HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-28 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED
Approved Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
June 28, 2016 8
CITY HALL 9
250 Hamilton Avenue 10
Palo Alto, California 11
12
Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Anne Cribbs, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed 13
Lauing, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: David Moss 15
Others Absent: Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane, Amanda Deng 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Amanda Deng 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
Chair Lauing: With respect to Agenda Changes, Requests and Deletions, there is one 22
agenda change that we know of. That is Item Number 2 had been pre-announced as an 23
action item, but it turns out that we don't actually need a PIO on advice of City counsel. 24
That will just be an informational session for our benefit and for our comments. Are 25
there any other changes to agenda or requests or deletions? 26
27
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 28
29
Chair Lauing: Are there any speakers at this point? On items that are on the agenda or 30
not, either one. I'd like to recognize Robert Neff. If you could just step up to that 31
microphone there, it's recorded so that's why we like you to be there. 32
33
Robert Neff: I'm Robert Neff. I'm on the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 34
Committee, have been on that for about 5 years. I wanted to talk to you about trails and 35
trails that go across our City and the recreational aspect of the multiuse trails that we have 36
in the City that I hope you can take an interest in. I've got about four copies of handouts. 37
The first page is—excuse me. 38
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 2
Chair Lauing: Just so that everybody can hear you that listens in. 1
2
Mr. Neff: Now, I have to remember what was on those things. The first page is a Palo 3
Alto open space map from about 5 years ago. It shows the parks, and it also marks kind 4
of in yellowish there the beta hills trail that was recognized then. It also happens to mark 5
trails all over Stanford and every bike lane in town. The next page is actually a map from 6
today showing our parks and facilities. I don't think it actually shows any of the multiuse 7
paths in town at all. I was involved with the Bike Advisory Committee in about 2010 to 8
2012 when we developed the Citywide plan. We have a bunch of multiuse trails in that 9
plan. Actually the Bicycle Advisory Committee was not particularly interested in that; 10
they're mostly interested in bicycles it turns out. It is in the plan. If you look on the next 11
page, it's a list of all the proposed multiuse trails. There are many that are primarily—12
they are somewhat transportation oriented but also recreation oriented including the 13
Matadero Creek Trail, which Council just acted on, which includes a connection to the 14
Baylands from Midtown potentially and other trails around town. The next map shows 15
the proposed bicycle network, which includes the beta hills trail from the 2010 map and 16
also two other beta hill trail alignments that were proposed as part of the Bicycle and 17
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. I'm here to encourage you to keep abreast of these plans. 18
Since you guys are the Recreation Committee, then I think you should be interested in 19
recreational uses of our City beyond the parks including these trails. Especially since you 20
have a Parks and Trails Master Plan, I think these trails—the recreational aspects of these 21
trails and trail connections should be of interest to you in the Master Plan as well. What 22
has happened so far in reality is, especially the Matadero Creek Trail, there's been really 23
some community involvement thanks to an outreach that was done by the Transportation 24
Department, but nobody's organized to look at that and say this is a beneficial 25
recreational thing, and we really need to get some momentum behind it. As a 26
consequence, a small focus group has managed to really put that trail kind of—to 27
convince Council that it's not a worthy thing for us to go forward on. I guess I'm 28
interested in hoping that you guys can get more involved with the recreational trails. I 29
think my committee is not very strong on recreational walking and connections as far as 30
PABAC goes. Also, we're oriented more towards transportation than about recreation. 31
It's the same for the other advisory committee, the City School Safety Committee. 32
They're also more oriented toward routes to schools but necessarily routes to parks. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Thank you very much. There are no other speakers. We'll move on to the 35
next item, which is Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 31 Parks and Recreation 36
Commission special meeting. I'm not sure why it was special; they're all special. 37
38
IV. BUSINESS: 39
40
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from May 31, 2016 Parks and Recreation 41
Commission Special Meeting. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 3
1
Approval of the draft May 31, 2016 Minutes was moved by Commissioner**and 2
seconded by Commissioner **. Passed 5-0, Moss absent, Cowie abstaining 3
4
2. Approval of Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Park 5
Improvement Ordinance 6
7
Chair Lauing: The next item and the first official item of business is now the look at the 8
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center improvement ordinance. This is the 9
second time that we've seen it. 10
11
Daren Anderson: I'd like to introduce the group presenting tonight. Daren Anderson, 12
Open Space, Parks and Golf. Here tonight from Public Works is Hung Nguyen. He's a 13
Project Engineer working on this one. John Aikin is the Community Services Manager 14
overseeing the Junior Museum and Zoo and the programming at the Baylands Nature 15
Center. I should note that, while this was originally slated to be a Park Improvement 16
Ordinance, the City Attorney reviewed it and found that it was not necessary to do a Park 17
Improvement Ordinance for this one. This is an informational report, but there are a 18
couple of key design features that we would really like your feedback on. With that, I'll 19
pass it over to Hung. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Daren, can you clarify why we don't need to vote on that? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: I didn't actually hear the details. The premise behind a Park 24
Improvement Ordinance is usually something substantive is going to change. If it's 25
routine maintenance, which is really what this falls under, typically it doesn't. The trend 26
has been, though, that we err on the side of caution and do a Park Improvement 27
Ordinance for everything. Upon further review, it was not necessary. 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 30
31
Hung Nguyen: Good evening. My name is Hung Nguyen. I'm the Project Engineer of 32
the Baylands Interpretive Center. Back in October of last year, we present the 33
Commission the schematic design of the project. The overall project has not been 34
changed. We received some of the comment back from the Commission back in October, 35
and we proceed with the design based on that. I can go over what the Commission would 36
recommend back there. We should stick to the color of the Baylands; try to design 37
something similar to what we have now; a desire to include gray water plumbing for 38
future uses. We'll work with a consultant to incorporate that in the project. Retain the 39
habitats for the swallow onsite. John will go into further detail of the option that we have 40
to retain the swallow onsite. The next item is gender neutrality for the restroom. Due to 41
the space limit out there and the use of the space, we have created separate gender 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 4
restrooms for male and female, but we do have the neutral gender restroom for the youth 1
in the building. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: That means that both of the restrooms will just be labeled 4
bathroom? 5
6
Mr. Nguyen: No, we have a men and a women restroom separately, and we create a third 7
space. The use in that restroom will be a gender neutral restroom for kids. 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl: If it's single occupancy, can you just say any gender goes into 10
any bathroom? It's different if you have a bathroom that holds ten people, but these are 11
small bathrooms. Can we just make each one be gender neutral? 12
13
Mr. Nguyen: Sure. I can take a look and I can talk to the consultant to see if we can 14
modify that. There was concern that the glass panel that we install for the interpretive 15
signage will cause some bird collisions. We investigated that, and we will use a glass 16
that approved by the Audubon Society and the—what is it, John? 17
18
John Aikin: American Bird Conservancy. 19
20
Mr. Nguyen: To prevent collision on that. John can go into more detail later. There will 21
be interpretive signage railing that meet ADA compliance that the Commission 22
recommend back then. All the project design based on the Baylands Design Guidelines, 23
so we adhere to what the Commission recommended. We do have a requirement for the 24
contractor to salvage some of the siding to be used either in the restroom or somewhere 25
else that they think it's appropriate for that. With that, I can go into brief detail of the 26
project. We will do the project overview and then the building improvement that we 27
going to do and the swallow nesting, which John can go into further detail, and then we 28
can go into the project sketch. We would like some feedback from the Commission. 29
Since we have a very aggressive schedule, we will not be back for another review. If you 30
can provide as many comments as you can. Thank you. The scope of this project. We 31
will have the fascia repaired. The fascia either broken or cracked after 40 or 50 years out 32
in the sun and the Baylands environment. We will have bird habitat protection. We have 33
to upgrade the electrical panel. The building doesn't have any control now, so any 34
control with the electrical have to be done at the panel. They don't have a second switch 35
for separate rooms. We will upgrade that. We will replace all the stairwell lighting, and 36
the new lighting for the restroom will be incorporated in that. All the sprinkler heads will 37
be replaced. The restroom, we realigned the restroom to meet ADA compliance. All the 38
decking will be new, the railing will be new. We do some minor structural repair to the 39
column and the beam of the building. Repair all the conduit, and I'll be showing you the 40
deck opening and the new railing associated with that at a later slide. This is the new 41
floor plan layout. This is the area that we going to have the ADA interpretive signage 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 5
railing installed. The area right here is the deck opening for the swallow dropping to go 1
down to the Baylands. This area and this area. We have 3-D interpretive glass panel that 2
we going to install in the railing. Here one, the second one right here, and the third one 3
over here. All decking will be new. All the railing will be new also. The restroom will 4
be organized. You can see the existing layout of the restroom right there. The new 5
restroom, we will have the women's and the men's, but I can talk to the consultant to see 6
if we can make that a gender neutral also. This is the youth restroom for the kids to use. 7
We like the layout for the sink, the wash-up area right here. It provides more space for 8
the big group to go, the kids to go in. They can wash their hands after the project. They 9
work on clay a lot of times, right? They can wash up. This is a 3-D model showing the 10
new railing. This is the railing to prevent people from falling down the deck opening that 11
we're going to create. The glass panel location is right here, right here and back here we 12
have another one. Here is the glass in the guardrail. John, you want to talk about it? 13
14
Mr. Aikin: John Aikin. I just wanted to mention that there are two types of railings 15
being installed. A legal railing that will be the standard railing used in the deck of the 16
boardwalk in the next project. We're trying to standardize railings for both the deck here 17
and then the boardwalk itself as well as interpretive railings that will be canted at a 18
greater angle as a visual cue for people to know where to go and get information. What 19
that allows us to do is to avoid putting something on top of the railing that further blocks 20
the view. We're going to have a lot of interpretive information just at railing height. 21
We'll also have other locations where we could add sculpture or other kinds of 22
interpretive elements. The two illustrations that you see up on the board behind me or 23
wherever in the room, one is a higher cant. That's the interpretive railing. The other is 24
just the standard railing. The elevation that you see where it says guardrail elevation 25
shows the glass viewing panel. The railings currently are steel rebar that doesn't meet 26
Code. We're replacing those with wooden battens, but those wooden battens block more 27
of the view for children, people in wheelchairs, anybody at a low profile. We're just 28
trying to be able to provide windows through to the marsh. We've chosen a bird collision 29
deterrent glass that's produced by a company that creates a film that birds can see, that we 30
can't see. They see it in UV light. It's tested by the American Bird Conservancy, and 31
actually meets the standards of both the Building Code for anti-bird collisions for 32
Oakland and San Francisco, but also the standards for the Golden Gate Audubon Society 33
and Santa Clara Audubon Society to reduce bird collisions. Let's talk about swallows. 34
This swallow season we're prototyping nest boxes. The photograph up on the upper 35
panel there are some of our test boxes. We're trying various dimensions and various 36
locations on the building to see how the swallows would react. We also tested excluding 37
swallows from the building using a polypropylene netting. We did that because it was 38
inexpensive. The contractor will actually use a steel mesh that's coated in vinyl; it lasts 39
more. What we've learned is the rats will actually use it as a way of getting out into the 40
eaves to get to the swallow nests. The steel will prevent them from chewing through it. 41
We've also learned that it has to be offset from the surface. The swallows will actually 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 6
build up enough mud underneath it that they'll get enough bite for their nest to actually 1
create a foundation for the nest and continue nesting. The prototyping was, I think, 2
successful in teaching us a lot about what the swallows will look for and where they can 3
nest and how to exclude them. What we'll do in the project is try and concentrate the 4
nests in areas where we open up the decking and provide the right kinds of habitats in the 5
right locations so that the swallow droppings go down into the Bay and in locations that 6
we know the swallows will choose to nest and in dimensions that they're looking for. 7
These illustrations sort of show both the root of the problem, the trajectory of the 8
swallows from underneath the artificial nest structures that we've created, and then how 9
we're going to accommodate the mess that's created there, allow us to just hose it down 10
and really keep people away from the mess is largely what it's going to do. Questions 11
about any of that? I'll turn it back over to Hung. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question. It looks like you've tested the 14
boxes, and they will actually use them. You've put them in the locations that you plan to, 15
so there's no reason to expect that they will reject it in favor of a different spot? 16
17
Mr. Aikin: Correct. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I do have one question. We're losing some benches along the 20
wall right now. Can we find any place to replace them? 21
22
Mr. Aikin: We've talked a little bit about that. Our tradeoff for the swallow holes in the 23
deck, for lack of another term, is that we're losing through-way. It's a narrower area. It's 24
difficult to put the benches back where they were. We've talked about putting them on 25
the—I think that's the northwest side of the building, where you've got viewing out of the 26
building. The glass comes to the ground, and we don't really want to block those views. 27
Also, that's an area that we often bring school groups out, and they sit on the ground. 28
What we're looking at is furniture options that we can actually bring back into the 29
building and things that we can have outside. As we move forward with the design of the 30
boardwalk, we'd like to look at bench options and pull-outs in interpretive nodes out there 31
as well. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we had benches somewhere on the boardwalk, I think that'd 34
be sufficient. We just need—both for youth and for elderly, we need some spot where 35
they can stop and rest. 36
37
Mr. Aikin: People to sit. 38
39
Mr. Nguyen: To add on that, we will have some turnout on the boardwalk for ADA 40
compliance. We can create the space for benches for people to sit. To chime in on the 41
two options that we show on the slide. One option is we can install the bird nest 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 7
prototype and leave the deck the way you see. The downside is all the droppings will be 1
falling on the deck and causing a mess again. Second option, we have the deck opening. 2
The bird droppings will go down to the Bay. The problem of the option is we don't have 3
the—for the second, the deck opening, we don't have to deal with the mess. However, it 4
will increase the project budget a little bit. We have to encapsulate all the exposed beams 5
of the structure, and then we have to add the railing to the project on the deck opening 6
sides. Now to the schedule. We have a very aggressive schedule. I think it's doable. 7
Like (inaudible) before the Commission can give me as many comments as you may 8
have, so we can incorporate. We are planning to have the ARB minor review done next 9
month and file the notice of exemption to the Santa Clara County next month also, and 10
have the design complete by end of July. We hope to get the permit by August and bid 11
the project by the end of August and have the Council award in September and start 12
construction somewhere in middle of September, the third week of September. 13
14
Mr. Aikin: After the swallows leave. 15
16
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, after the swallows leave. We only have a 5-month duration to work 17
during the swallow and the other birds nesting in the area, which is between September 18
and January 31st. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is our best guess on how long the construction would 21
take? 22
23
Mr. Nguyen: I think most of the—we have the contract require all the noisy and outside 24
work to be done by January 31st. We vetted that with our consultant, and they think it 25
will be doable within the timeline. They have done the project across the Bay, the 26
Cooley Landing project, a couple of years back. They say with the Cooley Landing 27
project (inaudible) but they can get it in the same time period also. They're pretty 28
confident that we can have this project (inaudible). 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: We're starting September, then September, October, 31
November, December, January, 5 months. 32
33
Mr. Nguyen: Five months, yes. 34
35
Commissioner Reckdahl: That gives us 2 months margin, 3 months margin. 36
37
Mr. Nguyen: Yep. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it May 1st we have to stop or end of April? 40
41
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 8
Mr. Nguyen: No, no. January 31st is when we have to stop all the noisy operation. We 1
can do some minor finishing work inside. For example, tile work, electrical, lining with 2
insulation. Those typically don't cause any noises, and that shouldn't be an issue. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: How much margin do we have then? It almost sounds like we 5
don't have any margin. 6
7
Mr. Nguyen: For the exterior work, I think if we don't have that many rain days, I think 8
we should be done in about 3 or 4 months. The inside finishing work might take some 9
time to finish out the work. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Can you give them a rough idea of when the building would be ready to 12
open inside and outside? 13
14
Mr. Nguyen: Right now, I think the realistic schedule for opening the building back, I'll 15
say probably early March next year. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: There's a typo here. It says 2016. What's the ramifications if 18
we get a lot of rain days and we don't make progress? Do we just extend the construction 19
into February and potentially irritate the wildlife or do we have to just put it on hold for a 20
year? 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: We would have to ask the contractor to work on the weekend, and we have 23
to pay them extra for that work. 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: We have to finish on time. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: We wouldn't be permitted to finish any of the noisy work in the bird 28
nesting season. We have to get that one done. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's going to be tough. 31
32
Mr. Nguyen: There are some way we can put some liquidate damage in there if they 33
cannot finish in time. The downside of that is it could deter some of the contractors from 34
bidding the project. We have to analyze that. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: That would not be good if we've been in there all summer and 37
people couldn't use it. 38
39
Chair Lauing: Could you back up one slide? 40
41
Mr. Nguyen: Sure. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 9
1
Chair Lauing: What is that exemption that's required? 2
3
Mr. Nguyen: The environmental process, although it's exempt from CEQA process. Say 4
we work in the Baylands, we still want to file the notice of exemption to the County. If 5
anyone have some concern, be sure they can (inaudible) to us. 6
7
Chair Lauing: The permits in August is reasonable given where you've got the ARB 8
minor review in July? 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: Yes. I have looked at the schedule. I'm pretty sure we're going to meet the 11
schedule. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Others have questions? 14
15
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. 16
17
Chair Lauing: It's very cool. The changes that he made are really cool. 18
19
Mr. Anderson: A couple of key things we really wanted to make sure that we got your 20
feedback on and support on, overall design, the swallow habitat premise, and then really 21
that decking option, we leave the decking open for the swallow guano to fall through or if 22
you don't like that. That feedback would be really helpful. 23
24
Chair Lauing: I like the swallow toilets like that. Those are really (crosstalk). 25
26
Vice Chair Knopper: I believe they're called potties. 27
28
Chair Lauing: I accept your amendment. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: I like the openings too. I think that is the best. I think it's 31
pretty clear. 32
33
Chair Lauing: It's totally consistent with them being integrated to their natural life out 34
there. We're already doing a little bit of interruption, so let them do their thing. It's great. 35
Terrific. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a couple more questions. 38
39
Chair Lauing: Sure, go. 40
41
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about internet or multimedia wiring? We do a lot of 1
classroom stuff there. When we're doing the construction, are we going to be wiring up 2
that main room and the lab for access? 3
4
Mr. Aikin: We already have fiber optic out there. There's Wi-Fi in the building. 5
6
Commissioner Reckdahl: How about the connections outside the building? When we 7
had the meeting out there 6 months ago, there was a walker and she had to go through 8
gravel to get to the front. From the parking lot to the Interpretive Center, it'd really be 9
nice to have something smooth, so people with disabilities and strollers too can make an 10
easy access. 11
12
Mr. Anderson: There's a separate project to correct the narrowing levee. This is further 13
towards the discharge pipe, about 300 yards away from the nature center, further on the 14
trail, if that makes sense. It had narrowed from ground squirrel activity. We had the CIP 15
to correct that, and we're stuck in permitting limbo with that project right now. I don't 16
have an ETA on when we'll have a next step. It's kind of in the position that the golf 17
course was 3 years ago. We'll move forward. In the interim, what we'll probably do is 18
staff-level corrections of ruts, but it'll remain the same material, the base rock levee 19
material. We've already made some corrections. There was a wood entry piece to the 20
front gate, and that had some uplifted areas that were problematic with certain folks. 21
That's been corrected already. Little pieces like that can be done, but it won't be the full 22
smoothing of the entire levee. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: The intention is to eventually have that smooth from the 25
parking lot to the ... 26
27
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. The bulk of the levee was really to correct the narrowed section. 28
We had a small scope to smooth out that piece, because we knew it was rough. I think it 29
will happen eventually. In the interim, we'll take some interim measures that will smooth 30
it a little better, but it won't be perfect. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. That's it. 33
34
Commissioner Cribbs: I had just one question about the classes that are being moved and 35
where and how many do we have to cancel and what are the plans. 36
37
Mr. Aikin: It's going to be an interesting year for us this year. We are working on 38
negotiations right now currently are going on between the City of East Palo Alto and the 39
Community Services Department here in Palo Alto, the City Attorney's Office here. We 40
expect to bring forward an agreement to Council—actually to both Councils, the City of 41
East Palo Alto and the City of Palo Alto, to use Cooley Landing as a site for our 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 11
Baylands programs this year. If for some reason those negotiations go south and it 1
doesn't happen, our contingency plan or Plan B is to do a modified field trip program 2
with the schools. What we would do is go into the schools for the classroom portion of 3
the field trip and then do the field trip actually out in the Baylands and use the port-a-4
potties that are out there and just the diminished services that are available in terms of 5
classroom support out there, but still go forward with an actual Baylands field trip. 6
Alternatively, we're going to ask schools if they'd like to do a field trip to Foothills Park 7
or to Arastradero Park. We would also accommodate those field trips and just change the 8
curriculum to match those. A great deal kind of in flux right now, but we've got 9
contingency plans on top of contingency plans. 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Thanks very much. Great project. Hopefully we'll meet those 14
construction deadlines. 15
16
3. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 17
18
Chair Lauing: The next agenda item is actually a multiple agenda item for the Parks, 19
Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. We're going to look at some 20
revisions to policies and programs from the last Commission meeting, based on 21
comments there and staff review. There will be an ad hoc committee report including 22
recommendations from the ad hoc committee on new policies which we reviewed with 23
staff, and then a Master Plan outline which is in the packet, and then site concept plans 24
that staff wanted comments on. Those are the sub-bullets under the Master Plan 25
discussion for tonight. Kristen, do you want to start with the staff suggestions? 26
27
Kristen O'Kane: Yes. Thank you, Chair Lauing. Good evening, Commissioners. 28
Kristen O'Kane, Assistant Director with Community Services. As you mentioned, we 29
have four items to discuss tonight on the Master Plan. The first is the revised goals, 30
policies and programs document, which is in your packet labeled as Attachment A. 31
These are the redline comments that we heard from the May 31st Commission meeting. 32
I'm open to hear any comments or questions on those. Would you like to go through each 33
item separately? 34
35
Chair Lauing: I think we should definitely go through your redlines first, or your 36
changes, and also take another pass to see if Commissioners had other comments that 37
weren't picked up or new thoughts or whatever. If that's all right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Yep. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Do you want to just start with it in that order? 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 12
1
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Can we just work down the line here. Keith, do you want to start? Do 4
you have any comments on the redlines or changes? 5
6
Commissioner Hetterly: Are we just going goal by goal? 7
8
Chair Lauing: We can, yeah. 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: Just to clarify. You mean just for the comments? We're not going to go 11
through each goal, over stuff. 12
13
Chair Lauing: For the comments. After that, if there are additional comments that you 14
didn't redline, we want to give Commissioners a chance to talk about that. 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: Sure. Thank you. 17
18
Chair Lauing: For Number 1, there were a number of redlines. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't have any comments on the redlines. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: In Goal 1, I had some comments. On page 2, Policy 1.B, "new 25
parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres per 1,000 26
residents" was deleted. I don't know why that is. I'd like it restored. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: Okay. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't remember any discussion advocating for deleting it. I'd 31
be happy to hear from other Commissioners. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Do you want her to address that? See if there's any ... 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: Sure. 36
37
Ms. O'Kane: The thought behind removing the 4 acres per 1,000 is in line with using the 38
NRPA Association standard as simply a guide. Keeping the 4 acres per 1,000 seems to 39
not be in line with our goal for this policy, which is using that standard as a guide but 40
really doing what's best for Palo Alto. If we add parks in the appropriate area and the 41
appropriate geographic distribution within Palo Alto, it may be that that's adequate, but 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 13
perhaps it doesn't meet the 4 acres per 1,000. It's using the standard as a guide but not 1
limiting us to that guide. Doing what's appropriate for the City of Palo Alto as opposed 2
to the standard number. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I think I was the one who advocated for using it as a guide as 5
opposed to verbatim. The motivation behind that was to get rid of the distinction 6
between neighborhood and district parks, which was an artificial distinction as applied in 7
Palo Alto. I am not in favor of eliminating the minimum parkland standard. 8
9
Ms. O'Kane: Okay. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Isn't that part of the guideline? 12
13
Ms. O'Kane: It is part of the guideline. 14
15
Chair Lauing: We're trying to follow that as a guideline, so I guess I'm not understanding 16
why it was deleted either. Others on that? 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: The 4 acres per 1,000 is not mandatory. It's our best effort. 19
Even if we put it in there, we are not forcing ourselves to follow it. We're saying this is 20
our desires, but if we don't meet it, there is no ramifications. We're not saying by 21
December 31st we have to meet this. 22
23
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. It is putting it in as a policy that we will—it says "new parkland 24
should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres per 1,000." 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: It says "should," not "shall." I think "should" is okay. 27
"Should" just means we should do it, but we're not required to do it. If we said "shall be 28
added," then we're required to do it. 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: We can certainly keep that in the policy. I think the perspective was that 31
it's more important to meet our needs as a community and not meet a number because it's 32
a standard. That's where that thought process came from. If we prefer to keep it as a 33
standard. 34
35
Commissioner Cowie: Didn't we say that the 4 acres per 1,000 is incorporated within ... 36
I think we asked that question a minute ago. It's incorporated within the National Rec 37
and Park Association standards. Right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: It is. 40
41
Commissioner Cowie: Isn't it redundant? 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 14
1
Chair Lauing: It's redundant, but that means it could be included. 2
3
Commissioner Cowie: It could be included, but (crosstalk) excluded. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: Everything in this Policy 1.B is redundant with this standard. 6
Basically the way that Policy 1.B is written prior to the deletion was to be explicit about 7
the things that we thought were important in the standard. As we're using the standard as 8
a guide, we're saying while we're not holding ourselves to every single detail in the guide, 9
these are the things that we're trying to accomplish. That's why we're using it as a guide. 10
That includes the acreage as well as expanding with population as well as distribution 11
across the community in size and distance. 12
13
Chair Lauing: For clarity to those that read this document. Right? 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Instead of just citing it in half a sentence and saying "the standard" and 18
then have somebody go and look up the standard. Giving just a slight executive summary 19
of what that includes is how I read it. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: The standard also makes that distinction between 22
neighborhood parks and district parks. I think this is much clearer, because this is what 23
we're embracing. We're not embracing that neighborhood park stuff. I think this is much 24
clearer than just referencing that guide. 25
26
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: It's not included in this, but in the Master Plan itself the actual standard 29
verbatim will be included on this page, off to the side, so people won't have to look it up. 30
It'll be right there for people to reference back to. 31
32
Vice Chair Knopper: That's the comment sidebar? 33
34
Ms. O'Kane: Correct, yeah. We can add that redline back in if that's the desire of the 35
Commission. 36
37
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you want more on—do you want all the redlines on Goal 1 38
or do you want to (crosstalk)? 39
40
Chair Lauing: On "1," yeah. 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 15
Commissioner Hetterly: Page 3, 1.B.12, identify and dedicate City-owned park-like 1
spaces as parkland. I'd like that to be "identify and dedicate City-controlled spaces 2
serving park-like or recreational uses" and include some examples as you have on the 3
previous page, like Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Garden, Winter Lodge, 4
whatever you want to pick from that. City-controlled is a significant difference from 5
City-owned. For example, the Stanford Mayfield playing fields are not City-owned, but 6
they're dedicated parkland, I think. El Camino Park certainly is. I think we should take 7
the same approach on our other City-controlled land. Page 5, I didn't have any 8
comments. I think that might be it. That's it for Goal 1. 9
10
Chair Lauing: All the way through page 5? 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: For the redlines, yeah. 13
14
Chair Lauing: Actually I'll go last. Why don't we go down ... Commissioner Cribbs, did 15
you have any comments on "1"? 16
17
Commissioner Cribbs: No, except for I was glad to see that we added pickleball and 18
called that out. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I saw that one. 21
22
Commissioner Cribbs: That will make everybody happy. 23
24
Chair Lauing: I knew that was you when I was reading it. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: One could add rugby in there too, if you wanted to call all those 27
out. . 28
29
Male: Cricket. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: No so much cricket. I don't know whether for this document it's 32
important or not, but I really like giving examples of things in Palo Alto that we name as 33
something that we want to do. I was having trouble understanding what a City-owned, 34
park-like space is, for instance, in that 1.B.12. If that could happen. I like the ones that 35
are someplace else in other cities, but it would be great to have some examples in Palo 36
Alto. I think that's all I have on "1." 37
38
Chair Lauing: Did you have any, Jim? 39
40
Commissioner Cowie: All of the prior comments makes sense to me. I have nothing to 41
add. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 16
1
Vice Chair Knopper: I concur. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I don't know, 1.A.2, if "mindfulness" is the right word. I don't know what 4
that communicates. 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: The comment was to include things that are more for the individual teen as 7
opposed to things like leadership and community service. It was your comment, I think, 8
Commissioner Hetterly, to focus more on the teen as an individual instead of something 9
that seems curriculum based, I think. Mindfulness was an example. We can use other 10
examples as well. 11
12
Male: Health would work there. 13
14
Ms. O'Kane: Health, mm-hmm. 15
16
Chair Lauing: That's good. I like that. We've expanding 1.H to talk a lot about culture 17
and so on, which is fine. I think that's it for "1." "2," should we go the other way? 18
Commissioner Cribbs, do you have any comments on changes to "2"? 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. On 2.A, Cubberley is down as Number 3, 2.A.3. It seems to 21
me that Cubberley is a really important something that we should be really looking at. I 22
think it should either have its own position somehow or it should be Number 1 in that 23
group. It feels like we're losing sight of Cubberley in this report. If there's a way to make 24
Cubberley more prominent, that would make me very pleased. 25
26
Ms. O'Kane: Do you think it would be more appropriate as a policy than a program or 27
keep it as a program but just raise maybe to a higher level? 28
29
Commissioner Cribbs: At the least, I'd like to keep it as a—if we keep it as a program, it 30
would be better to be higher in the numerical order. Perhaps we could look at making it 31
its own area. While we're talking about Cubberley, I didn't see anything about pools in 32
there either, and we did have quite a long discussion last month about pools. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Wait for the ad hoc committee. We added pools. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Okay, I'll wait. 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: It's in Attachment B. 39
40
Commissioner Cribbs: Actually I did see that, but I wanted to make sure we got that out 41
there. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 17
1
Chair Lauing: In 2.A, we could move 2.A.3 up to 2.A.1, and then just ... 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: You could make it a policy, to collaborate with the School 4
District to develop and implement a vision and Master Plan for the future of the 5
Cubberley Community Center. That might elevate it to a policy. 6
7
Chair Lauing: As a policy? 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: I think "implement" should be in there. I think "implement" 10
should be there one way or the other, no matter whether you call it a policy or program. 11
12
Chair Lauing: That can work. Did you have others, Anne? 13
14
Commissioner Cribbs: No. That's it. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Jim. 17
18
Commissioner Cowie: Nothing to add to that. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Abbie. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: I'm sorry. No, I'm fine. 23
24
Chair Lauing: There was a lot of work again on turf fields. Could you just kind of give 25
us the executive summary on what you're trying to capture here this time that wasn't there 26
before? 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: For the fifth policy, 2.C? 29
30
Chair Lauing: Correct. 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: One of the comments that was made—I think this was your comment, 33
Chair Lauing—was that there's a lot of text here. What we tried to do is just consolidate. 34
We didn't add anything. We tried to just condense it into fewer programs while still 35
capturing the same intent. 36
37
Chair Lauing: That's what I was looking for, what was your objective. That's fine. 38
Commissioner Hetterly. 39
40
Commissioner Hetterly: I have some questions about that also. Is it the intention for that 41
policy and the associated programs to be only about artificial turf fields? Deleted 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 18
Program 2.C.3 and 2.C.5 seem to be about maintaining and upgrading our natural turf 1
fields. Deleting them means there's nothing else in here about that. I would argue for 2
restoring 2.C.3 and 2.C.5 and somehow delineating that these are about artificial turf and 3
this is about natural turf. You changed the policy; you deleted natural to leave just turf 4
fields. I wasn't sure if when you say turf fields, do you mean just synthetic turf or all 5
fields. Some clarity around that, I think, would be helpful and restoring the programs to 6
invest in the quality of our turf, particularly, on athletic fields. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: The new 2.C.4 is the same language—it combines "3," "4" and "5." The 9
strikeouts of "3," "4" and "5" should all be represented in the new 2.C.4. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: I had that crossed out for some reason. 12
13
Chair Lauing: It's got soil in there. 14
15
Daren Anderson: Irrigation. 16
17
Vice Chair Knopper: Irrigation, drainage, soil. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: I see. 2.C.4 is a consolidation of those previous "3," "4" and 20
"5"? 21
22
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we say "quality natural turf standards"? That just applies 25
to natural turf, right? 2.C.4. 26
27
Commissioner Hetterly: I found 2.C.4 somewhat confusing. You're going to complete 28
an assessment. I don't think we have to include in the program that we're going to review 29
the recommendations of the assessment. I'm not going to belabor that. That's fine. I 30
think that we do need to have some clarity around when we're talking about natural turf 31
and when we're talking about synthetic turf. 32
33
Chair Lauing: 2.C.4 is grass, right? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Isn't Keith's comment correct that we should say "natural turf" there? 38
Quality natural turf. 39
40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 19
Ms. O'Kane: We can look at that and just make sure that we've captured everything. The 1
reason why the policy natural was taken out is because it represents both synthetic and 2
natural. We'll just go back and make sure that we're representing both, I guess. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: My only other question under that policy was 2.C.1 seems to 5
presume that synthetic turf fields will always be replaced with synthetic turf fields, that 6
we wouldn't convert to natural. I don't know if that's where the community is going to be 7
over the next 20 years. 8
9
Mr. Anderson: When we originally wrote that, when I originally wrote that, it had a kind 10
of "if" clause, meaning if the science proves it's science, if it's sustainable. Maybe we 11
could look to revise that so it captures the analysis (inaudible) to happen. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: That's it for "2." 14
15
Chair Lauing: On "2," Keith? 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Let's see. I agree 2.C.4, there seems to be too many words in 18
there. Can we just trim that down and kind of get to the point? Also on 2.D.1, Kingsley 19
Island. Where is Kingsley Island? In the dog parks, this is ... 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) Embarcadero goes under. 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Where is it at? 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. This is 2.D.1. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: Kingsley is a little, tiny non—it's not parkland. It's just a triangular piece 28
of land right there at Embarcadero and the overpass. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it south of Embarcadero? 31
32
Mr. Anderson: It's 0.27 acres. Yes. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: From the south side there, okay. That's really ... 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: It's (inaudible) Street, Embarcadero goes under here and 37
whatever this little side street creates a triangle up above the (crosstalk). 38
39
Mr. Anderson: It's just a passive piece of turf. 40
41
Commissioner Reckdahl: We think it's big enough to have a ... 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 20
1
Mr. Anderson: It's 0.27 acres, so it's bigger than Hoover is right now. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: That was it. 4
5
Chair Lauing: On "3," you want to keep the floor? Keith, you got anything on "3"? 6
7
Commissioner Reckdahl: No, no comments. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: There are no redlines on "3." 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: On 3.C there's some ... 12
13
Chair Lauing: There's some blue lines. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: Blue lines. I do have a blue line comment. Did I miss blue line 16
comments before? 3.C, require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are 17
provided through parkland dedication fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines, blah, blah, 18
blah. Privately owned public spaces are not provided through parkland dedication fees. 19
They're only provided through the parkland dedication ordinance. If we got the fees, then 20
it would go to publicly owned, public spaces. That needs to be corrected. That’s it. 21
22
Chair Lauing: I have nothing further. 23
24
Vice Chair Knopper: I just had a quick question. It says "implement the Healthy City 25
Healthy Community Resolution." Are you going to asterisk that or sidebar it and just 26
kind of go through what that means? 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: Yeah, I can (crosstalk). 29
30
Vice Chair Knopper: I don't know. Just maybe as a little reminder, have a little sidebar 31
reminder. 32
33
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. I think that's a good recommendation to do. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Jim, Anne, anything on "4"? 36
37
Commissioner Cowie: No. 38
39
Chair Lauing: On "5," (inaudible). 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: I have something on "4." 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 21
1
Chair Lauing: Sorry. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I actually felt "4" was kind of confusing all throughout. Policy 4
4.A, connect people to nature and outdoors through education and recreation 5
programming, is great. I'm wondering about 4.A.2 and 4.A.6. Maybe those should be 6
moved to Policy 4.D. Let me back up a second. I had problems with 4.D, which is about 7
promoting, expanding and protecting habitat and natural areas in the parks. Three out of 8
five of them are all about storm water management, and then there's one about shade and 9
one about training, which don't really have a lot to do with habitat and natural areas. 10
They don't really serve to the promote, expand, protect purpose of the policy. I would 11
say, in fact, 4.D.3 probably belongs in Goal 6 and possibly 4.D.2 and 4.D.4. I'm certainly 12
open to discussion about that. I was trying to think of other programs that could go under 13
this policy, that were more consistent with what I think the policy was trying to get at. 14
Things like preserving a balance between passive and natural areas within parks or 15
minimizing impacts of lighting. There are all sorts of other protecting nature things that 16
are sprinkled throughout the document in other places. That made me think—then I 17
thought maybe we should combine it with 4.E, which is about native trees and planting 18
and plant palettes. Then, I thought maybe it makes sense to delete 4.D and spread those 19
programs that are under it into the other areas—to the other policies under this goal. I 20
kind of wanted to hear other people's thoughts about that. I hate to have a policy to 21
promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas hanging out there with no meat 22
under it. Also, I wondered why it didn't include open space, why it's just in parks. 23
24
Ms. O'Kane: As I was looking at this, I had the same thought. I do feel like there might 25
be even some redundancy with 4.D and 4.E, even 4.F which is about the Urban Forest 26
Master Plan. A lot of these probably—there's a lot of overlap and redundancy. I agree. 27
28
Commissioner Reckdahl: 4.B also, the connectors. Really all 4.B is saying is take that 29
habitat and put it in connectors, so it's really consistent. You're just adding one more 30
condition on that habitat. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: While I'm talking about things that weren't redlined already, I 33
would say move up Policy 4.G about the Comprehensive Conservation Plans. I would 34
make that the first policy under Goal 4. I think that is kind of a core program that's going 35
to guide how we do all the stuff in all the other policies and programs in this goal, at least 36
as far as open space goes. 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: To clarify, move forward the whole policy, 4.G? 39
40
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 22
Ms. O'Kane: Make it 4.A. We can go back and look at Goal 4 again and revise that, if 1
that works? 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be great, yeah. Thanks. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that some of the stuff is really good. The swales and 6
things like that are something that we should be going for. We shouldn't throw them 7
away, but we should find better spots for them. 8
9
Ms. O'Kane: I agree. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Where'd we leave off? "5," (inaudible) changes there, except 5.A.7 and 12
5.E.1. Keith. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: Nothing. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Jennifer. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: 5.E.1 I thought was a little awkward. I wasn't sure why you 19
wanted to limit it to—why it ever said on weekend mornings. I guess I'd open it up a 20
little bit more and say something like "partner with PAUSD to open middle and high 21
school recreation facilities for community use (basketball, badminton, blah, blah, blah) 22
during the evening, weekend and summer hours." I don't think that changes the 23
substance of it. It just felt a little confusing. That's all I have on "5." 24
25
Chair Lauing: My only comment on "5" is I think 5.A.7 is a really good add, minimize 26
impacts to wildlife. I think it's really nicely tersely stated. Anyone down here have any 27
comments? "6," (inaudible) on there. Anne or Jim? 28
29
Commissioner Cowie: (inaudible) anything. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: No. (inaudible) 32
33
Commissioner Cowie: You do? Go ahead. 34
35
Commissioner Cribbs: I did. I like the addition of the redline at the bottom, 6.D.18, a 36
lot. 37
38
Commissioner Cowie: I love 6.D.18. Love it and would love to see that put into effect. 39
I think it's a brilliant idea and could have a major positive impact on the community. 40
41
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 23
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to follow up on that. Given your enthusiasm for 6.D.18, 1
should we maybe move it up in a programmatic section rather than burying it in the 2
maintenance section, maintenance and management? 3
4
Commissioner Cribbs: I would love to see that happen. I think it's a great vision to put 5
in people's minds and give people an opportunity to do something about a problem that 6
everybody complains about. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: Can we do that? 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: We can. I was wondering if it would fit under Goal 3, because Goal 3 does 11
talk about social connections. That's one thing that I had added to that new program, that 12
it would establish those neighborhood social connections. I'm not sure if that entirely fits 13
in that location. I agree that putting it at the bottom of 6.D is sort of burying it a little bit. 14
Trying to find the right place for it. 15
16
Commissioner Hetterly: I think Goal 3 works pretty well. 17
18
Vice Chair Knopper: Goal 3, it would work with the social connection aspect of it, for 19
sure. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: I have other comments on "6" if nobody .... 6.G, I keep asking 22
to include the Baylands Master Plan on that list of plans. I'm assuming that it's not for a 23
reason, but I'd like to know what it is. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: I think because it's a future plan, and it's already addressed in another. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: There's an older document. 28
29
Ms. O'Kane: You're referring to that older ... 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: An existing Baylands Master Plan. I would like to add that. On 32
the back page, Policy 6.J, about the asset management program. It has sort of an 33
awkward program under it about researching what other people are doing. I would move 34
that policy to a program under Policy 2.A, instead of back there, because it's about 35
sustaining the community's investment in recreation facilities. As I understood the asset 36
management program, it was designed to keep track of what we had to do in order to 37
sustain those investments and make it happen. Right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Mm-hmm. 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be my suggestion. You don't need a program under it. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 24
1
Chair Lauing: Any others on "6"? 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: In looking back at 2.A, right now it just calls out recreation 4
facilities. Is that intentional, that you didn't want parks in there? 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: I think we could add parks to 2.A. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I think we should. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: We don't have an equivalent version of that for parks anywhere 11
else? I don't see it. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think so. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: I think that makes sense. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, like 2.A.2, do you also want to call out—they talk about 18
recreation facilities. Do you want to say parks and recreation facilities or do we ... 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: Just take out "recreational." Either way. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Anything on those or should we move to the ad hoc policy changes, 23
suggestions? 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: I do have some unredlined comments. Do you want me to hold 26
those 'til after we do the ad hoc? 27
28
Chair Lauing: Yeah, maybe, just to make sure they aren't covered. The ad hoc met a 29
couple of times. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: Did everyone get a redline version? There's a redline over on 32
the table. 33
34
Chair Lauing: I think sort of the driving things (inaudible) policy additions and then 35
what comes after that. We keep wanting to keep this really strategic and thinking about 36
the next 25 years and as much as possible now and in the future get all these decisions 37
and prioritizations driven by hard data where that's available. That sometimes means that 38
we need to repeat it 5 years from now or whatever. There's some of that in here. We 39
really feel like we want to be able to prioritize by demand and need for these things, not 40
just impressions. We took a look at some of the policies and thought there were some 41
additions that would address those kinds of questions. Also, there were some things that 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 25
were left out as the Commission at the last meeting actually noted. The first change that 1
we're suggesting is 1.G. By the way, this is the ad hoc, just to remind you again. 1.G 2
says "every 5 years quantitatively evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation 3
facilities specifically including pools, gyms, tennis courts, teen centers, appropriate 4
attention to geographical distribution and adjust plans as appropriate to accommodate 5
significant demographic or demand changes." That's to capture that something's going to 6
change in the next 25 years. We don't know what it is. I had a CFO once who said, "I 7
know this budget is wrong. I just don't know where in terms of what's going to happen in 8
the next year," which is totally correct. That's one that we suggest. You other two just 9
jump in on these as we mention them. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: Could I jump in on that one, Ed? 12
13
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 14
15
Commissioner Cowie: The only thing I would ask that we consider is that we say "at 16
least every 5 years." That way, you're not locking yourself into exactly 5. There might 17
be some big real estate development that's bringing in a bunch of people, and you don't 18
want to wait 5 years to do it. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I think that's really good. 21
22
Commissioner Cowie: That's a comment I would make on all of the sections that say 23
"every 5 years" or every whatever. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Or every 2 years or whatever. 26
27
Commissioner Cowie: Whatever period, I would just say "at least every." 28
29
Chair Lauing: Yeah. "A minimum of" or whatever the correct wording should be. The 30
next one is 4.A.2. We've had a lot of discussion about that around this conference table. 31
I wanted to present it tonight. Let's make sure that that's part of the educational process. 32
We added "modern, interactive exhibits," which we've also talked about. Let's use the 33
multimedia and not just have a few dead squirrels up there. Let's really try to learn some 34
stuff at those interpretive centers. The next ones are over on 5.C. I'm sorry, 5.D. This is 35
a whole new policy, because we wanted to call out that as we acquire or create new 36
land—we were all credited for creating 10 1/2 acres in Palo Alto when we were able to 37
have that land bank created with the golf course. I say collectively, Council and 38
everybody said we created 10 1/2 acres, which we did. We are feeling that it's important 39
to spend the appropriate amount of time and study figuring out the best usage of that, 40
because you can't make 10 1/2 acres every day. We created a suggested policy here. 41
With those that are big projects, as specified there, detailed consideration should be given 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 26
to those three as examples. As I said, 10 years from now, there'll be three more there 1
maybe. I think also embedded in here is an understanding that we don't have all the 2
answers yet. As we try to get this Master Plan to closure, the suggestion is that we need 3
more data and also that there's no hurry. Let's do it right. We said that already to Council 4
in the study session on the 7.7, which was a controversial message to them. We 5
understand that, but we only get to do this once usually, so let's be diligent about it. 6
That's the context of that one. Comments there, because this is a significant add? 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I think maybe Cubberley doesn't belong there since that's not a 9
new acquisition. I think the intention of including it was Cubberley is a big chunk that 10
we haven't done what we need to do around. I would say maybe take that out—don't 11
make it a program under newly acquired parkland. Along with Commissioner Cribbs' 12
comments, pump up the Cubberley piece over in 2.A. 13
14
Vice Chair Knopper If you change the policy wording a little bit, you can keep it there 15
and also put it in 2.A. Instead of just "explore best uses for newly acquired parkland," 16
"explore best uses for parkland that hasn't"—I don't know. I'm trying to wordsmith late 17
at night. Synapses not firing. For parks that don't have a specific designated need or 18
designated ... We haven't figured out what the 10.5 is going to look like yet or the 7.7, 19
and we haven't figured out what Cubberley really is going to be yet either, what it's going 20
to morph to. What I'm suggesting is we just kind of reword. If anybody has words .... 21
22
Chair Lauing: What would you—you worked on Cubberley for a while. What would 23
you call that if you were going to redo the policy statement there? If it's not acquired 24
parkland. 25
26
Commissioner Hetterly: I wouldn't. I would move it to 2.A and make it a policy with ... 27
28
Chair Lauing: Already heard that one. Now we're just saying if you were going to 29
include it here, is there a way to do that or you just think it's ... 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: Explore best uses of newly acquired parkland. It's neither 32
parkland nor newly acquired. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Let's look at the goals, Goal 2 and Goal 5, in the blue text and 35
look just at the description of the goal to try and figure out where Cubberley would 36
belong. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Go ahead, Jim. 39
40
Commissioner Cowie: I have an attempt at answering your question, Ed. I know the 41
word "exploit" or "exploitation" or "exploiting" seems odd in the context of natural space. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 27
I think the concept is actually take advantage of the assets that we have, whether they're 1
newly acquired or existing doesn't really matter. I think that theme applies to all three of 2
those sub-bullets, that we haven't taken advantage of the assets that we have to their 3
fullest capacity, whether it's Cubberley or the other space. I think you could have a 4
consistent theme that way. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Go ahead, Rob. 7
8
Rob de Geus: I support Commissioner Hetterly's suggestion that it go in Goal 2. I think 9
it fits better there. In the goal, it talks about capacity and other things. The Cubberley 10
item, I think, would be more meaningful in Goal 2 as I read it. 11
12
Chair Lauing: That's cool. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: I had mentioned—when I was reading this on 5.D.2, the "over time," I 15
don't know why we would say "over time." My hope would be that we include in the 16
Master Plan some specific guidance, direction on what we might do on the 10.5 acres. It 17
actually feels like now is the time at least to take a first shot at that. I would say the same 18
thing with Cubberley to the extent that we can do that. 19
20
Chair Lauing: The reason that that's there, I think, from the ad hoc's perspective—it's a 21
good debate—is the question about do we have enough hard data to suggest that there are 22
needs that are obvious versus it should remain a land bank within the best meaning of that 23
word so that it's a land asset that sits there until we really know how we want to use it. 24
That's why that says that, meaning in the next 3 months before this Plan is approved, I 25
don't know if we can come up with enough—you can have a list this long of options for 26
there, but there's not to my knowledge and to the ad hoc's knowledge any data that says 27
this is the perfect usage because there are these demographic changes and these growth 28
changes and that kind of stuff. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: I don't know that we'll ever have perfect data. We've been at this for a year 31
and a half, talking with the community about parks and recreation and interests and 32
needs. I don't know at what point we'll have more information than now to at least put 33
something up there as a recommendation. It may not be that specific. For example, a 34
couple of things that have come across are multiuse athletic fields; rectangular fields in 35
particular seem to be of high interest. I was talking to Daren about this today, more 36
natural spaces and natural areas for habitat. That's a big thing. It seems to me at least 37
those two things ought to be considered for the 10 1/2 acres and maybe others. If I was 38
on Council, I would want to hear from this Parks Master Plan what are we thinking for 39
the 10.5 acres. If we go and say we still don't know and it's really just a land bank, I don't 40
think that'll be very satisfying even for us. I would like to take the time now to start ... 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 28
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. I think our expectation when we started the 1
Master Plan was that there was going to be focused attention to these three issues in 2
particular were identified as critical priorities to sort out the details and come up with a 3
plan. I think that the planning process so far has kind of left those on the side, because 4
those are some of the hard ones to deal with. I think the reason the ad hoc wanted to add 5
it here is to make sure that somewhere in this Plan there's something about those three 6
things that we thought were important. I would argue that we should say more than what 7
it says here and actually at least identify a next step in how we're going to determine the 8
optimal usage if we can't come up with a recommendation based on the analysis that's 9
already been done. Just so that there's a clear path forward for how we're going to answer 10
these questions. 11
12
Commissioner Cribbs: I like the three that you've chosen there altogether. I'd like not to 13
move them any place, not to move Cubberley. I think these are the three that are the crux 14
of what we need to think about and actually have a path, at least a suggestion to continue 15
the conversation. The conversations have been going on for a long time. It would be 16
great to have some definite things. By leaving them altogether, they stand out for me. I 17
like it that way. Maybe we change the wording in the policy to take out the newly 18
acquired parkland and just call it something else. I'm not sure what it is. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be okay. If I had my way, I don't know that I would 21
include them necessarily as a policy, but I would call them out—I would highlight them 22
in the Master Plan discussion, saying these are three key priorities of the community that 23
we have to figure out what to do with and this is what we think is important at those 24
various sites. 25
26
Vice Chair Knopper: If we do that for the 10.5, which I completely, respectfully 27
understand why you're mentioning that, they're going to say what about the 7.7. We 28
know that we put that on hold until the hydrologic study comes back, which we haven't 29
done yet because that got delayed. These are all hot button issues for individual Council 30
Members. How much do we want to make specific suggestions? Rob. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: I think some specificity is required. I would like to see—we're going to 33
talk about this—the concept plans' high-level potential amenities. I'd like to see the 10.5 34
acres sort of represented there with the Baylands Athletics Center as a campus and what 35
could we do. It may not be specific, and I don't think we'll design it exactly, but say here 36
are the themes that came through our process that we think ought to be considered. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: Here's some options. We may look at those and say none of 39
those options work for us, but at least we (inaudible) something. 40
41
Mr. de Geus: It's a good starting point. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 29
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: The thing that bothers me about the Baylands Athletic 2
Complex is that we're going to lose a lot of land where that gravel parking lot is. That's 3
going to have ripple effects even independent of this 10.5 acres. I'm not sure if we even 4
have enough land to get vehicle access down to the softball fields anymore. That's a 5
(inaudible) we have to chew on. 6
7
Chair Lauing: We'll have to come back to that one at some point. The reason that it said 8
newly acquired parkland is it was kind of tying back to as we acquire new parkland, 9
which is also in there, we don't have to before we acquire it say this is what we're going 10
to use it for. The value of having more parkland is fine, and then we can backfill to 11
should that be a neighborhood park or should we do something special in there. That was 12
also part of what was in that pithy little policy statement. I understood why you might 13
want it to be changed. The next one is 6.A. Again, here you could say "at least every 5 14
years actively review demographic, trends of City population by segment for critical 15
drivers of facility usage." Again, we called out some of the specifics there, teens, seniors, 16
ethnic groups. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: We'd add "at least" at the front of that? 19
20
Chair Lauing: Following Jim's new policy, yeah. On 6.B.2, which is under the cost 21
recovery policy for recreation programs, there's a suggestion that we state that we want to 22
invest in and market City facilities to increase revenue, which of course is what cost 23
recovery is about. That's kind of generic. We didn't name facilities at this point or 24
budget or anything. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: Before we leave this document, this is not a part of a redline. If 27
we look at 5.F.4, is there another way to say that, that might be more diplomatic? Work 28
with Stanford to create or increase access to athletic facilities and other recreational 29
facilities for Palo Alto residents. 30
31
Chair Lauing: What's undiplomatic? 32
33
Commissioner Cribbs: If I were Stanford and I was reading this ... 34
35
Mr. de Geus: You could say "mutually beneficial." 36
37
Vice Chair Knopper: "Partner with." 38
39
Commissioner Cribbs: Pardon me? 40
41
Mr. de Geus: "Mutually beneficial." 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 30
1
Commissioner Cribbs: Something like some mutual kind of discussion (inaudible). 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: "Collaborate with Stanford" or "partner with Stanford." 4
5
Chair Lauing: "Partner with" is close, but maybe you can work on it. I think that was the 6
only one. If those are all added, it just kind of shifts a few of the policies to different 7
numbers, because these get in there, like 5.D and 6.A. Everything else stays that we've 8
already gone over; these would just be added. Are these acceptable to the Commission, 9
that these be added to the working document? 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Could I just ask? If staff's able to come back to you with—I don't want to 12
call it a design concept for the 10 1/2 acres, that might alter that, if you found that it was 13
in keeping with the rest of the concept plans and maybe doesn't need to be its own 14
standalone. 15
16
Chair Lauing; I think the suggestion around the table here that we should have some 17
options, maybe that aren't all spec'ed out or budgeted out but there are options, is fine for 18
that. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think I'd still want it called out. Just to remind us that this is 21
a big thing, you can't be above it, don't take your eyes off of it. 22
23
Chair Lauing: I'm just not clear on what you're saying. What needs to be called out? 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: The 10.5 acres. Daren is saying that if they in their book 26
added another page for the 10 1/2 acres to provide options for it, do we need to have this 27
explicitly called out in 5.D. My opinion is that it should be explicitly called out in 5.3, 28
the 10.5 acres—I shouldn't use pronouns here. The 10.5 acres should be explicitly called 29
out in 5.D regardless of what other work we do on the 10.5 acres. I think it's a big deal, 30
and we just have to make sure that it's explicitly stated. 31
32
Chair Lauing: I'd go with that. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's my opinion. 35
36
Chair Lauing: As long as we're back on that point, to me the distinction between the 7.7 37
and 10.5 is massive, because the 7.7 is already in Foothills. It's clearly going to be 38
contained. It's X miles away in terms of access. That should be an easier opportunity to 39
work on. The 10 1/2 acres, I kind of put on my stewardship hat when I think about that. 40
I think we have all collectively in this City created 10 1/2 acres; let's make sure we're 41
using it for the right things. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 31
1
Mr. de Geus: I agree. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Kind of going a little bit slower on that would be what my judgment 4
would suggest. 5
6
Mr. de Geus: If it helps, we don't have any funding to do anything on the 10 1/2 acres. 7
8
Chair Lauing: That always helps. 9
10
Vice Chair Knopper: I think there's a bullet point about private funding somewhere. 11
12
Chair Lauing: The other stuff that the ad hoc talked about and talked about with Kristen 13
is going into—when we get into the outline of the Plan and how it's eventually going to 14
be written, again if there's demographic, population, verifiable data that's driving that, 15
that should be really up front. What I think of is sort of the findings in this section. 16
Here's what's driving some of these decisions. Some of that can be recreational trends 17
like pickleball or whatever. That is also true, that we're reacting to recreational trends. 18
That's in your note that you just put out too. To the extent that this whole thing is going 19
to have credibility, it needs to be data driven and not just five people showing up at the 20
community center and telling folks what they like. That one, and then it goes on to major 21
gaps and community preferences, as we've been talking about here. Those tend to be the 22
drivers. Some things just need more research before we can really move on them. I 23
know you guys also have the prioritization scoring and budgeting yet to be done. I don't 24
know actually where that is on the time table, but that's crucial because ultimately I think 25
tonight we could all raise our hand and come up with the top ten things to do, that nobody 26
would disagree with because they are obvious. Some are directly data driven and some 27
are just an up-swelling of community support and so on. It's those next 50 that are going 28
to be harder. You asked about the evaluation or scoring system beyond what's there. The 29
ad hoc is suggesting that we need something a little bit more than that. When you're at 30
low, medium and high and then after that it kind of tails off to we have to look at timing 31
and we have to look at budgets, that's all true, but that's a little tactical compared to in a 32
strategic Master Plan what do we want to put forth collectively to Council and say this is 33
what we need to do, now we've got to figure it out. I don't know where you go to get 34
beyond low, medium and high. It feels like there ought to be something, because 5 years 35
from now, at least 5 years from now, you have to look at it again and say what does the 36
next 25 years look like. Our suggestion is we do need to see more of a—I don't want to 37
use the word scoring, but how are you going to prioritize these things? It's not a new 38
question. Let's work on that. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: It's a typical problem, I think. I think it's impossible to create an 41
implementation plan for 20 years really. In reality, we're going to have to do several 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 32
plans along the way. The further you go out, the less data you have and you know things 1
are going to change. We can make sort of an implementation execution plan that's the 2
Master Plan for the next 3 years. Then, we have to reassess what's changed, what's 3
different. I don't think we can plan out in any great detail 20 years of how these are 4
going to be prioritized. That's my sense. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Don't you think there's a material difference between what the priorities 7
are and, frankly, if you can get them done in the next 10 years? If we had done some 8
research that showed that we didn't have a golf course and the City thought it was a 9
phenomenal idea and then we looked at the budget and said we're not going to get $11 10
million to put a golf course out there, we're putting up an $11 million golf course. Of 11
course, that's just a revision. As I just said, you always have to take into account timing 12
and what else is going on that you might leverage some of that stuff. If it's strategic, it's 13
strategic. That seems like it should still be the focus, and some of these tactical things 14
you absolutely have to just go with it year by year. 15
16
Vice Chair Knopper: May I ask a question? You guys might have covered this last 17
month. This is a lot of data. This is something that we've been living with for 18, 19 18
months. There are days it's mind-boggling for me still with the different nuances. What 19
is the expectation of the Council Members of what the document we're presenting at our 20
study session in September, what are they expecting to see? In my opinion, to give 21
them—I know Peter's very proud of that binder, and he's not here. That is a big binder, 22
and there's a lot of information. It's not streamlined; that's a working document. As a 23
Council person, it would be untenable. What is that expectation? Do you know? 24
25
Mr. de Geus: You want to go ahead? 26
27
Ms. O'Kane: I'll start. When Planning went to Council with the Community Services 28
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, we're gauging a little bit on Council's comments on 29
that chapter of the Comp Plan. We assume we'll get similar comments on the Master 30
Plan. One of those comments was when will things be done and how much is this going 31
to cost. I think Council would be hesitant to approve a 20-year Master Plan without 32
knowing what am I approving, when is this going to be done and how much is this going 33
to cost the City. From that perspective, I think they would definitely be looking for that. 34
As Rob said, I agree that it's difficult to say in 15 years we're going to need a new 35
swimming pool in south Palo Alto, because we don't know in 15 years if we're going to 36
need that. Those are the types of things that are hard to prioritize now. To put that into 37
the Master Plan, I think the hope is that Council isn't looking for that level of detail. 38
Where we're headed, I think, is to say that these are the things like the first 5 years. We 39
can really hone in on the first 5 years and what we think we could prioritize in those 5 40
years. Post the 5 years, we're going to get a little bit more gray as far as what the 41
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 33
prioritization is. We're hoping that Council would support that structure. Do you have 1
anything to add, Rob? 2
3
Mr. de Geus: I agree with that. I would say also that what we're going over here is sort 4
of the meat of the Plan, the goals, policies and programs. That's all of the other 5
supporting materials that feeds this and gets us to this point. This is where they're going 6
to focus, which is not that dense. That's why we're spending a lot of time on it. They 7
want to appreciate that the goals feel right for their understanding of the community and 8
their network, and the policies and programs are the right ones that are going to advance 9
those goals. I'm sure they'll have edits, but that's (inaudible). 10
11
Chair Lauing: What do you think they're going to be looking for in terms of the way that 12
we prioritize the projects over the next 10 years? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: Remind me. I think we did share with them our criteria already, that the 15
community preferences are very high gaps, and filling gaps was the highest need, those 16
five. We got good support from them on that already. As we think about the next 5 years 17
and then beyond in terms of prioritization, that's the filter that we'll be looking through. 18
That's the one that staff's continuing to go back to as we think about what should go first. 19
20
Chair Lauing: The study session that you're going to do now is 3 months away. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: It's unfortunate. We really wanted to get to them before the break, but 23
(crosstalk). 24
25
Chair Lauing: Sort of two things. One is that we all collectively don’t want to do the 26
wrong things for 90 days and also that it'd be great if we had all the right things ready to 27
go to make you look good. The one thing I suggested to Kristen is maybe you guys 28
should sit down with the Mayor and go over this and say, "Are we on the right track?" 29
I'm happy to come or not come. Just so we have that kind of guideline, because that's—30
as you say, this is accessible. If he goes, "What? That's not what I want to see in 31
September," then that's one thing. If he goes, "Right on, just make it a little bit more 32
detailed, and we're ready to go." 33
34
Mr. de Geus: I think that's a good idea. Maybe the Mayor and Vice Mayor together and 35
have a couple of you join us. That'd be good. We always worry about getting too far 36
ahead of the Council and trying to find that—they're busy with a lot of things. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I think he could give good direction and has been attentive to what we do. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: I would hope that we could spend—given that we have a little bit more 41
time, perhaps we can use that time to think a little deeper about the 10 1/2 acres, 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 34
Cubberley and see if there's anything more we can add as a staff and Commission with 1
respect to what we might do there that would help support the Master Plan. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Not being able to meet with Council for 90 days gives you the right door 4
opener to Mayor Burt to say, "Let's just do a 30-minute chat with you." 5
6
Mr. de Geus: I'll mention that to the City Manager. That's a good idea. We did think 7
about sending forward an information report that had this in it. After reflecting on it, I 8
was not comfortable with it, because he needs to put it in some context as to how we got 9
there. If they just read that, I think that wouldn't have gone well because we have gone a 10
long way here. We didn't do that. I like this idea of a sit-down where we can just walk it 11
through. 12
13
Chair Lauing: You could test the level of specificity on budgets and on programs. 14
You've got programs of partnering with the boys and girls scouting organizations. That's 15
specific, and if that's what they want, that's great. If they go, "We don't need that," then 16
great info. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: One thing that really bothers me about the Master Plan right 19
now is it's a 20-year Master Plan; it's not a 3-year Master Plan. All the demographics are 20
just talking about how demographics have changed previously. There's no projections at 21
all going forward. When we went to Council in January—was it—the demographics 22
portion just was looking backwards. It's like we're driving through the rearview mirror. 23
There's no projections of how demographics are going to change going forward. If we're 24
not going to do that, then make it a 3-year Master Plan. If we really are trying to say this 25
is a 20-year Master Plan, then we need some demographic projections, both population 26
and age and other characteristics going forward. That's lacking right now. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: It will be in there. Find the right data and using the right data and ensuring 29
we're using the same data as the Comprehensive Plan is important. It will be part of the 30
Master Plan. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's very good. One of the things is that they talked in the—33
I pulled up a packet that we went over in January on demographics. They talked about 34
aging population. Trees don't grow to the sky. Aging populations don't continue to age. 35
After a while, they either move out or die. You have new residents replace them. You, at 36
some point, will start getting younger; that would be quite possible for the next 20 years. 37
If we now are beefing up all of our senior stuff because we think we're going to have this 38
onset of huge number of seniors, and they all pack up, sell their houses, and move to 39
Sacramento, all of a sudden we may have a bunch of preschoolers. We may be building 40
up the wrong programs. I think it's crucial that we really try to at least give a shot at 41
what's going to happen. Predictions are very hard. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 35
1
Commissioner Cribbs: There was a study that was done—is it 2009, Rob—on the aging 2
of Palo Alto. 3
4
Mr. de Geus: A white paper by Richard James and Lisa Hendrickson. 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: It may be a little old now. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: This being subsequent studies to that. There is quite a lot of data about the 9
aging population and also about Palo Alto in particular, that they age in place and stay 10
here. Over the next certainly decade, we're going to see significant increases in the senior 11
population. That data is pretty clear. 12
13
Chair Lauing: There's school data. 14
15
Mr. de Geus: The school data, they go 5 years out and not much further. It becomes very 16
fuzzy after that. The current thinking of the School District is they don't need to add any 17
additional schools. The data does not support that, even for Cubberley. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: They also don't anticipate the same amount of new housing that 20
the City is starting to plan for. That'll change too. 21
22
Chair Lauing: All these things, to support Keith's point, affect important decisions like 23
how many more athletic fields we need. If there isn't a growing population of kids, then 24
we don't need athletic fields. If we want more variety but there's not really demand, that's 25
okay. Let's give the Council the data to say this is a "nice to have," not an absolute "we 26
have to have" this. Perfectly acceptable. They need some real data to consider that. Any 27
other things on these policies? Otherwise, we're going to move to the ... 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a ... 30
31
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. We did say that we would come back to Commissioner 32
Hetterly. 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: There are not many or huge. Page Number 6, Program 2.B.3 35
suggests pop-up open mikes in open space. I think maybe we want to change that to 36
parks. Page 9, convene and lead a—Program 3.A.1 about the Healthy Community 37
stakeholder work group, you might want to include citizen representation in that group. 38
Finally, there are a couple of places where you mention neighborhood parks. One of 39
them was Policy 5.A on page 12, which is about activating underused parks. 5.A.5 is 40
"invite and encourage local businesses to use them for weekly or monthly outings and 41
lunches." Is that something we—is that sort of a marketing endeavor that we want to 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 36
target only to underused parks or are we looking to invite and encourage greater business 1
use of all parks? I would argue underused parks because later on there's a section about 2
limiting private ... 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: Private events. 5
6
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. I was going to say (inaudible), and I know that's not 7
the right word. Just think about that. I don't have strong feelings about it, but it was 8
unclear. On page 13, this is my last comment. Policy 5.C, this is under Goal 5 about 9
innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. Policy 5.C is 10
"expand the parks and rec system for repurposing of land," blah, blah, blah. It kind of 11
stands here as the only expansion piece for park-related parkland in this goal. It made me 12
wonder about Policy 1.B, which is the parkland standard and a bunch of other expansion 13
things. Is this redundant to having it here when it's basically a summary of the variety of 14
strategies identified in Goal 1? 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: Rob and I have talked about whether 1.B belongs in Goal 1 or is it more 17
appropriate to put that in Goal 5, because it is about expansion. Goal 1 talks about 18
geographic distribution. We've gone back and forth on that. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't know if you need this as a policy here in Goal 5 or if you 21
just include a reference to the park expansion efforts identified in Goal 1 or you just leave 22
it as it is. It's a little confusing, having the same thing in two different places in a much 23
smaller form. That's all. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Is that it? 26
27
Commissioner Hetterly: Mm-hmm. 28
29
Chair Lauing: The next segment of this Master Plan is to kind of review and comment on 30
the—what are they called? Site plans? 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: Actually before that ... 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: The outline. 35
36
Vice Chair Knopper: The outline. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. 39
40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 37
Ms. O'Kane: We included the draft outline just to obtain feedback. It is fairly high level. 1
This describes what the overall structure and format of the Master Plan is going to look 2
like. We're open to any feedback or comments on the outline at this time. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I have some comments on the outline. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: My immediate takeaway was that we have basically 62 pages of 9
text and then 40 pages of the site plans and the appendix. Out of that 62 pages, only 24 10
of it was newsworthy. There's a lot of pages dedicated to describing the process, 11
describing the system. If I were sitting on Council, I would want to know the what, the 12
why and the how. That, to me, is the needs, and opportunities is the why, why are we 13
doing anything. That, I think, needs to—I don't know if 12-16 pages is sufficient space to 14
cover that. I think that's where you want to have more than just what was in the City 15
Council January presentation. In terms of key findings, you want to get into the kind of 16
stuff that Commissioner Lauing was talking about, about what are the unmet needs and 17
the gaps, what are the community preferences, what are the changing demographics, 18
basically asking the question why we need a Plan. The answer is we need a Plan because 19
we have these gaps and these unmet needs and these desires in the community. I think it 20
needs to flesh that out thoroughly in this section so that we'll know why we want to do 21
anything. I think the policies and programs that we just talked about are kind of the what, 22
what we're going to do to address those needs and exploit those opportunities, and these 23
are the policies and programs we've identified. The implementation, which is very short, 24
is how we're going to do it. I expected the implementation section to be much meatier, 25
because it's the action plan, the what are we going to do. We know this is what we want. 26
We know this is how we want to get there and what are the steps. I would expect to see 27
in implementation the short, medium, long-term vision. That might even include, Rob, if 28
you're talking about realistically we can only plan for 3 years, but we might want to 29
highlight in the implementation plan there's a decent chance that given demographics or 30
shifting populations, that we're going to want to add a pool at some point within the next 31
15 years or consider a new gym. These are big ticket items that are in the medium or 32
long-term that we ought to start planning for now in case we do want to move forward 33
with them. Also, the money, the budget estimates for the various projects, we haven't 34
seen and that's still yet to be done. I would think that would go there. I would expect the 35
implementation section to also cover things like the 7.7 acres and the 10 1/2 acres and 36
Cubberley. I think that Section 7 would be a meaty section, not a flimsy section. That's 37
it. 38
39
Vice Chair Knopper: I think this document would be a perfect opportunity, Rob, for the 40
meeting that you and Ed were just talking about with regard to the Mayor and Vice 41
Mayor to come in, again trying to align their expectation of what they're going to be 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 38
seeing, what order and say, "This is what we're thinking the outline should look like of 1
the presentation. What do you think?" I thought Jennifer made some very valid points. 2
You're probably going to want to put up front the implementation or put closer to—they 3
know the summary. They know why we did a Master Plan. Make that shorter and you 4
get to the point. They want to see the meat and the potatoes of all the money they spent 5
with the consultant and the outreach in the community. Maybe the Mayor can say, "Why 6
don't we move this up front, because I know Council Members would be more interested 7
in that?" I just think this would be a useful working document for that meeting. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Your comments were virtually identical to what I was going to say. I just 10
want to add two words as the only adds. I think the highlighting of the key findings, 11
which you have written in here, is absolutely correct for the needs and opportunities. The 12
first thing that's on there is demographic and recreation trend analysis, which we've been 13
talking about. That's totally critical. Under policies, programs and projects, the only 14
thing there is that it seems like that's where you want to state the major priorities, at least 15
the top 15 because you know that's going to come out. I would somewhere get the word 16
"priority" in there. I agree, also word for word, that that is very short. In the 17
implementation, I'd rather see sort of this little timeline that we go over, where there's 18
these projects in a 5-year, 10-year and 15-year range. Maybe the implementation is 19
actually even an appendix, so you're not down to the level of signing up the boy scouts to 20
do the maintenance or whatever. You're showing that here's the 15 and 25-year plan, 21
where these things are probably going to fall, what we now know, but that pool could 22
move out 8 years. I'd like to see that as kind of the framework almost for the 23
implementation and less details. Maybe you can get it into 6-8 pages. I was almost 24
identical with what you said. Others? Other comments? Keith, on the outline? The site 25
concept plans. I put a check mark there when we hadn't covered the Master Plan outline 26
yet. We can now move to the site plans. Kristen and Keith and I talked about this a little 27
bit. What they're looking for here is kind of a high-level of things, not a review of 22 28
parks, because each park will come back to us for a full. We might not see these parks 29
again for 5 years based on where they are in the Plan. I think the comments they're 30
looking for are exceptional things. For example, the style now is to have the older kids' 31
playground and the newer kids' playground together. If you think that's terrible, now 32
would be a good time to know that. If there's something else that you think is fantastic, 33
that looks new, that's the kind of highlights, I think, that we're looking for, not page by 34
page through this. At least that's what we discussed. That works for you? 35
36
Mr. Anderson: The only thing I'd chime in on that is something Rob and I discussed 37
today. There should be nothing that's a surprise in those concept plans. They should all 38
be populated through these programs. There shouldn't be any difference there. 39
Everything you concur with here should be (inaudible). There might be things that don't 40
apply, like a policy perhaps that isn't relevant to a concept plan. Everything else should 41
be something you've seen and talked about and be correctly matched. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 39
1
Mr. de Geus: Related to that is if there's something in here that's specific, but it's not 2
represented in any of the concept plans, then that would be another gap we'd want to see. 3
4
Chair Lauing: If we missed water play or something in parks. 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: At the May meeting, I think everyone who wanted one of these—it's the 7
book of the plan—took one away. I know there were two Commissioners that weren't 8
there. If you'd like one, I can pass them down to you. I also have them here online. If 9
we want to look at a particular park, I can pull it up on the screen. Could I do a little bit 10
of an introduction first? I do want to just remind everyone that what you see in the 11
concept plan is not necessarily everything that would happen in the park system. It's all 12
conceptual. They're all potential. What we did is we took information that we received 13
from the community outreach process and all the data that we have, and we said these are 14
the things that, based on that community outreach, could go in a park or these are the 15
things that—there isn't another park in the area that provides this amenity, so this may be 16
a good park to put it in. What do you think? We can't emphasize that enough. If you 17
look at some of the parks, like Hoover Park, it looks like we're adding a lot of different 18
amenities to the park. That isn't the case. It's just these are the things that we think could 19
fit into that park based on what we've heard, based on what's happening around in that 20
neighborhood, so tell us your feedback. I just wanted to start out with that reminder. 21
22
Chair Lauing: If you just look at the drawings, we (inaudible) to about six blades of 23
grass. Although, most of those of things are actually already there. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: I will also add one other thing. We have been collecting comments from 26
the community, both in person at various venues and then also online. If the community 27
or anyone goes paloaltoparksplan.org which is the Master Plan website, all of the site 28
plans, the existing conditions and the potential amenities are shown on there. There's 29
also an electronic comment form that people can submit their comments to us. I think 30
right now we plan to keep that open until mid-July, mid to late-July, to get as many 31
comments as we can. We'll also have the books at the community centers and have our 32
office staff sort of engage people. Now is a really good time to do that with summer 33
camps going on. There is a lot of visitation at our community centers. We'll also have 34
them at the libraries. We're trying to get as much feedback as we can. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Would you send out another notice to the neighborhood 37
associations that this is open still? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, definitely. 40
41
Chair Lauing: (inaudible) to jump in. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 40
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had some comments. For the dog parks and restrooms, 2
Daren, you went through and did a nice job of saying where could we put this and where 3
does it make sense. There's other features like community gardens or picnic shelters. 4
Did you do similar things for those features? 5
6
Mr. Anderson: Yes. Not quite so holistically. With the dog park one, we literally 7
walked the parks and visualized it. We were kind of doing it concurrently and thinking 8
could a community garden also go there, but the focus was dog parks. I think yes, to 9
some degree it had the same analysis. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: For example, some of the layouts had covered picnic shelters. 12
Was it kind of arbitrary which parks had those and which ones had plain picnic areas or 13
was there some special reason why parks had picnic shelters and some had picnic areas? 14
15
Mr. Anderson: Some of it had to do with how much exposure there is, like tree canopy, 16
that kind of thing. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good question. I saw—I'm trying to find it now. I'm 19
not sure which one it was. It was creek access marked on a park where they had a 20
concrete creek next to it. With that, were we thinking that we could get permission to 21
have access? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Peter had learned that at some point in the future, Public Works was 24
looking into naturalizing that creek. That would be much further down the line. 25
(crosstalk). 26
27
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do you remember which park that was? 28
29
Mr. Anderson: I want to say—I can dig it up. Give me a minute; I'll find it. I think it's 30
Boulware. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes, you're right. It is Boulware. I'd also noticed on Johnson 33
Park, the slide is very popular and it's unsafe. 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Maybe I can explain that one. That one is a tricky one. We've struggled 36
with it because it's not compliant. This is the large, concrete slide. It's very, very 37
popular. Many years ago, it fell out of compliance. More than a decade ago, they 38
disallowed that kind of thing. That's the reference to it not being safe; it's not compliant. 39
However, we think we've got a way to make it compliant. It's a little more difficult to 40
explain right now. Essentially you could add a mound to it to bring it into compliance. 41
We bring in some earth and reshape it a little bit. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 41
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it unsafe because you can fall off the side? 2
3
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: The going down the slide portion is not considered unsafe? 6
7
Mr. Anderson: It's considered legal. You can have that. Different people have chimed 8
in from the community saying, "We don't care." The way it's actually used is kids will 9
bring up pieces of cardboard and stand up and surf down it. Safe is a relative thing. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: My gut is that if this wasn't there and we tried to propose it, I 12
think there would be—there's no way we could get it through. Now, it's a tradition. If we 13
got rid of it, people would be upset. 14
15
Mr. Anderson: It's been discussed before and shot down. I think we've gotten creative 16
and can find a way to save it and make it accessible. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Our lawyers are happy with that? 19
20
Mr. de Geus: They will be. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing is what about public art? What's the policy 23
towards public art? I've noticed a couple of parks have public art. Bowden Park has 24
that—that's right on Alma. Is our goal to have art in 10 percent of the parks or 90 percent 25
of the parks? What's the thought? 26
27
Mr. de Geus: I don't know that we have a percentage, but definitely more public art in 28
our park system. 29
30
Chair Lauing: We didn't specify it in the policy. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Is it represented in there at all? 33
34
Chair Lauing: It's in there. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: It should be. 37
38
Vice Chair Knopper: It is. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: That's what I thought. In working with the Public Art staff and that 41
Commission, we really want to be thinking about public art from the inception, 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 42
rethinking the design of a park itself so that it becomes part of the fabric of the design and 1
not just an afterthought where a piece of art is put on a pedestal somewhere in the park. 2
There's just some really creative artwork that's being designed and developed as part of 3
park spaces around the country. 4
5
Mr. Anderson: To that point, we specifically added $30,000 to the scope of the Baylands 6
Comprehensive Conservation Plan to add an element of public art in the master planning. 7
The way it's done currently—you might remember recently the Mercedes dealership on 8
Embarcadero was to add a piece of public art. The Public Art Director and lead staff had 9
said, "Wouldn't it make so much more sense to have it planned out for all the Baylands, 10
where different things would go if we were to add it? What time would be better to do it 11
than when you're looking at the entire preserve and planning out where it would be 12
acceptable, where it could send an interpretive message and where it could be in concert 13
with wildlife and habitat?" 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good point. You mentioned that—when I go up on 16
Byxbee, I still get disoriented up there. I go there quite often. When you get up top, all 17
of a sudden you're like, "Which way?" It's not orthogonal; things are kind of curvy. 18
Some of the public art really is nice points of reference. On the flat part there, if we 19
could have something that would be visible, that would help. When we get those islands 20
in, that will help with your bearings too. Public art isn't just to look at; it's also for 21
bearings. 22
23
Mr. de Geus: That's right. Good point. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing was adult fitness areas. I really like the concept 26
of adult fitness areas. I hardly ever see people using them. Am I just there at the parks at 27
the wrong time? In the mornings, are they being used? 28
29
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if we have any good, modern equipment. If you go to 30
Mountain View, they're very, very popular. What park is that? I can't think of the name 31
right now. The newer equipment and newer designs seem to get a lot more access and 32
use. 33
34
Mr. Anderson: Ours is circa 1980, late '70s park-horse style, really, really not interactive 35
or interesting or fun. The newer styles that I'm seeing—San Francisco is a great example 36
where it's almost like an outdoor gym. Rather than hitting the pull-up bar and then a mile 37
later getting to the leg-stretch station, you're there with a group of people doing 38
something interactive and social. That's the norm you're seeing, whether it be near a 39
child's playground where they've got four or five or six different pieces of athletic 40
equipment that could be used or like I'm describing in San Francisco where it's actually 41
like a little gym. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 43
1
Mr. de Geus: It's lower impact. 2
3
Mr. Anderson: Or a variety. That San Francisco one is actually kind of high-end, where 4
you're getting real athletes. Others are a little more welcoming to your first-time 5
exerciser. Both are good. 6
7
Chair Lauing: If I recall correctly, that didn't poll very well in our community 8
preferences. Maybe it's because they haven't seen equipment past 1980. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: One spot I think would be good for adult fitness would be the 11
Baylands Athletic facility. You have all those people going out on the levee running or 12
biking. They might stop and stretch or exercise there. That right now is currently not in 13
the Plan. 14
15
Mr. Anderson: I might just add one little important piece to this. Although it didn't 16
maybe poll as high, an ongoing problem we've had for many years now is trainers and 17
people using playgrounds for athletic uses. Where this would be a perfect fit and since 18
we don't have it, they're out on a swing doing a modified version of a pushup or a dip or 19
something that's really not appropriate. We'd be addressing that problem too, should we 20
be adding these kind of facilities. 21
22
Commissioner Hetterly: I think there's also a growing interest in the senior population to 23
have that kind of facility, that's accessible to them. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing about athletic facilities, whether it be a soccer 26
field or baseball field, having a small play structure nearby is useful. It's quite often 27
siblings that have to come—they're dragged along to the game, and they're just going stir 28
crazy in the stands. At Baylands, if they had a small play structure between the softball 29
and baseball field, I think that would get a lot of use. 30
31
Mr. de Geus: See, we're going to design that 10.5 acres in no time. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Even though the Baylands is kind of a strange place for a play 34
structure, I think it would get use. The last thing is I was looking at the layouts for Werry 35
Park and Cameron Park (inaudible) four parks in College Terrace. When we do a 36
remodel, do we do all four parks' design together or do we do them piecemeal? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: I think it could vary depending on the scope of those projects. 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things is that, while sometimes you want to shift 41
stuff around and if you could swap one facility here, that might make the layout of the 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 44
whole thing better. I just was looking at them individually, and all these site plans were 1
listed individually. I don't know if we were thinking big picture when we laid the 2
layouts. That's it. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Comments on these? 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the fields, the 7
enhanced play level, Level 1 and Level 2. I think at Hoover Park, there's the softball, the 8
T-ball, the soccer. How is that all going to fit into those fields? 9
10
Mr. Anderson: Good question. The Level 1, Level 2 differentiation. The way we're 11
thinking about it—you saw that one policy where it said do a field analysis. Associated 12
with that, we'll be bringing it up to a higher level. It's rather expensive. We're looking at 13
that right now and how do we prioritize which field. For Hoover, for example, it might 14
be just a piece of it that's brought up to that really high, competitive level, where you 15
have to bring in new drainage, you have to bring in new irrigation and maybe even 16
enhanced maintenance practices to keep it to a certain level. There'd be a second level, 17
Level 2, where it might be more like what we're doing currently with some slight 18
modifications. We're kind of still playing with that. I don't know that that's fully dialed 19
in. Hoover specifically, which way would it go, I think we also probably need a little 20
more analysis, especially as we get to the prioritization stage where we put all the field 21
improvement options out there. Real quick you're at this number that's just not 22
sustainable. We need to whittle it down to something. I think we've got the outreach 23
done already to kind of guide us in the direction of focusing in on where you'd prioritize 24
those different levels. We just need to sit down and look at it a little more closely now. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: On the big bubble, for instance, if you have a number of different 27
kinds of sports going into that bubble, is it all going to go there or are you going to send 28
some sport someplace else? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. Some of it will be like El Camino where it's 31
multi. For example, that synthetic field is not soccer or lacrosse; it's both. Likely with 32
the south field at El Camino, it's not just softball; you could also play soccer there, 33
because that's a removable fence. I think to some degree some of those are intended that 34
they could both coexist in the same spot. I guess to Kristen's point earlier, the layout of 35
those bubbles doesn't have to necessarily be quite so precise as in this is a clear-cut 36
boundary on where this is going to go. I think it's meant to be a little bit flexible. If that 37
makes sense. 38
39
Commissioner Cribbs: I just was worrying that we were going to get fewer opportunities 40
within the bubbles. 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 45
Mr. Anderson: The intent is the other way around. 1
2
Commissioner Cribbs: I was hoping. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Is that it? 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah, for now. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Jim? Abbie? 9
10
Vice Chair Knopper: Just a quick question about the Rinconada pool. It says activity 11
area, expanded pool. Could you just talk about that whole pool area really quickly? 12
What are you thinking? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: The pool doesn't have a lot of seating area. It's really tight, and there's 15
hardly any grass area for people to sit or lay out a blanket. There's definitely some 16
interest in expanding just the space where people can gather and sit and do those types of 17
things. The other thing that we've heard from the pool users is the pool is not quite 18
regulation length. It's like ... 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: This is true. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: ... a yard short or a foot short. I don't know precisely, but there's some ... 23
For the swimmers that are really athletes like Anne, that's frustrating, and for the 24
competitive swim team that uses the pool. There's an interest in making it regulation. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: One way it really hurts is if you're having a meet, and they have a 27
lot of meets at Rinconada. You start to certify the records that people break, and if the 28
pool is short or it's long, it's a problem to be certified. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: The buildings there—the locker rooms are old. The pool was renovated in 31
the 1990s, but the buildings are from the 1960s. They really need some work. We'd love 32
to put a—I think most of you have seen it. In the long-range plan for Rinconada Park is 33
to have a community room, like a fitness room there either on the second story where we 34
could have aerobics and other things throughout the day and evening there. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there enough room there to do a 50-meter pool? I know that 37
was kind of looked at when we renovated the pool before, and it didn't work. No? 38
39
Mr. de Geus: We haven't looked at it closely enough, but probably. 40
41
Commissioner Cribbs: I think there's room. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 46
1
Mr. de Geus: It all depends on what ... 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: You've just got to take (inaudible). 4
5
Mr. de Geus: Rinconada Park, there's so much happening there. It's already squeezed as 6
we know with the Junior Museum discussion. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Did you have comments? 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: Yep. I have heard of practically a million concerns from Bol 11
Park about that bike pump track. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: That's gone. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: We have as well. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: All right, I'll leave that where it is. Also, the native habitat 18
areas, I want to make sure that they're located in places where they'll be most successful 19
for establishing habitat. I don't know all the science of where is best. People who do 20
should be consulted before putting them just where there's space, for example. For the 21
sports fields, my inclination for where you might prioritize Level 1 fields is where they 22
face the most arduous wear and tear. I would guess that's soccer primarily. I would start 23
with the soccer fields. If those are also lacrosse and baseball and softball fields at other 24
times, that's great. I wouldn't say don't do it because there's softball there. I think the 25
soccer fields would be, in my mind, a priority for the higher-durability fields. 26
Community gardens, I think, is one of those things that we value as a community, but we 27
want people to use them. They're best located near the homes of people who are going to 28
use them. I wonder if it doesn't make sense rather than picking places where they could 29
fit, setting up a program where a neighborhood could petition to look at their park for a 30
community garden, so that you're not building it until you know you have some demand 31
for it in that location. The other comment I've heard a lot of is "you're trying to do 32
everything in my park." I understand that's not the intention, but there is concern about 33
trying to do too much in one space. I'm wondering what is the next step for the concept 34
plans. Now, you've sort of thrown out "these are all the things that we think could be 35
viable," all types of activities for that park. When you get your feedback from whoever 36
you're getting it from, how do you then pick and choose? What's the next step? What 37
does the next iteration look like? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: The next step is to, like you said, take all the feedback that we've heard. 40
Right now, we're also doing the implementation plan. We're putting together what will 41
things cost now and in the future. We're going to take all these pieces and put them 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 47
together and revise these concept plans based on the information that we have, the 1
community information but then also the financial information that we've gathered, and 2
include the gaps analysis that we have from MIG through the community outreach and 3
also their existing conditions reports and also look at what staff thinks is the most 4
appropriate amenity to add to a park based on the institutional knowledge that staff has. 5
That is our next step, to review. It will be pared down quite a bit. Like you said, it looks 6
in some parks like we're trying to put everything into a park. That's not what it's going to 7
look like. It is going to be, I think, difficult. It's going to be a difficult process to get to 8
the next phase or the next rendition of these plans. Like I said, we're just going to take 9
everything that we've gathered so far and revise them based on that information. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: It sounds like that is basically your prioritization process. 12
Right? What you're doing is you're looking at all the options and you're saying for this 13
park, these are the most important things to put there. Is that right? 14
15
Mr. de Geus: Yep, that is right. And using those criteria. Is it filling gaps? Is it 16
community preference, given what we understand and have heard? And the additional 17
feedback we're getting from the survey, feedback from the Commission. One thing that I 18
would still like to do—I don't know if we decided we were going to do this, but I'll 19
mention it—is site visits to each park. We certainly want to do that as staff, and we 20
thought it might be interesting to have Commissioners join us, not as a Commission but 21
just a couple of Commissioners to sort of truth test some of these concepts by walking the 22
park and looking, being on the ground. You can learn a lot that way. Also, just talk to 23
park users that are there. We want to do that over the next month and a half as well. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: When we do get to a park and when we get to that point where that amenity 26
is being proposed to be added, we'll still go through the normal community outreach and 27
public review process. There is that opportunity at that point to hear even more feedback 28
from the community, especially the neighborhood around that park. This isn't the end of 29
the outreach and engagement. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's one of the comments I heard from people, like "Why 32
didn't I hear about this?" They thought it was all shovel ready and ready to construct. 33
They didn't realize this is not even proposed; it's just kind of potential thinking on the 34
back of the envelope. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Their park might not get done for 10 years. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: Boulware Park has been on the CIP list forever. 39
40
Ms. O'Kane: I actually have a follow-up question to both Commissioner Reckdahl and 41
Commissioner Hetterly. You both said that you've been hearing a lot of feedback. Was 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 48
that through the neighborhood associations? I'm just curious how you're hearing the 1
feedback. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I've been hearing it just from people I know. Most of them, it 4
came to their attention because the neighborhood association brought it to their attention. 5
6
Commissioner Reckdahl: For me it wasn't—there was some public meetings. They 7
heard about the public meetings; they went down there. It wasn't through the 8
neighborhood association; it was just they heard of the public meetings. I think they told 9
other people and there was some telephoning going on, because the message was getting 10
distorted as it went on. 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: I'd just throw out there, some of the neighborhood associations 13
are quite diligently coming up with plans to oppose all these terrible plans for their park. 14
That's the kind of thing to be aware of. 15
16
Chair Lauing: (crosstalk) starting with restrooms? 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. There still is the concern—it's just the "not in my 19
backyard" type thing. "If we put a restroom in, all the homeless from 20 miles around are 20
going to go to my neighborhood park." Then, we realized that you're putting-what? Six 21
or eight ... 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Seven. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: ... seven restrooms over the whole city. It's not going to be 26
concentrated in any one area. Then, I say, "If you go to a park, do you like having 27
restrooms there?" "Yeah, I do, but not in my park." They want their cake and eat it too. 28
29
Ms. O'Kane: I think we may need to do some more outreach. Not just sending out the 30
plans to the neighborhood associations, but to sort of restate what the intent of these are 31
and just be more clear on their purpose. 32
33
Chair Lauing: To the extent that you can nullify the timelines that this is (a) a done deal 34
or even (b) scheduled. These are conceptual. 35
36
Ms. O'Kane: I think we need to do that. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Like a concept car that's going to come out 10 years from now. One 39
question I had was what hard data are we getting from Magical Bridge that might be 40
useful in terms of implementing any of the policies that we're talking about. It's getting a 41
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 49
lot of usage. Are we getting a lot of data from kids about what they use and how the stuff 1
is holding up? Anything there that helps infuse some of these decisions in other parks? 2
3
Mr. Anderson: I'd say we're certainly learning what's popular, which play amenities are 4
really, really popular. The other key finding is there's no abating it. It's not the shiny 5
new car thing where it wears off after 3 months, and it's let's go back to the old one. This 6
is it, and they love it. Every day of the week, any time of day, it's packed. That was a 7
key finding. I was convinced it was going to trail off after 3 months, and I was wrong. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Bell curve. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: I was wrong. I made a bad play on not wrapping up the maintenance 12
level sooner. It needed more trash cans. It needed more frequent cleanings. If we were 13
to add a comparable one somewhere else, especially if we do it on a small scale, like you 14
only add one other one in another 5 years, that again is going to be a beacon. You're 15
going to have to expect a prolonged increase in maintenance to sustain it and keep it up. 16
The other thing I learned is there were elements there that were really artistic and 17
beautiful, but not sustainable, not intended to be a real play structure. I'll give you just 18
one example. There are these decorative metal fronds that come off of it. Those failed 19
within days, and we again and again tried to repair them and just learned don't replicate 20
that. It's not sustainable in a playground that gets that level of use. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: I would say also that it's attracting people from the region. They're not just 23
Palo Alto residents. People are coming from as far as Morgan Hill and further, past San 24
Francisco, just to come to this playground. 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are these able-bodied or disabled? 27
28
Mr. de Geus: It's both. The people that travel the farthest are the families that have 29
disabilities. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: I was in San Diego for a conference, and we were talking about it 32
in San Diego. This group was wanting to put a park like that. "Did you know they had a 33
park in Palo Alto called ..." and I said yes. It's a real compliment. 34
35
Vice Chair Knopper: That's so great. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: It is great. The Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground are very active 38
too. Their support for the playground and sort of cheerleadering for the playground is 39
having more people come. They're doing a concert series every Friday night, like 18 of 40
them where they have magicians and musicians come. That's certainly causing more 41
people to attend as well. We did get budget added for 2017 to support the new 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 50
playground. We actually didn't increase the maintenance budget given this new 1
playground that really requires a lot of attention. We're glad to have that added. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: Just one last thing on the Friends of the Magical Bridge 4
Playground. They've been kind of on this perpetual road show talking about it 5
everywhere. I think they've created a foundation now to create models that can be 6
duplicable elsewhere. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: That's right. 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: I was recently talking to the founder of the Magical Bridge Playground. 11
She said they're getting contacted by people around the world, like Brazil, everywhere, 12
saying, "Can you help us do this in our community?" It's such a great thing. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the model going forward? If we wanted to add more, 15
would we have another Magical Bridge Playground or would we just add one or two 16
things scattered around all of our playgrounds? 17
18
Mr. Anderson: I'm not sure. I think it might be both. I think at all of our playgrounds, 19
we're looking to add really popular amenities that people are going to love and are all 20
inclusive. That one seems like a no-brainer to me, that every renovation of a playground 21
would have some element of that. We've talked to the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks 22
who are interested in do we do another one and how could they support that. I think 23
that's certainly viable in the future as well. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Anything else on the site plans? 26
27
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'd like to comment. One, I thought it was kind of ironic that 28
the bowling green had a bocce court next to it. 29
30
Mr. Anderson: They're always quick to say, "Were not bocce (inaudible)." 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Exactly. There's a little animosity between the groups. The 33
other thing I appreciated was El Camino Park had a space for a dog park in there. That 34
was something I appreciated. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: I wanted to just ask about Lytton Plaza and the table tennis tables 37
that are going there. How many? Do you know? 38
39
Mr. Anderson: Good question. 40
41
Commissioner Cribbs: It's a little detail. How are they going to get stored at night? 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 51
1
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. I don't know the answer. We have a hard enough 2
time just with the umbrellas, keeping umbrellas there. The ping pong tables I've seen 3
were very large concrete ones that are difficult to move around and intended to be 4
stationary. I'm not sure quite what Peter had envisioned for that one. More to come. 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: It's a really cool thing to think about anyhow. If you were to go 7
to China, you would see 24 at least in every park. It's pretty remarkable. Lots of people 8
playing. 9
10
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 11
12
Chair Lauing: The next item is any other ad hoc committee or liaison updates. Any other 13
reports? 14
15
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16
17
Chair Lauing: The next item is the Director's report, before we get to comments and 18
announcements. You're on. 19
20
Ms. O'Kane: Rob, do you want to start with your announcements and then I'll follow up? 21
22
Mr. de Geus: Sure, I can. I didn't prepare that much, but a couple of things that I wanted 23
to share. We did get the budget approved for 2017 for the department and the City, 24
which is great. We got a few things added related to parks and recreation. We got some 25
additional funding for Daren and his open space group with the addition of Byxbee Park 26
and other things. They're such a small team with a huge workload, so we got some 27
additional open space technicians. We also got some additional funding for teen 28
programs and for the Bryant Street Garage Fund in particular. I mentioned Magical 29
Bridge. We got additional funding to support the maintenance of the playground. 30
Overall, a very supportive Council for our budget. There was also a variety of arts and 31
human services and other elements. Did we send the budget to the Commission? If we 32
haven't sent you the link, we'll send that to you. You can just go directly to the chapter 33
and see what was approved. The Chili Cook Off is this Monday, coming Monday. 34
Anyone judging? Really? 35
36
Vice Chair Knopper: I have a lot of food allergies. Let me just say that is the reason why 37
I can't judge. Otherwise, I would. I swear. 38
39
Mr. de Geus: We'll be there. It'll be a lot of fun. Staff worked hard on it. We're looking 40
forward to it. I think we have 13 or 14 chili teams. That's exciting. The golf course, we 41
got our permit. I just sent you an email. Kristen, if you could pull up the picture that I 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 52
sent you. The permit's in. We've gone to Council and got their approval for a funding 1
plan. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Don't tell us this if it isn't true, Rob. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: It's true. It's true. We're closing the course on July 1st. Next week. 6
7
Commissioner Hetterly: Friday. 8
9
Vice Chair Knopper: This Friday. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: That's 2 days, 3 days from now. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: This Friday, yeah. That's right; it is this Friday. With about a 15-16 month 14
window of getting the project completed. Pretty excited about that. Do we have any 15
pictures ... 16
17
Chair Lauing: When's the groundbreaking? 18
19
Mr. de Geus: That's Joe (inaudible) with a silver platter and the permit from the Water 20
Board, giving it to Jim Keene, the City Manager. We finally got there. There'll be a 21
groundbreaking for both the flood control project, which is also starting at the same time, 22
and the golf course project in July. We'll let you know when that is, if you want to come 23
out. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there any constraints about construction like we saw in Lucy 26
Evans? 27
28
Mr. Anderson: There is for the creek project, yes. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: The creek project. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Not so much the golf course. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we have certain times—how about the golf course? We 35
can do it year round? 36
37
Mr. Anderson: Right. We have more latitude for us. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: Is that levee that goes around the golf course, along the creek, 40
going to be closed as of July 1st also? 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 53
Mr. Anderson: No. I think they've got a couple more weeks before they shut that down. 1
We'll send out notifications and include an email to the Commission. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: I also wanted to give you an update on one of our staff members. I don't 4
know if you shared the news about Lacee. Lacee Kortsen, Senior Community Services 5
Manager, is having twins. She had her twins. She had a C-section, and she had a stroke 6
while she had the twins. She's not doing well. She's paralyzed on the left side. This 7
happened 2 weeks ago now. I think she's still in the hospital. The twins are healthy, 8
doing very well. She's got a long road to recovery. We're all visiting her and sending her 9
our best wishes. I know that she's come to see you several times. She's a very strong 10
person, healthy and young. A lot of things going for her. It's going to be a long road. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Are you going to backfill with some interim staff? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: We have the Superintendant of Recreation that we added back to the 15
budget table of org last year. Thank goodness, otherwise Kristen would be there 16
managing the Mitchell Park Community Center. We have Stephanie Douglas that's 17
stepped in and is managing all of Lacee's programs for the time being. I'm visiting her 18
tomorrow actually, so I'll let her know I talked to you all and that you're sending your 19
best wishes. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is she at Stanford? 22
23
Mr. de Geus: She was at Kaiser Redwood City, and she was moved last week to Valley 24
Medical. She's at Valley Medical now. 25
26
Ms. O'Kane: Santa Clara Valley Med in San Jose. 27
28
Mr. de Geus: Did you have anything in addition to that? 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: No. Just I was going to mention the Chili Cook Off. I don't have anything 31
else. I do want to add that in your packets this month you received the 2-month look-32
ahead calendar and also the work plan for the year of upcoming agenda items. That's 33
how we're going to do it moving forward. We're happy to hear comments if you think we 34
could organize it differently or present it in a different format. We're happy to do that. If 35
you don't find it helpful at all, we're happy to hear that too. Just hoping it sort of provides 36
a more long-term look ahead at the Commission. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I'd just love a bigger type. 39
40
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 54
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1
2
Chair Lauing: Other comments and announcements or questions? Are we still frozen on 3
the dog park because we need Council approval? That was in the last set of minutes that 4
we talked about. I thought the idea was to go with the one. It doesn't have to be tied to 5
the Master Plan. 6
7
Mr. de Geus: We haven't talked about that since we planned at the study session making 8
that one of the focus areas where we've come to some decisions or clear 9
recommendations about moving forward to sort of test the water with them, so we could 10
then move it along. Since that got pushed now to September ... 11
12
Chair Lauing: I think you could bring a PIO by September. Go do this. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: We have to (inaudible) about that. I know that you're all interested in 15
moving that forward. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: We could send them a memo from the Commission. 18
19
Mr. de Geus: We could do that. 20
21
Chair Lauing: We've kind of committed to the community, and they're excited about it 22
now. Then, we start stalling this again. The bottom line is it doesn't have to be—to do 23
two dog parks, it doesn't have to be tied to the Master Plan. That can be in parallel. 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: We should at least get moving on the community outreach and 26
the PIO. 27
28
Chair Lauing: The hydrologic study? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: We're waiting for purchasing to get the signatures on the contract, and 31
then we'll be getting going on that. 32
33
Chair Lauing: The contractor you mean? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Pardon? Yes. Our purchasing department processes the signatures 36
necessary. 37
38
Mr. de Geus: It's gone to Council. 39
40
Mr. Anderson: Council's approved it, so it's just the signing now. 41
42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 55
Vice Chair Knopper: I know you've told me in the past. How long is ... 1
2
Mr. Anderson: One year, next June. 3
4
Chair Lauing: I was just going to say that I went to the Air Force Band concert. Those 5
are always great in terms of community and music and sun. There was no wine drinking 6
in the park. The Mayor was there, which I've seen him there before. He got up and made 7
thank you's and so on right towards the end. It was just a nice (inaudible). 8
9
Mr. Anderson: I had one other announcement that is Byxbee Park Hills. A while back 10
the Commission worked on an interim plan. About two-thirds of that plan is complete. 11
The trails are in. The earth for the vegetated islands is in, which is really kind of cool. A 12
notice to proceed, to have the contractor come in and put the irrigation and the plants in 13
will proceed on July 18th. We're hoping about 3 months or so, 3-4 months, we'll have 14
benches, signs and these planted islands installed. It'll be a nice milestone checked off 15
for that park and kind of looking more park-like. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: What's the status on the boardwalk? They're going to come 18
back with a PIO? 19
20
Mr. Anderson: I'll come back to you next time with that. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: I forgot where we left it with the boardwalk. 23
24
Mr. Anderson: I'll have to double check. I'm sorry. 25
26
Chair Lauing: Any other comments or announcements? 27
28
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JULY 26, 2016 MEETING 29
30
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is planning for the July meeting. We've had 31
some discussion about whether we should have a July meeting relative to the 32
postponement of the study session. Not the gyms; I'm getting way ahead of myself. The 33
Zoo is supposed to come back to us in August. We definitely want—that's kind of their 34
earliest, so we want to accommodate that by doing that in the August meeting. If we're 35
going to take a summer break, July is the time to do it. Just thinking in terms of the 36
discussion tonight, we could tentatively say it's on or its off based on what we hear if we 37
get a session with the Mayor. If we're on target, then that's probably okay. If we're not 38
even close, then we may need three meetings in July. Any thoughts? I think the only 39
agenda item that we know about is the Master Plan. We could just say tentatively we can 40
skip July, do August, unless there's feedback that we should really have that meeting to 41
move the ball forward on the Master Plan. No comments? Here's a comment. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 56
1
Commissioner Cowie: I'm not sure what "tentatively off" means. 2
3
Chair Lauing: That we should basically say we'll hold the date. 4
5
Commissioner Cowie: We'll hold the date how long? 6
7
Chair Lauing: Until we get, I guess—I don't know. It depends on when—I know there 8
has to be a limit on that. It depends on when we could get a Mayor appointment. 9
10
Mr. de Geus: I can't imagine the Mayor giving us a completely different direction nor 11
would that be appropriate for him to do that. They're not meant to direct staff in that 12
way. 13
14
Chair Lauing: To your point, Jim, we couldn't wait until after that meeting to put it back 15
on. He's not going to say come in the morning. 16
17
Mr. de Geus: Unless there's something specific, I don't think that we could plan to have 18
the meeting related to the Master Plan even. I don't know that there would be that much 19
to discuss unless we target a specific target, like the 10 1/2 acres or Cubberley or have a 20
deeper discussion about some of these. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Other than the agenda items that you guys already have, which is the 23
timeline for the projects or the budgets for the projects or a more elaborate scoring 24
system—I don't like that word either. If you want to present something like that and you 25
think you can have it ready in 30 days, then we can hold it. 26
27
Mr. de Geus: Is everyone here in July? 28
29
Chair Lauing: Is that the 26th or something? 30
31
Ms. O'Kane: The 26th. 32
33
Mr. de Geus: I'm back. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Kristen, I might be in Cuba by then based on the travel agent that we 36
talked about before this meeting. Why don't we just suspend it? Have you already—37
sorry. I didn't know you had a comment. Go ahead. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: That's fine with me. My comment was there is an item that I 40
may like to see on the agenda. It doesn't have to be in July; it could be later. I wanted to 41
bring it up. Just last night, the City Council agreed to a buy-back deal for the easement to 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 57
the ITT antennae field in the middle of Baylands Park. It's 36.5 acres that once this 1
purchase-sale is completed, the City will have unfettered rights and access to that entire 2
parcel. I think that we should put it on our agenda to start a process to dedicate it as 3
parkland to kind of fill that gap. 4
5
Chair Lauing: That'd be awesome. 6
7
Commissioner Reckdahl: We need to add a program in the Master Plan to address it. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Further into August, are there any other agenda items that we think we 10
should have in August? 11
12
Commissioner Cowie: I just want to get clarity on July. You said suspend it. Does that 13
mean cancel? 14
15
Chair Lauing: Cancel. 16
17
Commissioner Cowie: We're canceling it right now. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 20
21
Commissioner Cowie: It's not coming back on? 22
23
Chair Lauing: Yeah. You can go away that night. Make a dinner date. One item that 24
you had put on there as tentative was the Urban Forest Master Plan. I think we've already 25
seen that three times. 26
27
Ms. O'Kane: That was a recommendation from Commissioner Moss, to bring that back 28
now that it's final. I think he was unclear as to whether that was appropriate based on 29
previous presentations on the Master Plan. I think he was open to either way. It's just on 30
here as a placeholder right now. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Would they be taking our input or is it final? 33
34
Ms. O'Kane: No, it would be informational. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: I could send you the link. 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's a good use of staff's time to 39
come to us after the decision has already been made. 40
41
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would agree. 42
APPROVED
Approved Minutes 58
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I would encourage Commissioner Moss to check the Council 2
video, because he'll get the whole presentation, and everybody else on the Commission 3
with an interest in the Urban Forest Master Plan can get the full briefing on the video. 4
5
Chair Lauing: We'll just stay in touch on other agenda items for August. The Zoo is 6
definitely coming. Anything else? 7
8
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9
10
Chair Lauing: Why don't we adjourn in honor of your colleague, so you can tell her that 11
tomorrow. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: I will. Thank you. 14
15
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner ** and second by Commissioner ** at 16
9:37 p.m. 17