA compliance issues. 14
The existing Boardwalk has many ADA compliance issues partly due to the original 15
design and also due to the structural damage and settlement issues. Some of the key 16
issues are noncompliant slopes, handrails, guardrails, cross-slopes, passing spaces and 17
resting areas, etc. Now, I would like Hung Nguyen to provide an overview of the 18
improvement options identified in the Study and also the recommendations. 19
20
Hung Nguyen: Good evening. The Study provide for option for us to consider two rehab 21
option and two replacement option. The two rehab option will involve salvage of most of 22
the material out there, as much as we can. The width of the Boardwalk will stay at 4 feet; 23
nothing change. We will have ADA compliant challenge due to the settlement of the 24
Boardwalk. We can make it a little bit better, but there no way we can make the slope in 25 compliance. We will provide for new railing. Although, railing will be in compliance, 26 the sloping we cannot solve that issue. The design life of most of this rehab option ran 27 from 25 to 50 year for the first option and 30 to 60 year for the second option. The 28
reason that it have a little bit longer duration design life because we're going to move 29
some of the foundation out from the ravine that create underneath the Boardwalk 30
currently. It will provide a little bit more better (inaudible) for that. In term of cost, most 31
of the option will cost around $1.4 to $1.7 million to rehab, both of the option. There are 32
two replacement option. Both of the option will have 5-feet wide Boardwalk that will 33
provide ADA compliance. We have an opportunity to replace the decking foundation. 34
The proposal from the Feasibility Study is we move the foundation out more to prevent 35
the channel right in the middle of (inaudible) the foundation in the future. The 36
Replacement Option 1 similar to what we have right now in term of how the decking 37
layout. We will have longitudinal timber decking, about 2x8 and 16-feet long laying on 38
longitudinal. The design life for both these option is about 50 to 75 year, and the cost are 39
pretty much the same. The foundation, we are entertaining two option; one a helical 40
screw which we will have to investigate on corrosive nature of the Baylands. We have to 41
do study before we can find out how much corrosive we have to treat the foundation. 42
Draft Minutes 3
APPROVED
The second option is timber post. The second option has more element. It still have 1
timber decking but lay on a transverse option. It provide a smaller construction material 2
which in turn will be cheaper to construct and easier to transfer in and out of the project 3
site. The second option also will require less heavy equipment in terms of (inaudible) 4
and install the Boardwalk. The Study recommend us to choose Option 2 to go further in 5
design. Staff have Study, and we concur to that option. Like I mentioned before, the 6 foundation (inaudible) we still have to investigate further to determine which option we 7
will go to. In terms of schedule, we hope to go to Council by the end of April to have 8
Council approve the Study and provide funding and approve the design contract with 9
Biggs Cardosa to move on Phase 2 design. We will return to the Commission in summer 10
of 2016 to provide an outline of the conceptual design and seek feedback from the 11
Commissioner to further design to the conceptual design. By 4/2017, we expect the 12
design development will be completed. This will be when we will go into a site and 13
design review process, go to ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission and the 14
Park and Rec Commission also for recommendation. As mentioned before by Megha, we 15
will have to do extensive environmental assessment and the CEQA clearance. This 16
process, right now, we expect to last about a year. It's all depending on what type of 17
permit we have to get from the agency. Hopefully it'll be less than a year, but right now 18
we expect the worst case. If everything go on schedule, we expect to start construction 19
next fall. The construction duration limited to the breeding season of the bird (inaudible) 20
generally from September 1st to January 31st. We are thinking a 5-month construction 21
period probably enough for the type of project. If you see my schedule, I have the second 22
phase. In case we have any unexpected delay during the design process, we might have 23
to go to a second phase which will happen the following fall which will be fall 2018. 24
With that, I will end our presentation. If you have any comment or question, we can 25 answer that. 26 27 Chair Lauing: That's it for the presentation? Commissioners have any questions or 28
comments? Yes, David. 29
30
Commissioner Moss: I've been to a number of the public meetings. I really was hoping 31
that one of the rehab options would be cheaper and faster, but this iteration shows how 32
quickly we could get Replacement Option 2 and for about the same price. I am strongly 33
in favor of that Replacement Phase 2. We could get something in the fall of 2017—I 34
mean, starting construction fall of 2017. I hope that, if you can't get it all done in that fall 35
and winter, Phase 1 still gives us something to walk out another 100 feet or 200 feet, and 36
you save the far, far end as opposed to only putting in the substrate all the way through 37
and leaving us for another year with nothing. The other thing is that I want to make sure 38
that when you raise the elevation, I want it to flood at least once a year at the king tide, 39
because that is spectacular to see. When you raise the level, it should be with the idea 40
that it's going to flood once a year. Not many times a year, but once a year. It sounds 41
Draft Minutes 4
APPROVED
like the Replacement Option 2 differs from Option 1 just because of the transverse versus 1
longitudinal. If that's easier to maintain and easier to do, go for it. That's all I have. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Keith. Commissioner Reckdahl. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Overall, I'm happy. I'm not happy with waiting a year and a 6 half for the Boardwalk. I really wish we could go in on this. It's been over a year since 7
it's not been used, and it's going to be another year and a half. I understand that the—is 8
there any way that we could get a partial okay to start doing part of it? Break it up into 9
two pieces instead of one big bite. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: It's unlikely. Our experience with the regulatory agencies would 12
certainly not indicate that's possible. We'll certainly pursue and request the quickest path 13
possible. That may include phasing as an option be part of the discussion. To be really 14
frank, it's highly unlikely. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I understand. 17
18
Mr. Anderson: Just to point out, we do have the first 200 feet open right now that was 19
repaired. There is some access (crosstalk). 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: That was actually done a while ago. 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: I appreciate the City was very reactive about that. Looking at 26 the schedule there, when is the screw versus timber decision going to be made? Is that at 27 the 35 percent or is that at the 100 percent? 28
29
Mr. Nguyen: We will expect that to be resolved at 35 percent. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we have any evidence—they were going to give us 32
examples of where these screws are being used in mud. Have they given us any 33
examples that we can go inspect? 34
35
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we will require that. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: We have gotten them? 38
39
Mr. Nguyen: We have done investigation. We have provided example to the 40
Commission back in October. We can follow up that information again to you, if you 41
want. 42
Draft Minutes 5
APPROVED
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: We've looked at the screws. How long have they been in the 2
mud? 3
4
Mr. Nguyen: The historical data, we don't have that at that point. We can certainly take 5
a look at it. 6 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm very nervous that we're going to put these screws in. 8
Daren's been under there and seen the bolts. That's a very bad environment. Between the 9
mud and the saltwater, it'll eat away at stuff. My understanding is that if we go the 10
timber route, we still have some adjustment also on the timbers. Is that true? 11
12
Mr. Nguyen: At this point, that's something that consultants say that we can do in the 13
future. It could be challenge. I can say that. In term of bracing the deck up with ... 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: With timbers? I thought they were going to have timbers in 16
the mud and then have some type of metallic screw that could be adjusted on top of the 17
timbers between the timbers and the (crosstalk). 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: That's something I haven't heard from them, but we can check with them. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: For the metallic screws, how much play do they have? If we 22
wanted to raise it, how much additional height could we get out of each screw? 23
24
Mr. Nguyen: We couldn't get an answer from them last time, but they say it could go as 25 high as 12 inches. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: How many inches? 28
29
Mr. Nguyen: 12 inches. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: 12 inches. That 12 inches can be done along the whole path? 32
If we wanted to even it, we could do that. If we wanted to grossly raise the whole 33
platform by 12 inches, could we do that by adjusting each screw or is there some support 34
halfway down that won't have those adjustments? 35
36
Mr. Nguyen: We don't have the exact answer for that. We have asked them for case 37
study, but we haven't gotten anything yet. That's something we will look into when we 38
continue the design process. 39
40
Draft Minutes 6
APPROVED
Commissioner Reckdahl: They also mentioned about—what was the term? Composite 1
decking. They said recycled materials. What does that mean, composite? What material 2
is that? 3
4
Mr. Nguyen: Composite can be any recycled material out on the market now. A fill 5
which I don't have it on top of my head at this point. We certainly will entertain that 6 option. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it plastic or is it ... 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: I hope we don't use plastic, but that's one of the product considered 11
composite. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: It's open for consideration, what we could use? We could use 14
almost anything. 15
16
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, right. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's it. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Knopper. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: Hi. The CIP was funded for the Feasibility Study, but there is no 23
current CIP for the actual 1.4 to 1.8 price. Correct? 24
25 Mr. Nguyen: That's correct. 26 27 Vice Chair Knopper: When I'm looking at this schedule, it just seems really aggressive 28
based on how many agencies have to approve this because of the endangered species out 29
there. I was just wondering if you—obviously you guys are confident that this is the 30
schedule. Just based on being on this Commission, I can't possibly imagine that—it just 31
feels very fast, I guess is what I wanted to say. The other issue that I wanted to talk about 32
was the sea level rise statistics that you have in this report. I've seen a map of Palo Alto 33
with NOAA's sea level rise. They have it at 3 feet. There's a very specific red line as to 34
what's going to be impacted. It's really far into Palo Alto. The timing is a little more 35
aggressive as far as it happening sooner, I guess is what I'm saying. I was just wondering 36
if the moderate climate change sea level rise, you're confident on those numbers? 37
38
Ms. Bansal: The numbers are basically predictions based on, like you mentioned, NOAA 39
and moderate climate change effects. What we have in the Study is basically 3 feet in 40
2100. Since we are considering the design life to be 50 to 75 years, what we have in the 41
Draft Minutes 7
APPROVED
report is based on 2075; that's approximate end of useful life of the proposed Boardwalk. 1
The sea level rise is interpolated, and that is about 2 feet. 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: I guess the one thing—thank you for that. The thing that I'm 4
thinking about is I know with a budgetary perspective as to what the City—all of the 5
different projects we have, and that we know that this is a flood basin. It's just going to 6 increasingly be one. We have so many projects and park things to do. Is this a lot of 7
money for this? I guess that's my question. Is this a lot of money for a project that we 8
know we have endangered species, we've got six regulatory agencies we have to deal 9
with. Is it the right project for this amount of money? I guess is my question. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Maybe I can help with this one. It's a challenging one. You're right, it's a 12
high-ticket item. We're looking at $1 million, a very lengthy, staff-intensive process to 13
get it through the regulatory process. It's expensive in terms of staff time and the funding 14
for the construction itself. You're right, the CIP money is tight. I would say this is our—15
within the City of Palo Alto, this is probably the most popular piece of trail there is. That 16
includes all our parks. Maybe the Magical Bridge a close second. It's right up there. I'd 17
say it's high profile. It's part of taking care of our infrastructure. It's important, but I 18
think that's really kind of a Commission/Council decision if it's the right one. It'll go 19
through that regular process like all the projects do. It's just politically sensitive. I think 20
it's likely to be funded, but it's really out of my hands I'm sorry to say definitively. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: Thank you. 23
24
Chair Lauing: On that issue, it might also be more of a "because it's part of our heritage 25 and infrastructure" as opposed to if someone came and said, "Let's build a Boardwalk." 26 That might get a different reception than it's been here for whatever it's been, 60 years of 27 history or something like that. 28
29
Vice Chair Knopper: One of the things that I was thinking about is a lot of the Baylands 30
needs conservation and habitat rehab. We're constantly low on money to do something 31
like that. My thinking or questioning is does it make sense to take this large amount of 32
money and provide the public the opportunity to enjoy the Baylands without the 33
structural, where we're providing more environmental impact for the habitat versus 34
putting in a physical structure that we know is short term as far as City timing is 35
concerned. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Other comments? Commissioner Hetterly. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: Most of my questions were already covered, but I had two more. 40
One was the rehab option includes salvage of materials. Are there any materials that can 41
be salvaged for other use under the replacement options? 42
Draft Minutes 8
APPROVED
1
Mr. Nguyen: We prefer not to use any product from the old Boardwalk for the 2
replacement option. Option for us to salvage the material and then use it on different 3
project, we can either give the material away or donate to some agency or city who have 4
the use of the product. 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: I'd like to see that as part of the plan. I think that you said that 7
Replacement Option 2 involves a wider foundation than Replacement Option 1. Is that 8
right? 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: Option 1 will have the current footprint right now which is 4-feet wide. 11
The replacement will have a 5-feet wide Boardwalk to be ADA compliant. That's why 12
we have to provide a field study for the agency to see the effect of widening the footprint 13
another foot or so. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: That's what I thought you said. I was just wondering if you 16
anticipated increased impacts in your CEQA analysis as a result of that wider (crosstalk). 17
18
Mr. Nguyen: We have met with the interagency back in December of last year in San 19
Francisco. We have proposed this option. They have concern but not something that we 20
cannot overcome. They request us to do some study, which we have in the contract at 21
this point, for them to review. 22
23
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 24
25 Chair Lauing: I just wanted to make one comment. I think a lot of the citizens are going 26 to look at this and say, "We're basically just building a deck, and the construction takes 5 27 months, and this is going to take 2 1/2 years." We know why. You say it's going way 28
too fast. I think most people are going to say it's going way too slow. The only reason I 29
raise that is because we just want to be sensitive as this moves along to communicate it 30
well to the citizens, obviously to the Council as well, so they're patient that it has to be 31
done right and there are all these mitigating factors out there like the salt water and the 32
environment and the critters and so on. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: (inaudible) comment? 35
36
Chair Lauing: Sure, go ahead, a follow-up. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: The only thing I wanted to add is that we're constrained to start 39
construction in the fall. As a result, since we can't hit this next fall, we have more time 40
the following fall. I don't think we should just slow roll it. We've seen before how things 41
can pop up and slow it down. If we're going to slow roll it, I think we have plenty of time 42
Draft Minutes 9
APPROVED
to 2017. We may miss that date, and now all of a sudden we have another full year that 1
we have to wait. I would want to get as much design done upfront. If we sit on the 2
design for 6 months, that's fine. I'd rather sit on the completed design that's been 3
approved than find out at the last minute that we're not going to hit our target. 4
5
Mr. Nguyen: That's in our minds. We create the schedule with that in mind. We going 6 to have another meeting with the agency at the 15 percent design level to gauge their 7
comment at an early stage so we can proceed on design at full speed. Hopefully we can 8
wrap it up by the time that they issue the permit for us to go out for construction. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 13
14
Commissioner Moss: (crosstalk) said, if there's any way that we can start the 15
environmental clearance and permitting early in summer and finish—maybe not have 100 16
percent construction document to start the process so that we could even start the 17
construction early in fall 2017, that means end of August instead of end of October. 18
19
Mr. Nguyen: That's something that we definitely try for. We will push the consultant to 20
provide some of the study that agency require as soon as possible. We can present that 21
along with the 15 percent at the meeting. 22
23
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 24
25 Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. 26 27 4. Parks, Open Space, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 28 Revised Policy Definition 29 Revised Policies 30 Draft Dog Park Policy 31 Draft Park Restroom Policy 32 33
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is what we call the Master Plan, the Parks, 34
Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. We have one speaker on that. 35
If Mr. Lewis would like to speak. Mr. Lewis, we're going to do 3 minutes. Thank you. 36
37
Gabriel Lewis: Good evening, Chair Lauing and Parks Commissioners. My name is 38
Gabriel Lewis. I'm an intern speaking for the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club and 39
the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. I'm also a Palo Alto resident, and I spent a lot 40
of my childhood playing in the parks and open spaces that you oversee. Your work 41
matters very much to me personally. I want to thank you for doing it. The Parks, Open 42
Draft Minutes 10
APPROVED
Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan has already improved greatly thanks 1
to your efforts. I appreciate your receptiveness to our comments and recommendations. I 2
find it encouraging, inspiring even, that my City strives to take care of its natural 3
ecosystems. On that note, I wanted to talk about the recent joint letter that the Audubon 4
Society and the Sierra Club sent to the Commission. It contains a number of specific 5
edits and additions that you can see in front of you, but the ideas behind it are as simple. 6 The aim is to create more space for nature, for native trees and vegetation, for birds, for 7
wildlife in Palo Alto's parks and open spaces. This has been our aim for Palo Alto's 8
Urban Forest Master Plan as well which we have also been involved in writing. What 9
gives me hope for achieving this aim and what makes it so tremendously important to me 10
is that more space for nature does not mean less space for humans. On the contrary, it is 11
in these places with thriving natural ecosystems that we can learn and relearn the qualities 12
that we call human, a sense of play, of wonderment, of beauty. Our City needs these 13
qualities. My generation—I graduated from Gunn in 2009 when Palo Alto's mental 14
health crisis began—needs these things most of all. I hope you will adopt this letter's 15
recommendations as you've so graciously done in the past. Thank you. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Thank you very much. I have two other cards that are specifically around 18
dog parks. You're welcome to speak now. We have a number of things to go through 19
that are relative to general policies, and then we're picking up dog parks as one of the 20
policies. It might be more appropriate for you to come when we get to that. I'll leave it 21
at your option. Let me identify you please. This is Barbara Millen specifically speaking 22
about dog parks. Barbara Millen, and then we'll get to the next speaker as well. 23
24
Barbara Millen: The report that was sent out today or yesterday was a culmination of 25 almost a decade of work by the community, the dog park owners, people on the Parks and 26 Rec Commission and a variety of other people. I guess you can hear me, right? Do I 27 need this? 28
29
Chair Lauing: It's being recorded, so that's better. 30
31
Ms. Millen: I was just recognizing the decade, at least a decade, of work of people in the 32
community and on the Commission who have been working toward a more dog-friendly 33
community. After reading the report over in the policy that's being suggested, I was very 34
pleased. I think it's not everything that we all wanted. I had a couple of greyhounds, and 35
they would have loved several acres to run around. For the most part, I think it's going to 36
meet the needs of most dog owners in the community who want to stay local and meet 37
their other neighbors at a fairly local park, where a lot of conversation goes on and a lot 38
of support goes on. The fact that we're planning, I guess, six should, I would hope, make 39
it so that the local neighbors won't have too much objection because there shouldn't be a 40
lot of traffic going to any particular place, I hope. Anyway, I just found it very 41
Draft Minutes 11
APPROVED
reasonable and well presented. I want to thank all those who are responsible and hope we 1
can get it done. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Thank you. Come back more often with those kinds of comments. Our 4
second speaker on dog parks is Herb Borock. About 3 minutes. 5
6 Herb Borock: Thank you, Chair Lauing and Commissioners. Thank you for giving us 7
the opportunity to speak now. I support the staff recommendation and the ad hoc 8
committee's recommendation. There are just two minor points I'll start off with. In 9
Attachment B, the aerial of Mitchell Park doesn't include the number of feet of fencing. 10
It's left off the number and just says linear feet. Also at the top of page 2 of the staff 11
report, the relative sizes of the Hoover Park and Greer Park current dog parks don't seem 12
correct to me. My recollection is that the Hoover Park one was larger than Greer Park 13
before Hoover Park was expanded. You might want to go back and look at the plans or 14
look at those. In regard to the fact that you considered off-leash areas separate from the 15
dog parks, you can't do that because the Municipal Code requires dogs on leash. That 16
was adopted by the voters. From an initiative petition; it can only be changed by the 17
voters. The existing dog parks came after that. I guess if someone took the City to court 18
about those, it would be the open texture of the law. Nobody considered dog parks when 19
that initiative measure was adopted. Eleanor Pardee Park was previously considered for a 20
dog park and met with neighborhood opposition. That was some time ago. The 21
population has changed in terms of number of dog owners, so there might be a different 22
response from the community. However, one thing I've noticed. We do have bathrooms 23
at the district parks of Rinconada Park and El Camino Park, but nowhere north of Oregon 24
Expressway are there bathrooms in any neighborhood parks. There are no dog parks 25 north of Oregon Expressway. That's been due to neighborhood opposition in the north. I 26 think it's perfectly okay to go on the other side of Oregon Expressway for that. For El 27 Camino Park, the area that's been identified, I believe, is a good area and should be used 28
and pursued. For a long time, it's been a considered a possibility of extending Quarry 29
Road there, so that buses from the bus island can make left turns going south on El 30
Camino. The ones coming from the north would not be able to make a left turn cut in 31
there. You previously considered on the other side of an extension of Palo Alto Avenue. 32
The way it was presented was will Stanford oppose it because of near the creek. You 33
need to separate those two. Palo Alto has a lease for another 17 years in El Camino Park. 34
The terms of the lease are that Palo Alto has site control, so it's only if somebody wanted 35
to make a legal challenge for that one due to nearness to the creek. Stanford by itself 36
could not have stopped the use. The change of areas which you're not considering 37
immediately such as the Hoover Park area for alternative, I think the tragedy of the 38
commons, that is I've seen small numbers of people and small numbers of dogs get along 39
quite well there, but I don't know what would happen if it became a legal area. The 40
reason why it's small is because it's against the law. While you have equity, which I think 41
is good, we already have one in Mitchell Park. You're already starting with one in the 42
Draft Minutes 12
APPROVED
south, and Mitchell Park without expansion is big enough to meet the criteria. If you 1
recalculate the Hoover Park, it may become close. Thank you for your time. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Thank you for the comments. That's the speakers on that. Now we'll have 4
a presentation on the status of the Master Plan and what we're going to cover tonight. 5
Kristen. 6 7
Kristen O'Kane: Peter Jensen from Public Works Department is here to present on the 8
Master Plan. 9
10
Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 11
City of Palo Alto, continuing our ongoing discussion of the Palo Alto Parks Master Plan. 12
Tonight we're going to delve into some of the policy questions that we still have for the 13
discussion with the Commission. As we do that, we're going to dovetail Daren's 14
presentations in, because they go along with some of those specific policies. When we 15
get to a specific policy that starts to talk about walkshed or the dog off-leash policy, then 16
Daren will do his presentation specific to that policy as well. It'll be not as we normally 17
do where they'll each have their own headings as an agenda item, but they will just be 18
incorporated into this presentation itself. To start off with that, I don't know if Rob or 19
Daren had anything to add with that. Let's then go forward. First of all, we just wanted 20
to start the conversation. There had been further conversation with the ad hoc group 21
about the definition of a policy. That was part of the staff report, so we wanted to throw 22
that out there now. The updated definition that we're using—we can discuss it further—23
is the value-based framework that provides clear direction and guidelines and action or 24
actions towards achieving a goal. That's basically our current definition that we're 25 working with as far as the policies go. We can have a brief discussion about that if 26 anyone has any questions about it or we can move on and have our further discussions 27 about the specific policies that we want to talk about. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Are there any questions about that? We can just go with that as the 30
definition then? 31
32
Mr. Jensen: Sure. As part of the package that you got, the updated policies, you have a 33
clean version, a redlined version that had quite a few redlines on there. You can see the 34
extent of work that went into it. A spreadsheet summary that gave an idea of what the 35
comments were per the Commissioners and how they related. That spreadsheet also 36
signified some of the policies that still need further discussion. That's what we're going 37
to go through here tonight. That first one, which staff continues to discuss with ourselves 38
and we'd like to bring you into that, is the Policy 1.B which deals with the 5 acres per 39
1,000 residents. I think how we'd like to proceed with that tonight and what our 40
discussion is, is recommending to follow basically what the Comprehensive Plan is now 41
using which is the National Park standard that gives a lot more flexibility to the 42
Draft Minutes 13
APPROVED
requirements of parkland and gets away from the specific Quimby Act which was the 1
5 acres per 1,000. I don't know if you want to have ... That's a current policy in the 2
Comprehensive Plan, the National Recreation and Park Association standard guidelines 3
for locating and developing new parks, recognizing these are representing long-term 4
aspirational targets. What they do is they basically break it down into two different park 5
types. A neighborhood park, which are parks less than 2 acres and having 2 acres of 6 neighborhood parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people. District parks, which 7
are larger park areas above 5 acres, also the same requirement, though, 2 acres of district 8
parkland should be provided for each 1,000 people. There was then some question on 9
what are current parkland and what we have and how we're meeting that now per this 10
policy. For the smaller neighborhood parks, we are currently 88 acres deficient. For the 11
larger-scaled district parks, we are 2.87 acres deficient. Not too far there off from that. 12
That's basically staff's recommendation, to keep following that, but we do want further 13
input from the Commission on maintaining that as the policy. I will open it for 14
discussion on that unless Rob or Kristen have anything they want to add for that. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Just a format question. Do you want to take each one of these and delve 17
into discussion or do you want to go over all of the ones that you think are on the table 18
for discussion? At some point, we need to ask the Commission if there are any other 19
ones that need further discussion. 20
21
Mr. Jensen: I think we have five main ones that we want to talk about. I think we should 22
have the discussion after the presentation of each. At the end of the five, we can have 23
more discussion about other policies that Commissioners have questions on. 24
25 Rob de Geus: I would agree with that because some of these topics are a little complex. 26 As you've read Daren's staff report, he's done a lot of thorough research. I think it's good 27 to hear the presentation on the particular policy item and then discuss it, if that works for 28
the Commission. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Specific to this one, we've honestly struggled with this policy. Should we 33
keep the policy? Should we amend the policy? It's clearly a very ambitious policy, if we 34
were to keep it, 88 acres short. It is the standard that the National Recreation and Parks 35
Association has. It's an old standard, but they haven't updated it. That's the one we have. 36
We have gone back and forth on what we think would be appropriate here. It was in the 37
Comprehensive Plan initially from 1998 and served, I think, the Plan well. As we have 38
batted it around, we think keeping it is probably the best course of action. Then have a 39
set of sub-projects, programs that actually are more actionable specific to how we're 40
going to actually add parkland, which I know we have some ideas about. That's where 41
staff landed on this, but we're very curious what the Commission thinks. 42
Draft Minutes 14
APPROVED
1
Chair Lauing: Comments? 2
3
Council Member Filseth: (inaudible) data. The City of San Francisco, which is one of 4
the most dense urban areas in the nation, actually meets the standard of 4 acres per 1,000 5
residents of in-town park space. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Was that all? Okay. Commissioner Hetterly. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: You all know I already think—I certainly think we should keep 10
the standard. I think it'd be a huge mistake to give it up. I don't believe that the current 11
Comp Plan includes this final clause, recognizing that these represent long-term 12
aspirational targets. I think that's floating around in the update process. I don't think that 13
we should consider them long-term aspirational targets. I think the reason that we're at 14
this deficit—10 years ago our deficit was significantly smaller. What we've done is add 15
more population without adding more parks. I don't think that just because we failed to 16
follow our adopted policy and add parks as we added population that we should say, "We 17
didn't do it, so let's make it easier." I am strongly opposed to reducing the targets. We 18
absolutely need to keep them in. I like the idea of developing programs to sort of 19
prioritize where and how we're going to make some forward progress towards meeting 20
them. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Others? Commissioner Moss. 23
24
Commissioner Moss: You're saying that having just 2 acres per 1,000, we're 88 acres 25 deficit. Our policy says 5 acres per 1,000; we're five times that much. Is that what you're 26 saying? 27 28
Mr. de Geus: There's two different standards that are used. One is related to the Quimby 29
Act which is 5 acres of parkland per 5,000 population. It's not developed parkland; it's 30
just parkland. That would include all of our open space land as well. In fact, we would 31
meet that standard if we were to use that as the standard. We had written it a little 32
differently in the staff report which is not actually the current standard. It talked about 33
developed parkland. The National Recreation and Parks Association standard is 34
different. It talks about neighborhood parks which are 2-5 acres and district parks which 35
are 5 acres and above. It says essentially that we need, what is it? 2 acres per 1,000 for 36
both of those. 37
38
Commissioner Moss: If we're 88 acres deficit now ... 39
40
Mr. de Geus: For neighborhood parks. 41
42
Draft Minutes 15
APPROVED
Commissioner Moss: ... for neighborhood parks and our population is growing, I don't 1
understand why you just keep it to residents. We're growing with the number of 2
employees and the number of customers coming to our businesses. That's growing even 3
faster than the number of residents. The fact that you would not include them in your 4
calculation, the bottom line is that the ratio what we have now in our policy is just 5
impossible. Even this is going to be impossible, to come up with 88 acres and growing. I 6 don't know why we would put something in that's really impossible. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: That's a good question. We struggled with some of the same questions. 9
The reason we landed on keeping it is because it does come from somewhere. It comes 10
from the National Recreation and Parks Association which is sort of the recognized body 11
for parks and recreation and how to grow programs and parkland. If we were to create 12
something new and different that's unique to Palo Alto, we think maybe it loses 13
something, it loses some credibility. To the point about how we get there, I'm not sure 14
how we get there, but that's the challenge. That's what we need to try and figure out. 15
Maybe we don't get there. I think we all agree that we want to be ambitious and try as 16
best we can to add parkland. I think your point about workers in Palo Alto, the 17
population doubles every day, I understand. That's only further exacerbating the need for 18
additional parkland. I totally agree. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Cowie. 21
22
Commissioner Cowie: Could you all help me with the math a little bit here? 88 acres 23
would be enough parks for what, 44,000 people? Did I do the math right? Right? Are 24
we really that far off? The population of Palo Alto is 70 maybe now. We have only 25 enough neighborhood parks for 25,000, 26,000 people today? 26 27 Mr. de Geus: Using this standard. People will have different opinions about whether the 28
standard is really the right standard. 29
30
Commissioner Cowie: Does that jive though with the number of acres of neighborhood 31
parks that we have today? It seems like the statement of the problem seems high to me. 32
33
Mr. de Geus: I have to pull up the math here. Maybe take another question, and we can 34
come back. 35
36
Commissioner Cowie: The other thing that I think we ought to consider in assessing how 37
we're doing—I mean, this is a pretty harsh scorecard—is the environment that surrounds 38
the City of Palo Alto. Certainly there is a lot of open space that is not within the 39
incorporated city limits of Palo Alto, but I'm not sure that counting that at zero is the 40
appropriate way to look at it. I'm not making these points to suggest that we should not 41
Draft Minutes 16
APPROVED
be aggressively seeking to expand our parks by any means. I wonder whether the 1
scorecard is harsher than it should be. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Did you mean by the surrounding area outside of Palo Alto city limits? 4
5
Commissioner Cowie: Yes. 6 7
Vice Chair Knopper: You're not including in this calculation either Foothills Park or 8
Baylands, none of even the Palo Alto open spaces in this calculation either. You don't 9
even have to go outside Palo Alto for the calculation. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: I'm assuming that Foothills and Baylands are incorporated in the 12
second category of the district parks. 13
14
Vice Chair Knopper: Right. 15
16
Chair Lauing: They're not, right? 17
18
Vice Chair Knopper: No. 19
20
Chair Lauing: That's separate; that's open space. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: It's open space, so it's not even in the calculation at all. If you did 23
put it in the calculation—correct me again if I'm wrong, because I am often. If you did 24
utilize the open space, we wouldn't have the deficit of 88.1. We would be fine per our 25 67,000 residents approximately. However, this is for neighborhood parks. 26 27 Commissioner Cowie: Right. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure the standard really 28
takes into account our facts and circumstances. I'd hate to set a standard that there's no 29
way we're going to meet, at least not within anyone here's lifetime. I'd rather set a goal 30
for something that we can actually achieve. An aggressive goal, mind you. That's, I 31
guess, the way I'd look at it. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Are you back, Rob? 34
35
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, for feedback. We have 174 acres of developed parkland. We have 36
44 acres of parkland that is below 5 acres, I think. We have 130 acres that is above 5 37
acres. With the district parks above 5 acres, we get close to the standard which would be 38
132 acres. With neighborhood parks, we're not even close. 44 acres, the standard is 2 39
acres per 1,000; that's 132 acres. That's the deficit. I think your point is a really good 40
one. If we were just to look at that standard, it's looks pretty negative. There's a whole 41
suite of policies in a park system that we need to think about and the context of all of that. 42
Draft Minutes 17
APPROVED
The quality of our parks, the accessibility of our parks, the magnificent and abundant 1
open space we've set aside are all important contextual points. Yes, this looks bad, but 2
there are a lot of good things as well. Should we still add urban parkland? We should 3
because we are below this standard. Are we likely to get to this standard? Likely not. 4
Does that help? 5
6 Commissioner Cowie: Yes. 7
8
Mr. Jensen: One of the things that Rob was touching on before is that, I think, everyone 9
is in agreement that we need to add parkland by this calculation, by the simple fact of it. 10
Whatever the policy is that aligns us with our goal, I think that the programs underneath 11
it can actually be the items that have the most impact, because that's actually how we're 12
going to be doing those things. I think there can be good work done in that, even though 13
maybe the goal is not as attainable. At least we can set out a pathway to try to get there 14
as best as possible. I think the other key aspect is Rob saying this is set up on something 15
that is adopted nationwide, that most cities have, because it is a recognized figure. To go 16
outside of that and create a policy is not something that is done a lot, because there is no 17
then backup out there to do so. Those are some things to consider. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: I'd also throw out there that I think it would be a terrible mistake 20
if we started trying to count our open space acreage as somehow meeting these targets, 21
because the function of a neighborhood park is really completely different from the 22
community benefits and uses of open space. Also, I think the fact that we're behind by 88 23
acres for neighborhood parks just highlights even more the importance of focusing our 24
efforts in that particular area. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Are you saying you would support what's being proposed here? Leave it 27 at 88 and do something about it, recognizing that that's going to take decades. 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah, I support keeping the current policy. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. I support the current policy also. We're not going to 34
get there tomorrow. We know that. We should be working towards it. We haven't added 35
parkland for a long time. Heritage Park is the last park that I can think of that we added. 36
The Friends of Palo Alto Parks helped a lot with that. I'm just afraid that if we don't have 37
this policy, we won't add any more parks on our own. We really need to keep our feet to 38
the fire. It's a quality of life issue. You saw with dog parks how hard it was to find spots 39
for dog parks. There's so many competing uses; it's only going to get worse. We need to 40
start adding some land sooner rather than later. 41
42
Draft Minutes 18
APPROVED
Mr. de Geus: Once we have self-driving cars, who knows what we're going to be able to 1
do. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Eric. 4
5
Council Member Filseth: I shouldn't be part of this discussion, because I'm an observer. 6 I think I would note that this is the group that certainly the Council and the rest of the 7
City is going to look to, to lead thought on policy in this area. If you say we should do X, 8
then the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services Committee and other groups in 9
the City aren't going to challenge that. What we do here, this group, has a huge impact, 10
so decide carefully. The other thing is bear in mind that there is a lot of stuff that we 11
don't know. For example, this came up in the Council meeting last night briefly. The 12
Fry's site is, just as an example—there's likely to be a big change there one of these days. 13
People are already arguing about what we're going to do with it and who's going to get 14
how much of it and so forth. There's steps that we can't see deterministically but that 15
may happen. That's why you have policies. 16
17
Chair Lauing: As I see some of the discussion here on the risk side, it's sort of like if we 18
have 88 acres deficit and it's totally impractical for the next X decades, will Council or 19
others just throw up their hands and say we shouldn't do anything because we can't get 20
there? I think that's the concern that you're hearing voiced on the side of do we change 21
that or not. 22
23
Council Member Filseth: I think Council will look to this group. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Pardon? 26 27 Council Member Filseth: I think Council will look to this group as to what to do. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Any other comments on this? Do we feel like we've thought about it 30
enough? Do you want an actual vote on each policy that's under discussion here? 31
32
Mr. de Geus: I don't think that's necessary, no. 33
34
Mr. Jensen: We'll move to the second one, which is 1.C now and was 1.D in the previous 35
draft. This talks about the walkshed and the nearest park or preserve to be a half mile or 36
quarter mile preferred from residents. The previous policy had recommendations of 37
specific elements. Those elements have been removed. They included restrooms, dog 38
parks, things of that nature. The recommendation now is to simplify the policy just to 39
call out parks being in the walkshed with those other removed. I'll open it up for 40
discussion. 41
42
Draft Minutes 19
APPROVED
Chair Lauing: Anyone? Commissioner Knopper. 1
2
Vice Chair Knopper: I agree with the change. 3
4
Chair Lauing: The deletion or the ... 5
6 Vice Chair Knopper: Taking out the specific elements and using the revised language. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Any others? Commissioner Reckdahl. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree with the change. I thought it was a little 11
micromanaging having all those details in it. The only thing is "ensure." Is that too 12
strong of a statement? Should we say a standard? We were talking about how many 13
acres per person; that was called a standard. This sounds more mandatory. If we are 14
going to make it mandatory, then we should make it mandatory. Right now, this is, I 15
think, meant to be a goal and not meant to be "thou shalt by the end by the calendar year 16
ensure that everyone in the City is within a half mile." I just want to make that more 17
clear about what's the ramifications of "ensure." 18
19
Mr. Jensen: To go along further with this, one of the aspects that was removed was the 20
restrooms. We'll now go into the restroom. I'll let Daren do his presentation, and then 21
we'll have further discussion on that specific policy. 22
23
Chair Lauing: We're going to do that before we go through these other ones, synthetic 24
turf and staff? 25 26 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 27 28
Daren Anderson: In our February Commission meeting, we reviewed MIG's first draft 29
on the park restroom policy which called for providing a restroom in every park unless 30
there was an adjacent public restroom available or the site was under 1 acre in size. 31
Some Commissioners explained that they needed more information to make a 32
recommendation on a policy like this. In response, I created this spreadsheet, Attachment 33
A in the staff report, Park Restrooms. In that spreadsheet, it talks about the size of each 34
park, if it has an existing restroom, if it would require a restroom under the MIG policy, 35
and then lastly if staff recommends a restroom for that particular park. The spreadsheet 36
illustrates that we have 14 parks with restrooms. MIG's policy would result in adding 13 37
more parks that currently don't have restrooms. As I analyzed these 13 parks and walked 38
them, envisioning how a restroom would fit, six of them did not seem appropriate to me. 39
The criteria used to determine if a restroom was appropriate was the size of the park, the 40
number of amenities that would draw someone to stay in that park, and the amount of use 41
we typically observe. The revised policy that staff is proposing is to add restrooms in 42
Draft Minutes 20
APPROVED
parks that are approximately 2 acres in size or larger, have amenities that encourage 1
visitors to stay in the park and have relatively high levels of use and where there aren't 2
nearby public restrooms. There were seven parks that fit that criteria. In the staff report, 3
I included the program to support it and suggested adding restrooms to those potential 4
seven sites, Bol Park, Bowden, Eleanor Pardee, Johnson Park, Ramos Park, Robles and 5
Terman. If you would like, we can get into the details for the six that I do not 6 recommend and why, but it's in the staff report. I'll leave that to any questions you may 7
have. That concludes the presentation on the restrooms. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Questions on those? I just wanted to echo one that a speaker talked about 10
which is that Eleanor Pardee, (a) was just renovated, and (b) the neighborhood said no 11
thanks. Just so we're aware of that, and we would of course have to do public outreach, 12
but we're likely to get the same answer. I take it that we're willing to go out and kind of 13
resurvey just to see based on the Master Plan findings. 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: How do we envision these being implemented? Are we just 16
putting these on the shelf, and the next time that park gets renovated we'll put a bathroom 17
in? Are we going into parks and renovating them right now? 18
19
Mr. Anderson: The recommendation would be to re-fund the previously funded CIP for 20
park restrooms where every other year a park restroom was installed. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'll go through every other year and add one. 23
24
Mr. Anderson: Unassociated unless it happened to match up neatly with a restoration, 25 but it would be unaffiliated with any like whole renovation of Pardee or any other park. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, I have some questions about how that works. What are 28
the hours for restrooms? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: Typically they follow the regular hours of the park. It's sunrise to 10:30 31
for the urban parks. Different for open space where it's cyclical with the sunset. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Who opens them? Do we have ... 34
35
Mr. Anderson: It varies. We're increasingly going to auto locks, so they auto unlock in 36
the morning and auto lock in the evening. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about cleaning? How often are they cleaned? 39
40
Mr. Anderson: They're cleaned every weeknight, I believe, by—this is handled through 41
Public Works, and they have a contractor that does it. I believe it's every weeknight. 42
Draft Minutes 21
APPROVED
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Every weeknight. Do we have any problems with broken 2
items, the sinks or toilets, in the restrooms at all? 3
4
Mr. Anderson: We occasionally have issues with graffiti and some vandalism, for sure. 5
6 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is this going to be a big hit to the maintenance or is this going 7
to be a small, just drop in the bucket, for the parks? 8
9
Mr. Anderson: We're pretty close in our relationship with Public Works who manage 10
that aspect of the operation, the cleaning, the replacements and issues relating to that. I 11
know their perspective is we need to build into the request additional funding for their 12
contractor and long-term replacement and issues that pertain to their maintenance 13
operation. Concurrent with kind of the—I think associated with the CIP submittal will be 14
something to buttress and fulfill their maintenance budget requirements. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 19
20
Commissioner Moss: There have been complaint in the past from near neighbors that 21
say, "If you have these bathrooms in there, you're going to get homeless people or you're 22
going to get drug activity, things like that." Is there some provision in there to have 23
additional funding for public safety? 24
25 Mr. Anderson: I think that could possibly be achieved through elements like lighting and 26 through engineering to a degree so that it's situated in such a way that it doesn't lend itself 27 to camping and hiding out. The auto locks is one thing that's helped in the past to 28
improve certain areas. I can tell you that historically El Camino Park was heavily 29
inundated with people camping out in that restroom adjacent to it. Part of the problems 30
were again engineered. There were access to electrical outlets which we know 31
exacerbates that problem. We resolved that through design to no longer make that 32
available, and it's changed the use to some degree at least so far in El Camino. We've 33
seen the same in other recent park restroom additions. Hopefully we could do the same 34
for these new ones we're proposing. 35
36
Commissioner Moss: Security cameras if necessary? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: It's possible. I think that's possible. 39
40
Draft Minutes 22
APPROVED
Commissioner Moss: The last question is are there groups of stakeholders who are 1
specifically asking for these bathrooms or is this more of a "we should have bathrooms 2
because it's the right thing to do"? 3
4
Mr. Anderson: When we did the outreach for the Parks Master Plan, when people were 5
writing in on parks what they wanted, much like dog parks almost every park came up 6 with "we'd like a restroom, we'd like a restroom." 7
8
Chair Lauing: I do think that's a fair question about is there going to be more security or 9
police. I think we should go into this knowing that there's not going to be, presuming that 10
there's not going to be. 11
12
Mr. Jensen: I would encourage the Commission, if you would like to see a sample of a 13
newer bathroom, the Juana Briones bathroom is a good one to look at. It's a prefabricated 14
structure. It is very well built and stout and has good lighting and the locks on the doors. 15
It has all the features that make a current bathroom and removes those things that we 16
think about with the old park bathrooms. It's much more secure. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Other comments? Commissioner Hetterly. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: I like the recommendation. I wonder if there's any prioritization 21
among those parks or you would just do outreach to all of them and prioritize based on 22
that or based on cost? 23
24
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. They have not been prioritized yet. Maybe some 25 of the outreach, we'll have to check with MIG to see if some of the outreach, maybe the 26 number of requests for restrooms as people wrote it in the bubble, if that will help inform 27 where our priorities should be. We could also use some staff observation. Eleanor 28
Pardee, for example, really jumps out at us because we get so many complaints about 29
people urinating in public there. That's one that pops out, but it doesn't necessarily have 30
to be the first. I think a little more research to determine what the priorities should be. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: Another possible criteria would be the age of users. If you have 33
a park that's used heavily by young children, that might be one that moves up on the 34
priority list. 35
36
Mr. Anderson: Good suggestion. 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: Thanks. 39
40
Chair Lauing: Definitely. Anything else? Sounds like we're good to go. 41
42
Draft Minutes 23
APPROVED
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 1
2
Mr. Jensen: The third policy to review tonight was 2.C. This one talks about the 3
synthetic turf and natural turf. staff has submitted a recommendation in the staff report 4
for maintaining the synthetic turf fields that we have. Reviewing the process are the 5
development of synthetic turf in the future to make determination if we want to expand 6 that as well as also increasing and enhancing the natural turf fields that we have to 7
increase capacity on those. I'll open it up to discussion for that specific policy. 8
9
Vice Chair Knopper: Can I ask a—I'm sorry. 10
11
Chair Lauing: I was going to say comments. Go ahead. 12
13
Vice Chair Knopper: One of your points is synthetic turf fields should be striped for 14
multiple sports to maximize use. Is there a reason not to? 15
16
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. When we recently looked at how we're going to 17
stripe Stanford-Palo Alto, we were debating because there were some standards for 18
lacrosse. As we started to spec out what it would look like, it could get really confusing 19
with the amount of lines. You do have to be thoughtful for how you're doing this because 20
it can get convoluted so quickly. We looked at the El Camino example, walked it with 21
the manufacturer of the turf itself and some of the folks that participate in lacrosse, and 22
came to an agreement on the style that's reasonable, that you can definitely still 23
differentiate between the two sports, but it's not so overwhelming that you can't figure out 24
what's going on. I think there is a reason to be cautious, and maybe three or four sports 25 might be overkill and soon be difficult. If there were a third or fourth sport, then we'd 26 have different striping. 27 28
Vice Chair Knopper: I was just going to ask besides soccer and lacrosse is there a third? 29
Football? Do we stripe for football? 30
31
Mr. Anderson: So far we haven't had that issue come up, but it could. It'd be something 32
we'd have to be careful and cautious about and proceed with thought and care. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are there only two colored lines at El Camino? I thought they 35
had three colors. 36
37
Mr. Anderson: I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. I'm not sure. 38
39
Chair Lauing: I think this idea of at this point staying up to speed on what the current 40
trends are, which are going to change, is kind of the only thing you can do. It's been so 41
controversial, but there's been so many scientific advances or not depending on your view 42
Draft Minutes 24
APPROVED
of it that it strikes me that at this point saying, "Stay up to speed on it," is probably good 1
until such time as you can make more of a definitive decision. Any other comments on 2
this one? Commissioner Hetterly. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a question. Are you proposing to retain the first part of 5
the original recommendation 2.C, to design and maintain high quality turf fields with 6 adequate time for resting to support maximum use in parks, blah, blah, blah, or is that 7
being replaced by a separate policy for synthetic turf and a separate policy for natural 8
grass? 9
10
Mr. Anderson: I would recommend keeping that first one as well as this additional 11
caveat in this recommendation you see before you that says we should hire a sports turf 12
consultant to do a full analysis. I would do both. 13
14
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. 15
16
Chair Lauing: That sports turf consultant, they're specialized? They either do grass or 17
synthetic? 18
19
Mr. Anderson: I just came back from a seminar a week or so ago. While he has some 20
knowledge of the synthetic, it's really natural turf that they'll specialize in, and that's what 21
we'd hire him for. The care of the synthetic turf is so much easier, you don't need a 22
professional consultant to tell you how to care for it. The natural grass, there's so much 23
that goes into it, it's a real challenge. 24
25 Commissioner Hetterly: These bulleted proposed recommendations, they're basically 26 programs that would go under that (crosstalk) 2.C? 27 28
Mr. Anderson: Correct. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: Thanks. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Just to clarify that. They wouldn't actually be listed in the policies, this 33
big policy document? That's just suggestions of program implementation? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Correct. 36
37
Chair Lauing: We had this debate a lot at the ad hoc, so I was just seeing what we've got 38
here, if this is part of the policy. Next up. 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the policy (inaudible)? Will this be the full policy or 41
is it ... 42
Draft Minutes 25
APPROVED
1
Commissioner Hetterly: Just the first sentence. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: Just the first sentence. Commissioner Moss had to leave. His 4
comments were that he supports the recommendation. He thinks that it's not a simple 5
decision to get rid of synthetic turf, and it should be a case-by-case basis basically. 6 7
Mr. Jensen: That'll bring us to 2.E which was 2.D in last month's policy. This one's 8
talking about the on-leash or require dogs to be on leash policy. We're going to look at 9
Daren's presentation on dog parks as part of that. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Peter; appreciate it. As you know, we've discussed ways to 12
increase dog off-leash opportunities for quite some time. It's with great pleasure that I'm 13
able to share with you tonight a staff and PARC ad hoc committee recommendation 14
regarding this policy and program for dog parks that can be included into our Parks 15
Master Plan. During the process of developing this recommendation, we explored other 16
models such as the fenced and unfenced shared-use model and learned from other cities 17
who have experimented with these alternatives to dedicated sites. We've also learned 18
from community outreach and from stakeholders from the dog owner community, athletic 19
field users, open space and nature advocates as well as people who just aren't fans of 20
having dogs off-leash in parks. After listening and learning and conducting a 21
comprehensive analysis of our entire park system, we came to the conclusion that Palo 22
Alto's policy should be to actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple 23
neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. While the size 24
of the dog parks are going to vary, we recommend that we should strive to have them be 25 at least a quarter acre in size, and the dog parks should not be placed in open space 26 preserves. The associated program to support this policy calls for at least six dedicated, 27 fenced dog parks from a list of 12 potential locations. I should note that the 28
recommendation acknowledges both Hoover and Greer's current dog parks are inadequate 29
in terms of their size, and that they should not be counted in their configuration towards 30
our minimum target of six dog parks. After the staff report was written, I met with 31
Stanford University staff and learned their concerns for one of these 12 sites; that's El 32
Camino Park. They've got two main concerns. One is that a dog park in the undeveloped 33
portion, that's the southern portion of El Camino that we've been proposed, would 34
interfere with future transit improvements for that area. Though the plans are uncertain 35
and the timelines aren't developed, they feel strongly that transit improvement will 36
happen. It's extremely important to Stanford, and they feel having a dog park there 37
would be an added complication because the dog owners would be reluctant to give it up 38
if and when this transit improvement ends up happening. Secondly, they're concerned 39
that dog park users would be driving to this site and using Stanford's two parking lots. 40
That's the one for the Red Cross building adjacent to where we're proposing a dog park, 41
and then the nearby MacArthur Park restaurant's. Those are both owned by Stanford and 42
Draft Minutes 26
APPROVED
leased out. They are small parking lots, and the fear is that if you had a dog park there, 1
because it's in closer proximity to their two parking lots than it is to El Camino Park 2
parking lot and there are no residences in the immediate vicinity—it's a half mile 3
distance—that people would most likely be driving. It's very likely that they'd be 4
impacting negatively their existing parking lots. As we discussed this with Stanford, 5
there were a few other cons or negatives to consider regarding their input and that site in 6 general. One is that the future transit improvements are also important to the City. We 7
do know as staff and I'm sure the Commission's aware that takeaways can be difficult. 8
When you've allocated for something and a couple of years pass, removing that use 9
whether it's a dog park or a community garden or anything else can be challenging. It 10
could slow or cause impediment to something important like a transit improvement 11
project. The other thing to note is all the other proposed sites that we're looking at, the 12
other 11, are all within walking distance of a neighborhood; whereas, that's not true for 13
this particular one. It is most likely going to be a driving site predominantly, being that 14
it's a half mile distance from the very closest residence. Since we have so many other 15
options in north Palo Alto with this list of 11 to spend our limited resources on, it makes 16
less sense to invest it at a site where there's a good possibility we might be removing 17
those amenities and fences sometime soon. Because of these reasons, staff is proposing 18
that we remove El Camino from our list of 12 potential sites and focus on the 11 sites 19
instead. In selecting these locations, we looked for sites with at least a quarter acre of 20
space, that are not currently used for active or programmed recreation. Seven of these 21
locations are in north Palo Alto, that is, north of Oregon Expressway, and five are in the 22
south. Three of these locations have existing dog parks. That's Mitchell Park, which 23
would be expanded, Hoover and Greer, which would be relocated to larger areas within 24
those parks. This map of Palo Alto shows all the potential sites circled in red. I included 25 the nearest neighboring Menlo Park and City of Mountain View parks in blue just to 26 show that some of the periphery borders of our City could also be using some of these 27 other cities' dog parks as well. Two of these 11 sites, Eleanor Pardee Park and Bowden 28
Park, are recommended to be implemented in the nearer term. There's funding in existing 29
Capital Improvement Projects that could be used to add the fencing, water for dogs and a 30
few small amenities like benches to create very simple dog parks in these areas. Both 31
these parks are in the northern portion of Palo Alto, which doesn't currently have any dog 32
parks. I'm going to quickly walk you through this example of the aerial photograph you 33
see of Eleanor Pardee. This is in the north. It's .41 acres. It's scheduled to happen in the 34
nearer term. With all these sites—it might be a little bit difficult to see the cursor. I'm 35
trying to outline the nether area of turf we looked at. With every single park site, we 36
broke it down and looked at all the possibilities and configurations that could be used. 37
The one you see outlined in blue is that .41 acre. It ultimately settled to the top of our 38
selection process. There was another .22 acre piece right here that had possibilities too. 39
As we weighed the pros and cons with the ad hoc committee, we ultimately felt that the 40
one you see before you is the best option. Different sites had multiple options. Some of 41
them had three. We picked the best. Some of them had just clearly one that stood out, 42
Draft Minutes 27
APPROVED
and some just were not suitable at all. There is another couple of reasons why we chose 1
Eleanor Pardee as a nearer-term. I'm just going to go through it really quickly. It's 2
centralized location in northern Palo Alto. It's walkable access from multiple 3
neighborhoods. It's large at 9.6 acres. It's got a pretty sizeable, unprogrammed, passive 4
use area which allows us to put in a dedicated, large dog park with minimal impacts to 5
other users. It's got a buffer space between the nearest residents, although not as large as 6 some place like El Camino, which was one of its pros. It's still sizeable. The second one 7
I want to walk you through is Bowden, also recommended for a nearer term. It's in the 8
north, .37 acres. While this park is not large—it's only a 2-acre park—it has an 9
unprogrammed, passive area that you see outlined in blue, that has very, very little use. 10
We feel this would have minimal impact on other park users or nearby residences. It's 11
accessible by multiple neighborhoods as you come through the Cal. Ave. underpass. 12
There's a Capital Improvement Project underway—at least it's done with the design—and 13
we should be starting that in the next few months. There might be a possibility, if we 14
move through the process quickly, that we can have it happen concurrent with the 15
restoration of the rest of Bowden Park. The process and timeline for adding these nearer-16
term dog parks, it's difficult to give you a definitive schedule. Each process seems to 17
have its own timeline. Whenever we go out to the public and things—they just have their 18
own timelines. The process would be, if you agreed with this recommendation, we could 19
proceed right away with this process. It would start with a public outreach meeting. 20
Again, this is a prioritized list, so we'd probably start at the top of the list. That would be 21
Pardee. We'd host that public meeting, collect feedback on this proposed dog park site, 22
bring the recommendation and seek approval from the Commission for a Park 23
Improvement Ordinance which would then go to the Council for approval. Then we'd get 24
a contract in place, go out to bids and install the fencing, the benches and the other 25 amenities. In summary, staff and the ad hoc committee believe this recommendation 26 reaches a good compromise between all the competing demands for this limited park 27 space that we have. It addresses our north/south Palo Alto dog park disparity, and it 28
presents a solid plan of action going forward to address Palo Alto's dog park needs now 29
and in the future. I'll defer to the ad hoc committee if there's anything you guys would 30
like to add to that presentation. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: I think you covered it. 33
34
Chair Lauing: I just wanted to say that this is a superlative report that was put together 35
by the collective ad hoc and staff. Just a terrific example of serious, serious work that 36
came into something that is now a very specific, comprehensive, actionable plan. Thanks 37
to our ad hoc and our staff for getting us there. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: I would just add extra kudos to Daren. I think you just went 40
above and beyond the call of duty in helping drive this and putting in so much legwork to 41
Draft Minutes 28
APPROVED
pull out all the maps and give it some really thoughtful consideration. I want to thank 1
you for that. 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: I concur. He and his staff worked so hard on this. It's truly a 4
remarkable document. Thank you. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Very clear, very visual, very easy to understand. Go ahead. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. Very good, very thorough, very thoughtful. I 9
appreciate it. I will go back on my soapbox about El Camino. I think if you put a sign up 10
that said, "this is temporary," and just put a fence and did nothing else, there'd be use out 11
of it. It's really not that far from anywhere University north. If you look at the map ... 12
13
Female: (inaudible) 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. Anyway, we're getting two. I'm happy with that. I 16
would be more happy with three, if we could have got that El Camino. That is, I think, a 17
missed opportunity, but at least we have two. 18
19
Chair Lauing: What's the process that you'd like from us to get this thing moving? 20
21
Mr. Anderson: I think I've got my marching orders. We'll get going on the public 22
outreach next. I'll consult with my boss first. If he concurs, we'll get going on the public 23
outreach for Pardee. 24
25 Chair Lauing: The process before it comes back to us is that you have public outreach 26 for an appropriate amount of time and other kinds of considerations, and then we go 27 straight to a PIO? 28
29
Mr. Anderson: Given this one's gotten so much feedback, I guess it depends on the 30
outreach feedback. It's been so well vetted, the idea. If there's general support in our 31
public outreach, yeah, I think I would probably try to go for a PIO. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Once that's calendared here, speakers can still come in and speak for or 34
against the PIO. Yeah, Rob. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: I'd like to talk with the City Manager a little bit about next steps on this. I 37
think it's really good direction and good staff work. Big kudos to Daren and the ad hoc 38
committee. I expect there will be some resistance once we get out there. It's dedicated 39
spaces in parkland for dog parks. I think we should ... 40
41
Chair Lauing: There will, yeah. 42
Draft Minutes 29
APPROVED
1
Mr. de Geus: ... check-in with the City Council on this, particularly if it's in advance of 2
the full Master Plan coming forward, which will have a whole set of policies and 3
recommendations. We should do a check-in with the Council. I'm not sure exactly how 4
the City Manager would want to do that, but I'd be concerned if we just moved ahead and 5
started the public outreach and moved towards implementing these dog parks without a 6 check-in. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Right now, you have a study session planned for mid-May ... 9
10
Mr. de Geus: That'd be good timing. 11
12
Chair Lauing: ... for Council which would be ... 13
14
Mr. de Geus: Good timing. 15
16
Mr. Anderson: Sorry about that; I jumped the gun. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Not that I was reading your calendar or anything. 19
20
Mr. Anderson: I also wanted to acknowledge the ad hoc committee. Thank you so 21
much. This one's been weighing heavy on my shoulders for about 5 years. Just so 22
grateful for the great work the ad hoc committee did, really thoughtful analysis and 23
feedback and got this one across the line. Thank you. Good job. 24
25 Chair Lauing: That was a lot of parks to study. 26 27 Commissioner Hetterly: I just have one more question. In terms of moving forward once 28
we get clearance to move forward, which I hope will be fast—I want just to finish the 29
question before I forget it. I wonder if we could go out for the outreach and the PIO 30
process for both Pardee and Bowden simultaneously as opposed to sequentially. 31
32
Mr. Anderson: Good question. I'll have to look into that a little bit more, but possible. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Those are the ones that you had called out as needing further discussion? 35
36
Mr. Jensen: Yes. I will open it up for the Commission if they have any other questions 37
on the other revised policies. 38
39
Chair Lauing: A couple of comments from the ad hoc, and other ad hoc members can 40
join in. Most importantly, we wanted to make sure that we didn't—I'm talking about the 41
whole policy document and not just ones we need further discussion on. We wanted to 42
Draft Minutes 30
APPROVED
make sure that it's all here; that everything is covered at least as a policy or a goal or a 1
program, to make sure we haven't missed anything. Secondly, if there are some that any 2
of you want to discuss at length, like we just did, or we think that we absolutely have to 3
hold on it because we need more research, then we should call that out as well. On the ad 4
hoc, we spent hours and hours and hours on this. I think it's quite fair to say that the 5
combination of staff and Commissioners couldn't come to a unanimous agreement on 6 each of these items that are set here for policy. Some of us think that they aren't all 7
policies, that they're programs. Some of us think that there's a lot of motherhood and 8
apple pie in some of the statements. Some of us think that some of the policies as stated 9
are actually ways to cooperate with your colleagues in other departments and all that. It's 10
all good stuff. What we, as an ad hoc, would like to get to tonight is if there are ones to 11
be called out for further discussion, that's fine. If there are ones that we've missed, that's 12
fine. Otherwise, we think we should hand it back to staff with all that input, and they 13
should just take it from here, and we just don't have to agree on all these policies and 14
programs as long as everything is there. If Jennifer or Keith want to add to that. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I concur. 17
18
Chair Lauing: With that, we'll go back to the other two agenda items. Are there specific 19
policies that we think need more chewing or that we've missed as long as we're looking 20
through them? 21
22
Commissioner Hetterly: I think there were two more that were highlighted in the packet. 23
One was Foothills Park and whether or not to expand access for nonresidents. There was 24
one about ... 25 26 Chair Lauing: I did see that one pop up again. 27 28
Commissioner Hetterly: ...designating park-like spaces as public spaces. I'm not sure I 29
quite understand what that's getting at. I'd like to understand that a little more before we 30
sign off on it counting as a policy. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Let's take that in order. You're on page 2 at the bottom, 1.J. That's been 33
moved to 1.J, explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for nonresidents. As an 34
ad hoc member, I asked for that to be taken off before, and it's back on here. I think that's 35
a project or an investigation. I don't see it as a policy to go look into something. I don't 36
see it as being appropriate. Other comments? 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: I concur. I think it's a program. Certainly we can encourage 39
it; we can discourage it. I don't think it rises to the level of being a policy. 40
41
Draft Minutes 31
APPROVED
Commissioner Hetterly: I think whether it's a policy—whatever you call it, we shouldn't 1
do it. 2
3
Chair Lauing: You're sort of saying as a policy we shouldn't do it, is what you're saying. 4
5
Ms. O'Kane: Commissioner Hetterly, is it even with the language that leaves it to a 6 future decision, you're not comfortable with that because it says explore? 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it encourages moving in that direction, and I don't think 9
that's a direction that we've discussed as favorable. I certainly don't support that 10
direction. I don't know how everybody else feels about it. 11
12
Chair Lauing: That could come up as a separate agenda item for discussion at some 13
future Commission meeting. We could explore the pros and cons, and then it'd be 14
incorporated later as a policy recommendation or not. Is that what you're saying? I'm 15
just trying to summarize. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm saying if staff wants to include something like this in the 18
Master Plan, then we should have a full discussion about whether we think that's the 19
direction we should go. If you don't, then the current policy is not to have a policy 20
encouraging that. We would just leave things as they are, and that would be fine with 21
me. 22
23
Chair Lauing: What was the other one that you noted? 24
25 Commissioner Hetterly: Designate park-like spaces at public facilities such as King 26 Plaza, City Hall, Secrete Garden, as public spaces to recognize their role in providing 27 space for recreation programming, informal park activities, and enhancements to public 28
health. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Where is that on the written document? I can't find it quickly. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: It's on the giant matrix. 33
34
Chair Lauing: No, no, on this. 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't have that. Yes, I do. It's Number 5.C. No, it's number—37
yeah it was the old Number 5. I don't know what number it is. It's on page 5; it's the 38
third item down on page 5. It was once 5.A; it was once 5.C. I don't know what it 39
currently is. 40
41
Chair Lauing: It's deleted. 42
Draft Minutes 32
APPROVED
1
Commissioner Hetterly: Why is it on the ... I'm confused then, because it was on the 2
chart. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Is it in pink on the chart? 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: This is one that staff—we had a lot of discussions on this as well and went 9
back and forth on it. I think what happened is in the document we deleted it and then we 10
continued to have the conversation and decided we needed to talk about it even more. 11
Peter, can you explain what this is getting at, this policy? 12
13
Mr. Jensen: The policy itself was to basically cite those open spaces that the City does 14
have, that are not currently parkland, and cite them that they are open space, and they are 15
used as parks. I think the debate that staff was having is that if we do denote these spaces 16
as parkland, any type of then renovation to them, especially for King Plaza which is 17
basically a green roof, would then require a Park Improvement Ordinance to reconstruct 18
it or whatever it was going to be in the future. Each of these spaces have a very specific 19
use already. They don't need to technically be deemed as parkland. They are going to be 20
mostly kept as they are. staff eliminated that to eliminate the future conflict of having to 21
have these as parkland and having to have a Park Improvement Ordinance then to 22
renovate them should things change in the future. They are (crosstalk). 23
24
Chair Lauing: Are you saying you're comfortable that it's deleted? 25 26 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 27 28
Chair Lauing: I think we are as well. I think a lot of our feedback was that as well. 29
30
Mr. Jensen: Staff is recommending that we do delete that. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't want to go off on a tangent here, because we had 35
discussions about definitions of policies and stuff like this. Now, we're considering 36
programs. Are we looking at programs that are satisfying the goals or looking at 37
programs that are satisfying the policies or looking at programs that satisfy either one? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Programs would satisfy the policy. The hierarchy is the goal, and then a 40
policy, and then you could have a project or a program under the policy. 41
42
Draft Minutes 33
APPROVED
Commissioner Reckdahl: The reason I ask is—for example, on Goal 3, it says create 1
environments that encourage active and passive activities for health, wellness and social 2
connections. None of the policies address social connections at all. The areas of focus 3
talk about enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming. None of the policies 4
address those. If that's the case, if the hierarchy is that everything from the goal flows 5
into the policies, then we need additional policies under that goal. 6 7
Mr. de Geus: Projects and programs should support both policies and goals is the way I 8
see it. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: If that's the point, we can design the programs to satisfy the 11
goals and/or the policies. The policies are just there to give us more flavor on what the 12
goal has. I have no problem with that. If we only are looking at the policies when we're 13
choosing programs, then we need to add more. 14
15
Mr. de Geus: I think the way to think about it is that we have goals, and we address those 16
goals by having specific policies and by having specific projects and programs that move 17
the goal. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: As long as we're free to pick programs that satisfy the goal but 20
no policy, I'm happy. I have another comment about Goal 4. Is this good ... 21
22
Chair Lauing: Yeah, because we're doing anything that's missing. We're going to be 23
done with policies as of tonight. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: This is really for Peter and Daren. Goal 4 which talks about 26 natural habitat, we don't have anything there about native plants. When we were doing 27 the Bol Park planting, Peter had a nice discussion about the importance of native plants, 28
because we have bugs and birds and all that need these native plants. If all we're worried 29
about is water consumption, we have all these nonnative, low-water plants. That may not 30
be consistent with the bugs and the animals around. That seemed to be a very compelling 31
reason to at least have a preference, not necessarily mandatory, but a preference for 32
native species. I think that would be worthwhile to put as a policy. We're not making it 33
mandatory; you can plant nonnative because we have a lot of competing issues in parks. 34
We should have a preference for native species. That's one thing. Do Peter and Daren 35
concur with that. 36
37
Mr. Anderson: I do agree. I think that almost always the native plant typically is water 38
tolerant, drought tolerant. It's often the preferred one for that rationale too. Plus in all 39
our nurseries, the Acterra and Baylands one, that's all we grow, native plants. I 40
absolutely encourage the use of those as a preference. 41
42
Draft Minutes 34
APPROVED
Commissioner Reckdahl: The second one—Peter, do you want anything? Are you 1
happy? Also on Goal 4, we don't talk about wildlife at all. Wildlife is very important in 2
the parks and especially in the open space. I think we should have a policy on there. It 3
doesn't have to be anything great, but something that says we need to take care of the 4
wildlife or encourage wildlife or take care of the wildlife. (inaudible) That's the only 5
other issues. I'm done. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 8
9
Commissioner Cowie: I think actually both points that Keith raised here are noted in the 10
letter we got tonight. I think there's some other interesting points raised in here as well. I 11
thought they addressed both of those issues pretty well. Something to consider. 12
13
Chair Lauing; Did you have others, Keith? 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: No. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. I think that letter from the Sierra Club and the Audubon 18
Society—I support all of their recommended revisions. I think we ought to incorporate 19
those. Also, as I was thinking about this earlier for dog parks and for this, it made me 20
look back at the—I mean, for park acreage and for this—at that memo we wrote back in 21
September 2014 about the impacts of growth and development, the letter the Commission 22
sent to Council. I was looking back at the recommendations we had included that we 23
wanted them to consider as they were considering any plan for growth, that they were 24
committed to these types of things. They include not only increasing park fees and 25 building inventory and pursuing opportunities to build inventory, but also reliable and 26 sustainable mechanisms to address a growing gap in maintenance funding. I don't know 27 if we have anything—it seemed like our plan ought to do what we told them that they 28
should do. I'd like to look back at those and see if we can construct some policies that 29
achieve those goals. I can read them out loud for folks who probably don't have them in 30
front of them. That was one. Another was quality measures to monitor the health of our 31
parks and recreation facilities in the face of growing demand and use and to evaluate 32
services to rapidly growing and changing demographic groups. I think we do have—it 33
might have the latter in here, but I'm not sure if we had the first, how we keep track of 34
wear and tear. Maybe that's built into the maintenance piece. 35
36
Chair Lauing: I think it is. 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: The last one was quality measures to monitor impacts on habitat 39
and ecosystems and conservation plans to preserve and protect them. We've got the 40
conservation plans in there, but I don't know that we've come up with any quality 41
Draft Minutes 35
APPROVED
measures to monitor impacts or if that's something that we could do in the context of this 1
Master Plan. I'd like staff's thoughts about it, and the Commission's as well. 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: With regard to the conservation, I do agree with you that the 4
language—I just received the letter tonight from the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. I 5
do agree with including their language and their edits. I think any opportunity we have to 6 be extremely clear on that. What was the first point? I agreed with it, but I can't—there 7
were some ... 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: Reliable and sustainable mechanisms to address gaps in 10
maintenance funding. 11
12
Vice Chair Knopper: Right. Thank you. That's nowhere in here, correct? 13
14
Chair Lauing: 6.C comes a little bit close to that. Review and update existing guidance 15
for development, ops and maintenance of parks. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: Which one—I see. 18
19
Chair Lauing: It doesn't say dollars, but that's implied. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm not sure dollars is implied there at all. These are ... 22
23
Chair Lauing: That's what I said. No, I said it's not there. 24
25 Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) I don't think they're even implied. I don't think they 26 come into play at all in 6.C. 27 28
Chair Lauing: If you're updating guidance for how to do maintenance in the parks and it 29
costs more, then I figured that was implied. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think that's implied. 32
33
Vice Chair Knopper: It says efficiently, so I suppose that implies that you would make 34
the appropriate cost decisions with regard to that particular point. 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: I guess what I would look for then is staff's thinking on whether 37
there is something we could put in this plan that would make it easier for you to secure 38
the funding necessary to keep up the maintenance necessary to meet the growing needs. 39
If there is, I would love for the Commission to be able to support it by putting it in the 40
Plan. 41
42
Draft Minutes 36
APPROVED
Ms. O'Kane: We can certainly take a look at it and come up with some language that 1
might satisfy the previous recommendation. The one on evaluating demographics, we 2
did add Policy 1.I that says periodically collect and evaluate data on the changing needs 3
of the community and adjust programs and plans accordingly. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that does it. 6 7
Ms. O'Kane: For the measures to monitor impacts to wildlife and habitat, I don't 8
remember the exact language. I think the conservation plans, like you said, will help 9
achieve that. We'd have to really look at that. I'm not sure how we would collect that 10
data as part of the Master Plan, but we can talk about it and see if it's going to be 11
addressed in the conservation plans or if it's something that could be addressed here. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: Okay. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: What was the other one? It was measuring something else. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: It was quality measures to monitor the health of our parks and 18
recreation facilities in the face of growing demand and use. I think what we had in mind 19
then was sort of keeping track over time are we wearing things out faster because of 20
greater use. It was figuring out how to measure that, so that we could tie it to cause and 21
effect. 22
23
Ms. O'Kane: We'll take a look at those. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Anything else on policies? One more. 26 27 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm looking through—Commissioner Moss left me his notes. 28
I'm looking through it. He does note that Policies 5.E and 5.I are identical. We should 29
just delete one of them. Also, he was saying again this discussion of policies versus 30
programs. 6.I, he thought those would be programs and that we should have a higher 31
level policy that says we should cooperate with our neighbors and other people. These 32
would be programs under that. That's it. 33
34
Chair Lauing: I think it's a wrap. That was some collective work. Thank you, Peter. 35
36
Mr. Jensen: Thank you very much. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Daren, Kristen. 39
40
Draft Minutes 37
APPROVED
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1
2
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is Comments and Announcements. I think 3
all you Commissioners have been getting comments. I just wanted to reinforce that the 4
financial disclosure is due on April 1st. For you new Commissioners, have a lot of fun 5
with that. For us old Commissioners, have a lot of fun with that. It's kind of a pain but 6 essential, and we all signed up for it. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: There's an ethics training coming up in April, the annual ethics 9
training. 10
11
Chair Lauing: One got postponed. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: That's the one. It was in March; it got postponed. (inaudible) 14
15
Chair Lauing: Yes, Council Member Filseth. 16
17
Council Member Filseth: I actually have one. It happens I'm also the Council liaison to 18
the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo. They want to make sure that everybody 19
knows that everybody here is invited to their launch tomorrow at 5:30. You must have 20
been deluged with emails by this already (inaudible). 21
22
Commissioner Hetterly: Could you speak up a little? 23
24
Council Member Filseth: The Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo is having their 25 launch party for their proposed project tomorrow at 5:30. They want to make sure that 26 everybody on the Parks and Rec Commission is invited. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Other announcements from staff? 29
30
Rob de Geus: Just on that topic of the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Friends, we got a 31
staff review of the redesigned plans today actually. It moves considerably off the park 32
which, I think, you'll be very pleased to see. I hope you will be. They plan to come back 33
to the Commission next month. Excited to show you the updated plans. I think they've 34
done some really hard thinking about that. 35
36
Chair Lauing: On the next item of agendas, that was my first item, are they going to be 37
ready to come back next month. 38
39
Mr. de Geus: They are. They'll be ready. 40
41
Draft Minutes 38
APPROVED
Council Member Filseth: My understanding is that they're going to have posters about 1
that tomorrow. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: I also wanted to mention we had the Cubberley Community Day over the 4
weekend. Staff put a lot of work into it. I want to thank Commissioner Hetterly for 5
being there and participating and helping staff out with some visioning of the future of 6 Cubberley. Thank you. It was a very, very nice event. 7
8
Kristen O'Kane: Did you want to give an update on the golf course? 9
10
Mr. de Geus: You could probably do it better than I, to some extent. The golf course, we 11
do have some good news. It's starting to move along both on the flood control project 12
and the golf course. The flood control project has its permits. There's a meeting with 13
PG&E on the 24th, this week. The first step will be to move the PG&E line away from 14
where the new levee will be built. That will have further impacts to the golf course. The 15
golf course permits are moving along rapidly now. We've got some good news from Fish 16
and Wildlife and the Army Corps. We don't have our permits yet, but we're much, much 17
closer than we've ever been. There is even a possibility that we could be ready in the 18
summer to actually begin. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I've never heard you use those two words in one sentence, "golf course" 21
and "rapidly." The whole time we've been on this project. 22
23
Mr. de Geus: I hope I don't regret it. 24
25 Ms. O'Kane: I just have one announcement. For those of you who have teens in your 26 life, we are hiring for multiple summer positions, counselors, assistant site directors and a 27 site director and also some lifeguards. If anyone knows of any teens looking for a 28
summer job, they can go to cityofpaloalto.org and click on job opportunities. 29
30
Chair Lauing: What's the age range for that? 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: Fifteen and up. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Up to 19 because that's teens or ... 35
36
Mr. de Geus: We hire a lot of young adults too, if you're in college. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Peter. 39
40
Peter Jensen: The community garden project is moving along very rapidly. By the end 41
of the week hopefully, we're done with 90 percent of the project. By the end of next 42
Draft Minutes 39
APPROVED
week, we'll be done with that. I did have discussion today. Megha, who presented earlier 1
for the Boardwalk, is also project manager for Bowden Park. She's helping me with that. 2
That should kick off at the end of next month, renovations to Bowden. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I'd like to just make a quick comment unrelated. There was a 5
great article in the Weekly last week, I think, about the Bryant Street Garage Fund that the 6 City runs to fund grants to local teens, whatever idea they have, to promote a project. I 7
thought it was really phenomenal coverage and reflected fabulously on the City and 8
(inaudible). 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we back up to the community gardens? We're retrofitting 11
which gardens? 12
13
Mr. Jensen: We retrofitted all three of the gardens actually, the Rinconada, Eleanor and 14
Johnson Park. Rinconada and Eleanor are completed except for some mulch in the 15
pathways that needs to be done. They are working on Johnson Park this week. We did 16
find that whoever did Johnson Park in the past did a very good job and plumbed it all 17
very well. I won't tell you how it's plumbed, because I don't want to incite people who 18
want to go out there and dig it all up. We're going to maintain it like it is. We did change 19
out all the hose bibs. We are going to update how the system is connected to the main 20
water source and add some more backflow protection, that and better drinking fountains 21
to offset basically the savings that we had to make that system better. All three of them 22
got upgraded. They're engineered now so if there's two or three people with water on, 23
then that person in the back corner should also be able to get water at the same time, 24
which is definitely a big bonus for that project. 25 26 Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the status of the community gardens down at—what's 27 the community center? Ventura. We are organizing that or they're still organizing that? 28
29
Daren Anderson: They're still managing and organizing it; however, they did adopt our 30
policies regarding community gardens. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Going forward, they're going to still do the management, but 33
they're just going to be following our policies? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 36
37
Chair Lauing: No other announcements? Let's move on to the tentative agenda for 38
April 26th. 39
40
Draft Minutes 40
APPROVED
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 26, 2016 MEETING 1
2
Chair Lauing: The zoo was first up. That's probable. Do we think we'll have any dog 3
park action coming back? That's only 4 weeks out. 4
5
Vice Chair Knopper: No. Leave Daren alone. Leave him alone. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Good point. I retract that question. Have a good night's sleep, Daren. I 8
just want to point out to the Commission that a number of you are signed up for various 9
ad hoc committees. If there's action to be done, please initiate that in your respective 10
committees. Let us know in advance if you want a specific report out in any subsequent, 11
upcoming meeting. Looks like dog parks might be done, for the two of you. Hooray. 12
Other agenda items so far? 13
14
Commissioner Hetterly: I think we'll be ready with website for next month. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Website, okay. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: As long as Catherine gets healthy soon. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Do you know of any other things? 21
22
Kristen O'Kane: We'll give an update on the Parks Master Plan, but we won't go into any 23
detailed discussion. 24
25 Chair Lauing: I think that's it, unless people have other things. 26 27 VII. ADJOURNMENT 28 29
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Vice Chair 30
Knopper at 9:58 p.m. 31
Draft Minutes 41