Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-23 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesAPPROVED Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 March 23 , 2021 8 Virtual Conference 9 Palo Alto, California 10 11 Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Vice Chair Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, David 12 Moss, Jackie Olson, Amanda Brown 13 Commissioners Absent: Keith Reckdahl 14 Others Present: 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Do, Lam 16 I. ROLL CALL 17 Chair Cribbs: Welcome, everybody, to the March 23rd meeting of the Parks and Recreation 18 Commission. It’s nice to see you all. It’s a beautiful evening. I believe it’s the first day of 19 spring as of this weekend. We’re moving into the Orange tier tomorrow, and Stanford 20 women are playing basketball right now in March Madness, so all seems to be good. 21 [roll call] 22 II.AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS23 III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS24 Chair Cribbs: We can move on to Oral Communications. Lam, if there are any members 25 of the public who would like to speak on anything other than what’s on the agenda tonight. 26 Mr. Do: We do have one public speaker who has raised her hand. The speaker is Rebecca 27 Saunders. 28 Ms. Rebecca Saunders: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Becky Saunders, and 29 I live in Ventura I have two comments for your tonight, so I’ll strive for brevity. Even 30 though we are so excited to see Boulware expanded, it’s not enough for Ventura now, nor 31 for Ventura when a development endorsed by PTC will garner us 2,000 new residents and 32 800 new workers, and no park. I was very discouraged to see the outcome after two years 33 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 of working group input from the PTC advancing this high-density proposition with no 1 meaningful parkland. Also, the neighborhood input working group, I think only one person 2 on the working group actually voted for the high-density option. I’m asking you Parks and 3 Rec people to please ride herd on Council for us, and please corral us a park at the Frye’s 4 development. It’s just not fair to starve us of a place to play when it is such a need – as 5 you know – a necessity, for human well-being. Thank you so much for hearing me on that 6 issue, and then this is just some housekeeping. I was running around this morning at the 7 corner of Page Mill and El Camino at about 7:45. I noticed that the parking lot for the 8 soccer field had quite a number of cars in it, maybe one-third full, but only about three 9 guys were on the soccer field. I was just wondering if the vehicles might belong to workers 10 in the area, and maybe we are leasing that parking out for the construction workers over 11 on 2755 El Camino? I just wanted to remind you to help us support parking for the people 12 using the parks because there actually would be no place to play if enough players arrived 13 to field two teams for even one of the fields. I found that concerning. Maybe the City is 14 making a little money on the side, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank 15 you so much. 16 Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much. I believe that finishes Oral Communications. Thank 17 you very much for comments. 18 IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 19 Chair Cribbs: Daren, could we go to the Department Report, please? 20 Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. We thought we would start with sharing a video. This 21 was shared with Council last night. This is Community Wellness and Wellbeing, with a 22 number of programs that the City has implemented this year. 23 [video] 24 Chair Cribbs: Before you go on, excuse me for interrupting. That was a great video to 25 show. It really warms everybody’s heart to see that in the middle of COVID, so thanks to 26 everybody for doing that. Again, sorry to interrupt, but I evidently missed a hand that was 27 up during Public Comments. I wonder if we could ask that speaker to come back, and 28 listen to the comment. I apologize. 29 Mr. Anderson: No problem. 30 Mr. Do: Thank you, Chair. Our next speaker is Angela Dee [phonetic]. 31 Chair Cribbs: Thank you. I apologize. I looked earlier and didn’t see a second hand. 32 Ms. Angela Dee: Thank you so much. I’m sorry. I was one minute late logging on, so that 33 was my fault. I apologize. I’ll read what I have written down. I know that the Parks and 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 Rec Commission is separate from the PTC, but I want to say just something about parks 1 in general. Palo Alto is well-known for its high quality of living and for its beautiful parks, 2 even in parts of the city where residents’ homes sit in large, parklike gardens. Palo Alto’s 3 public parks welcome everyone to gather, relax, listen to music and play together. So, 4 while an urgent need for housing is driving the City to waive its development standards in 5 order to approve the construction of more dense, multi-family buildings in the North 6 Ventura area – something I support – little attention is being paid to the park acreage 7 necessary for these new residents. Palo Alto should probably enjoy at least as much 8 recreation space as, say, a resident of San Francisco has. Residents of San Francisco have 9 4.22 acres of public park space per thousand residents, and every resident of San Francisco 10 lives within a ten-minute walk of a public park. The same cannot be said for Palo Alto, 11 which has only 2.67 acres per thousand residents. That’s 2.67 versus the 4.0 recommended 12 by the Comprehensive Plan. If thousands of new residents do come to live in the south end 13 of Palo Alto, including the Ventura neighborhood, the need for acres of new public 14 parkland will become even more acute than it is now. I don’t believe that Palo Alto 15 residents would support the practice of crowding its less wealthy citizens into small areas 16 and providing no public amenities, such as public parks. Thank you very much. 17 Mr. Do: There are no more public speakers. 18 Chair Cribbs: Thank you so very much. Daren, back to you. Thank you again. 19 Mr. Anderson: Sure, thank you, Chair. The other updates I wanted to provide also have to 20 do with information that was shared with Council the other night. I wanted to share about 21 Wellness Wednesdays. These are different ways for the community to connect with 22 wellness. You can find this website by googling City of Palo Alto Be Well and Stay Safe. 23 These Wellness Wednesdays are every third Wednesday at 5:00 p.m., and they’re 24 recorded, so you could watch them even after they’ve passed. The upcoming one in April 25 will be on earthquake preparedness, and in May it will be teen mental health. I also wanted 26 to provide you an update on the May Fete parade. We are going to do it this year. It’s going 27 to be different than in years past. It’s going to be a video of past May Fete parades. The 28 Mayor is going to speak on it, and the theme would be, “What a Wonderful World.” It’s a 29 call for people to decorate their homes and their yards and their businesses, leading up to 30 that first Saturday in May. There would be a map of this route, where people could walk 31 it and bike it and see these decorated houses. More details to come soon, but there would 32 be a big video shared on May 1st, and it would be a parade in the sense that you could drive 33 around and walk around to look at these decorated areas, and it would be a virtual event 34 on the day of. Other programming updates: There are tentative plans for movies in the park 35 and musical performances in the park. Certainly, pending what COVID allows for, but 36 that’s coming soon, and more information will be coming to you on that. Library and CSD 37 have been offering teen programs, and we’re continuing the Teen Leadership Program. I 38 know that’s always a subject of importance and interest for the Commission. I don’t have 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 the details tonight, but I’d be glad to bring those at upcoming meetings. There’s also a new 1 program coming out through the Libraries. It’s a donation of laptops to community 2 members who need them. This is in partnership with Hewlett-Packard, where if you donate 3 a laptop, they will wipe it clean and see that it gets used by someone who is in need. On 4 the COVID topic, I wanted to update you that Santa Clara County, as the Chair had 5 mentioned, is moving to the Orange tier tomorrow. That means capacity limits for indoor 6 activities will increase, and the types of sports allowed will be broadened. Registration fro 7 spring classes is now open, and summer camp registration opens on April 1st for residents 8 and April 8th for non-residents. We’re safely offering over 120 in-person summer camp 9 sessions, following all of the County Health Guidelines. CSD has decided to hold off on 10 allowing indoor rentals to the public until the County does enter the Orange, possibly 11 Yellow, tier. So, for those indoor rentals, we’re still working on that and not ready yet to 12 rent them. Adult recreational groups are allowed to start back up as long as they meet, 13 again, the State and County Guidelines. An update on impact fees: The Commission 14 looked at this not too long ago, and it was tentatively scheduled to go to Council and got 15 moved. It’s now on target for April 12th to go to City Council, and at that same time, a 16 Colleagues Memo referring to the Parks and Recreation Commission the review of a new 17 skatepark has also has been pushed from the March 15th date to April 12th. I wanted to 18 make you aware of some activity happening at the Baylands. This is tomorrow, March 19 24th. The County of Santa Clara Vector Control District will be conducting an aerial 20 treatment for salt marsh mosquitos and the Western Equine mosquitos in the Palo Alto 21 Flood Basin. The treatment is scheduled to start at approximately 7:30 a.m. and last a few 22 hours. This method allows for targeted and effective application for the difficult-to-reach 23 areas of the marsh. The treatment will use naturally-occurring microbes and a mosquito-24 specific hormone the District has been using for over 25 years. There will be temporary 25 closure of the trails going around the Flood Basin. However, the rest of the Preserve will 26 be open. If anyone has questions about this, they can reach out to Vector Control. I’m 27 going to give their phone number real quickly, in case anyone watching is interested in 28 calling them for more details. It is 408-918-4770. That is Vector Control, who is available 29 for calls Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. At the Council meeting last night, 30 Council reviewed CIPs planned for FY21 and Council directed staff to reduce the FY21 31 capital budget by $2.5 million. Staff from multiple departments are meeting this week to 32 discuss options for how that might look. I’m sorry I don’t have details to share this evening 33 on that, but more information to come. Council also reviewed and approved the Ramos 34 Park Improvement Ordinance, excluding a fence that had been associated with a dog park. 35 The Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) had moved on in advance of us determining that 36 a dog park would not be a good fit for Ramos. Council struck that part from the plan, but 37 otherwise moved forward. However, the preceding item they discussed, which was the 38 reduction in those overall capital programs for FY21, may mean that only a portion of the 39 improvements called out actually happen. Again, that will be determined soon, as staff 40 works on this. Chair, that concludes the Department Report. 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 Chair Cribbs: Thank you very, very much. I’m really happy that the May Fete Parade will 1 continue in a form, so great work on that and all of it. Do any of the Commissioners have 2 any questions for Daren specifically about the report? 3 Commissioner Moss: The Vector Control – is it also going to spray Renzel Pond area, or 4 just the Marsh? 5 Mr. Anderson: They’ve only identified the Flood Basin. 6 Commissioner Moss: I’m thinking of the one behind you, behind the offices? 7 Mr. Anderson: That’s right. It’s between there…It’s large. That’s a 600-acre area, so very, 8 very large. It’s completely levied off, and it’s between Mountain View Shoreline and, as 9 you know, either the back of Bixby or the MSC offices for that area. 10 Commissioner Moss: What about the Lucy Evans Nature Center or the Laumeister tract? 11 Mr. Anderson: No, it won’t be over by any of those spots. Not by the Duck Pond, the 12 Nature Center, or the Faber-Laumeister Tract. 13 Commissioner Moss: Or the golf course? 14 Mr. Anderson: No. 15 Commissioner Moss: Okay, thanks. 16 Chair Cribbs: Any other questions? 17 V. BUSINESS 18 19 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 11, 2021SpecialParks and 20 Recreation Commission Meeting 21 Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Olson and seconded by 22 Commissioner Moss. Passed 6-0. 23 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 23, 2021Parks and Recreation 24 Commission Meeting 25 Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Moss and seconded by 26 Commissioner Olson. Passed 6-0. 27 3. Foothills Park Policies 28 Chair Cribbs: Everybody can see that we have 120 minutes devoted to this item and the 29 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 discussion, so we have some work to do tonight. The goal is to pass the motion, the 1 recommendation, to the City Council. I also want to make sure that we hear 2 recommendations from the Ad Hoc. I want to make sure that all of the Commissioners 3 have a chance to present their thoughts as well, in case there needs to be a little tweaking 4 of the motions. At the end of our discussion, I think the goal is to pass a single motion. 5 With that, I will turn it over to Daren. 6 Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. This is an action item regarding Foothills Park policies. 7 I thought I would start with a brief update on the recent visitation at Foothills Park. From 8 January 1st to March 18th only – and this is 2021 – approximately 83,400 visitors in 41,500 9 vehicles entered Foothills Park. Sixty-two percent of that visitation was on weekends and 10 holidays; 37.6 percent on the weekdays. During that same timeframe – again, only January 11 1st to March 18th in 2020 – there were 29,000 visitors and 15,000 cars. That 2021 visitation 12 is 194 percent higher than the same period in 2020. At our February 23rd Commission 13 meeting, we reviewed and discussed a range of Foothills Park policy considerations, some 14 of which had been recently adopted by Council but had not previously been commented 15 on by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The PRC agreed to support some guidelines 16 while referring additional details back to the Ad Hoc committee for additional assessment 17 and follow-up recommendation. The Foothills Park Ad Hoc Committee met four times to 18 discuss these policies. We grouped policy considerations into four different categories – 19 polices to include in the March 23rd recommendation; policies adopted by City Council 20 and supported by the PRC but not previously commented on the PRC; potential Foothills 21 Park policy updates that had been reviewed by the PRC but not included in these current 22 recommendations that may be reconsidered in future recommendations; and the fourth 23 category, the Parks and Open Space policies that are broader than just Foothills Park and 24 that we would review and consider these for a future recommendation. After further 25 consideration by the Vice Chair, Chair and I, we believe it would be best to include all of 26 these into one recommendation and motion to Council. The Vice Chair helped put together 27 a draft motion that I’ll share shortly that I think will help serve as a great starting point for 28 the PRC to make and vote on a motion this evening. That first category that we talked 29 about includes policies the PRC recommends the Council take action on to implement 30 changes. These are regarding the large vehicles. This is the over-nine-person capacity. The 31 free park days; the free vehicle entry for student groups with a reservation; free passes 32 available at Palo Alto Libraries; free Foothills Park annual passes for fourth grade students; 33 and the removal of the nine hillside barbecues for fire safety. We discussed these at our 34 last meeting, and the Ad Hoc thinking on each of these is listed in the staff report, so I 35 won’t go over them in my presentation. The second category is the policies adopted by 36 City Council and supported by, but not previously commented on the PRC. These are the 37 use of the term “vehicle entrance fee” versus “parking fee.” The six-dollar entrance fee for 38 vehicles with up to nine-person passenger capacity; the free entry for vehicles with 39 disabled persons license plate or placards; and the pedestrian and cyclists entering 40 Foothills not counted towards the visitor capacity and not charged an entrance fee. The 41 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 third category, these are policies that the PRC reviewed and does not currently recommend 1 making any changes to. However, they recommend investigating and further reviewing 2 these through the calendar year 2021. That’s the visitor reservation system that we’ve, 3 again, talked about before; the dog policies; and the daily fee waivers. The fourth category 4 is those Park and Open Space policies to review that are broader that still may affect 5 Foothills Park and would just be considered slightly different because they do carry over 6 to so many other areas. The Ad Hoc had identified Foothills Park concerns that are 7 governed by these broader policies, and the Ad Hoc recommends that the Ad Hoc review 8 these policies and return to the PRC at a later date with updated recommendations. It’s the 9 photography and videography policy; special event permits; gathering permits for groups 10 over 25; groups of 24 or fewer with no reservations or permit required; and then the special 11 request interpretive program for things like canoe rentals and Ranger talks. Lastly, I just 12 wanted to provide an update on environmental monitoring and data. I know this is an area 13 of great importance to the Commission, and it is to the Ad Hoc as well. The Ad Hoc 14 reiterated that they support the monitoring efforts being performed by Grassroots Ecology 15 and the Open Space staff, as well as the work that’s being done by the stakeholder group. 16 That stakeholder group consists of representatives from Grassroots Ecology, Friends of 17 Foothills Park, Environmental Volunteers, Stanford University Haas Center for Public 18 Service, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Los Altos Hills, and the Chair and Vice Chair 19 of the Parks and Recreation Commission. That stakeholder group has three initiatives right 20 now, I just wanted to share with you. One is developing a five-minute video that would 21 help educate visitors on the principles of “Leave No Trace,” “How to Recreate in Foothills 22 Park Responsibly,” and “How to Prepare and Make the Most out of a Trip to the Preserve.” 23 The group is also working on establishing a Trail Ambassador Program through a 24 partnership with the Environmental Volunteers. The goal of that program is to provide 25 volunteer-led engagement with Foothills Park visitors, expanding their knowledge and 26 sparking interest in the park, as well as providing helpful information and resources and 27 encouraging environmental stewardship. A third initiative that the stakeholder group has 28 been working on is a list of infrastructure improvements aimed at protecting the habitat 29 and improving visitor safety and experience. We had finished two walk-throughs with the 30 broader group to look at the infrastructure. We’re collating all of that information, creating 31 a little sample draft of what that would look like. The next step is to meet and confer with 32 our Planning Department, to talk that through and get a better understanding of what kind 33 of CEQA process and timeframes for additional reviews would be necessary for which 34 components. What I mean is, there might be some elements of improvements, such as a 35 certain section of fencing to protect habitat, that could move forward in the near-term; 36 whereas, there may be other sections, like certain parking lot improvements and 37 installation of pedestrian pathways, that might be a little longer-term and require some 38 more environmental review. The Ad Hoc also recommends that the City prioritize a capital 39 improvement project to create a comprehensive conservation plan for Foothills Park as 40 soon as it’s economically feasible. They further recommend that the stakeholder group 41 recommendations be discussed with the Commission for feedback and be incorporated 42 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 into an interim environmental management strategy. To explain that just a little bit, I think 1 to juxtapose the two, on the one hand you’ve got something like a comprehensive 2 conservation plan, where we’d be hiring a consultant and it would be a very lengthy 3 process. The Ad Hoc was thinking of this other endeavor as being a scaled-back version 4 that could be implemented a little quicker, not require quite so much expenditure for a 5 contractor or time to implement. Lastly, the Ad Hoc also recommends that staff form 6 partnerships with universities and community colleges for environmental research and 7 study, as well as seek out advice and assistance on environmental monitoring from regional 8 land management agencies, like Midpeninsula Regional Open Space and others. Just to 9 recap the tentative timeframe, May 2021 is when Council could, in theory, if we get on 10 their agenda, review the recommendation that you make this evening. Then we would 11 come back to the Parks and Recreation Commission in July of this year to continue our 12 discussions on Foothills Park policy. You might recall at the February 22nd Council 13 meeting, Council’s motion included the request for the PRC to return to Council with an 14 update in August. Chair, I’m going to close the PowerPoint and open up the Draft Motion, 15 and just very quickly walk the Commissioners through this, if that’s all right. 16 Chair Cribbs: Yes, that’s fine. 17 Mr. Anderson: I just want to acknowledge and thank the Vice Chair again for putting this 18 together. The beginning of this, as you can see, very closely mirrors what we had in the 19 staff report. That’s the large vehicle policy, the pricing recommended by the Ad Hoc and 20 additional details related to that. It’s got the free vehicle entrance days. This reflects a lot 21 of the thinking that we had from the broader group, with the Ad Hoc homing in on this. 22 As soon as I conclude my presentation here, I’m sure the Ad Hoc can add details to some 23 of their thinking, though it was included in your staff report. It’s got the free vehicle 24 entrance for student groups with valid reservations. It’s got the up to ten passes for the 25 Libraries. It’s got the free fourth-grade annual pass, and then it’s got the recommendation 26 to remove those hillside barbecues. The new sections relate to what we had just talked 27 about, these other categories that we wanted to include into the recommendation so, 28 Council knows that we’re working on it and supports that if that’s what they want, and 29 directs us to do so. These different categories, the second boxes that we had talked about, 30 are captured here in this motion. Chair, that concludes my presentation. 31 Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much, Daren. That was great. I really appreciate that. We 32 go back to scroll to the top of the motion. We go down to the second Roman numeral. 33 That’s the motion that we really want to pay attention to, but then we want to add for 34 discussion the other three motions and vote on everything at the end, just to clarify. Right? 35 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 36 Chair Cribbs: So, what I’d like to do now is to ask Lam if there are any members of the 37 public who have their hand up to speak on this item. And then, we’ll go to the Ad Hoc, 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 and then the rest of the Commissioners. If you have those clarifying questions, let’s wait 1 until we get further through. Lam, any members of the public? 2 Mr. Do: Chair, we do not have any members of the public wishing to speak. 3 Chair Cribbs: I don’t have any on my list, either, which is probably the same list, so okay. 4 That’s fine. Thank you very much. Let’s go now to the Ad Hoc. I’d like to compliment the 5 Ad Hoc. I know that many, many hours have gone into discussions, and I think that what 6 you’ve come up with is really good. I’d like to thank the Vice Chair for all of his additional 7 work as well. I’d also like to acknowledge the past Ad Hoc committees who did so much 8 work over the past two years on this, to set the groundwork. Jackie, as the longer-standing 9 member of the Ad Hoc, would you like to comment? 10 Commissioner Olson: Sure. I will say that we really tried our best to be thoughtful in all 11 the different areas and come up with all the various parameters. Thinking about fourth 12 grade, for example, when does that begin? When does that end? Should it be a whole year 13 from the moment you sign up, or just during the school year? We really did try to think 14 through all the different variables that we could think of, but we are three people, and you 15 are a lot more, so we certainly welcome any other input or identification of some things 16 that we didn’t point out. 17 Chair Cribbs: Commissioner Moss, would you like to comment? 18 Commissioner Moss: I want to echo everything that Jackie said. It’s a whole lot of work. 19 The other thing I want to emphasize is that this is not all, and that on a number of these, 20 we were torn because we need to get something to the Council as quickly as we can, so 21 we were trying to figure out what things we could deal with right now. Some of them may 22 need to be tweaked by the end of the summer, by the end of the year, but we need to be 23 able to give the Council something to vote on right away and then come back with tweaks 24 that may happen later. So, this is not the end all, be all. A lot of this was based not on long 25 periods of collecting data, because we don’t have it yet, so we did the best we could. That’s 26 all I wanted to say. 27 Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Vice Chair Greenfield? 28 Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I definitely share the sentiments of my fellow 29 Commissioners on the Ad Hoc. This is an ongoing process, and this is one step along on 30 the process. As Commissioner Moss said, we’re really focused on doing what we can do 31 right now, recognizing that this isn’t everything, and a lot of decisions need to be after we 32 have an opportunity to analyze more data and see how things work out. It’s going to be an 33 iterative process. I think it’s important for everybody to understand that within the 34 Commission and the community. I think for most of the primary recommendations for 35 changes that we’re encouraging and recommending, they’re focused on providing 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 accessibility to specific target groups and also listening to feedback that we’ve heard from 1 Council members and members of the community in terms of ideas on how to expand 2 accessibility and make Foothills Park, soon-to-be Foothills Nature Preserve, open and 3 accessible and trying to consider this in an equitable manner. There’s lot of different 4 considerations and many options but again, focusing on what we can do, and I look 5 forward to hearing from the rest of the Commission for your ideas to further progress this 6 along. It’s a group effort and look forward to your feedback, and happy to answer any 7 questions in terms of what we’re thinking on things, why we included something, and why 8 we didn’t include other things, that kind of thing. Thank you. 9 Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much. Let’s go to the other Commissioners. Commissioner 10 Brown? 11 Commissioner Brown: They did a lot of work, so I really compliment the Ad Hoc 12 Committee and Daren, and everybody involved in this. It’s clear that a lot of thought went 13 into this. Everything that I read, I understand and I agree with it. It sort of dovetailed off 14 of our discussion of work planning. When I look at the added sections of what has been 15 reviewed but is not included in the recommendation, or what’s moving forward, those read 16 to me like a work plan for the Ad Hoc Committee for the next year or two years. So, I was 17 sort of going back and forth, as everyone was talking about, “Well, should this really be 18 in the work plan document that gets presented to Council and then gets adopted?” Because 19 I feel like in my mind that’s where they belong. However, in the spirit of transparency and 20 seeing Foothills Park on the Council agenda and getting that opportunity to be able to have 21 it in just one more place for the public to be able to see what’s coming down the pipeline, 22 I actually think it’s a very well thought out strategy, and I think it would be fine to have it 23 in both places. I would just suggest, as a non-member of the Ad Hoc Committee, that 24 whatever is included here gets mirrored in the work plan. Maybe that was the idea, but 25 great job. 26 Chair Cribbs: Great. Good suggestions. Thank you very much. Jeff, Commission LaMere, 27 as the longest running member, the oldest member of the Foothills Ad Hoc, would you 28 have any additional comments? 29 Commission LaMere: Only to thank the new Ad Hoc for what they’ve put together, and 30 certainly thank staff and Daren for all the time that they have spent on this, but I guess I’m 31 also appreciative of the process. I really think that we have tried to do justice to this 32 complicated problem and tried to really keep in mind the welfare of the park and the nature. 33 I think the time that we’re spending on it is time very well spent. So, I’d just like to 34 compliment everybody and the public input, and the City Council’s interest as well in this, 35 because it’s such an important topic and important part of our city. 36 Chair Cribbs: I think that is very well said, Jeff. As I was reading through it once again, I 37 was thinking about how well this is balanced. The access, the visitor experience, the care 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 for the environment, for the animals and for the plants. I’m excited about the opportunities 1 and the partnerships with environmental groups and resources that we have with colleges 2 and universities and really excited about the planning for the future once all of these details 3 get nailed down. I’m very glad to see that we’ve included coming back to the Council in 4 probably September and then coming back again at the end of the year, just because I think 5 when we have some of the data that we need, it will serve everybody better in terms of 6 future decisions. Kudos to the staff and all of the work and to the Ad Hoc as well. Daren, 7 do we want, do you think, to just thoughtfully go through the first part of the motion and 8 make sure…? I don’t think we need to read it out loud, but just to put it up there and go 9 through it and make sure that nobody has any questions or comments, or that the Ad Hoc 10 doesn’t want to add something specific, or there’s questions about why did you decide this 11 about this? Should we do that? 12 Mr. Anderson: I think that’s a great idea. 13 Chair Cribbs: Okay, so let’s start with number one. The first piece is the comments on the 14 vehicle entrance fee. Everybody is understanding of that and okay with it. Comments? 15 Commissioner Moss: I just want to make one comment. The reason we put those three 16 bullets under the $60 per vehicles 25 and over, is that having a permit is pretty important. 17 We don’t want tour busses, un-permitted tour busses, coming in and bringing 50 people in 18 unannounced. That’s why we put those in there. 19 Chair Cribbs: From my perspective that was really smart to do because I can’t remember 20 seeing a giant tour bus ever in Foothills Preserve. I don’t know, if one got in, how one 21 would get out. Certainly, school busses, but those big, big, big busses, certainly that’s not 22 something that was the intention, so this is a good way to do this, I think. Any other 23 thoughts about that? 24 Vice Chair Greenfield: I would also just add, what Commissioner Moss is talking about is 25 consistent with current policy, where a group of 25 or more people isn’t permitted into the 26 preserve without a permit, without a gathering permit, and this is really stating it more 27 clearly and trying to clarify and illustrate this requirement to the public. 28 Chair Cribbs: Good. I also like it that we’re not discounting or providing free entry, other 29 than students. I think that’s a good thing to call out. I wanted to go back to the $6 per 30 vehicle fee, which is consistent with the other county parks, and I think it’s good for us to 31 be in that same price range. We’ve talked about that before. No need to say it again. Daren, 32 maybe you can provide some background about the choices for this, and the Ad Hoc can 33 comment about how you finally landed on this, because I know we discussed it in 34 February. 35 Mr. Anderson: Yeah, the Ad Hoc conversation was similar to the whole Commission 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 conversation, in that we bounced around about when Palo Alto school is out of session. 1 Would this allow someone the opportunity during the summer to come visit but not put 2 too many summer weekends in play, where it might be too crowded? It was an effort to 3 keep it at six, which the Ad Hoc felt was the right number. And again, it was consistent 4 with the existing national program that we’re sort of mirroring this off of, and at the same 5 time spreading it out more than we originally proposed. And the Ad Hoc, I’m sure, can 6 add some details around the specific days. 7 Commissioner Moss: Yeah, we were trying to debate, should we have seven and add a 8 Sunday? We realized really just having a Saturday, a weekend, is important. Also, we had 9 them lumped up so that there were more of them earlier in the year, and we decided to 10 spread it out like this. We could have added one in November, but this is what we came 11 up with, and I think our biggest discussion was when in the summer, not if, but when, in 12 the summer should we have one day without really compromising things? We wanted it 13 to be after school ended and before school got back in session, so this is how we 14 compromised. 15 Chair Cribbs: Good work. The next one, point number three, talking about opening the 16 park. For me, this was always a really important thing to be able to offer to students. I 17 really like the way that this has been handled. Any other comments? [none] Okay, so 18 moving to the entry passes. From the Libraries, has that been…? Well, the libraries aren’t 19 open yet, so it hasn’t been implemented yet, but the Libraries are okay with that, Daren, 20 correct? 21 Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. I had a conversation with Library staff, and they were 22 extremely gracious and willing to assist. They agreed to I think the model that the 23 Commission had hoped for, which is that you wouldn’t have to check out a pass and have 24 to come back and return it. Instead, they’ll be able to print it for you. You can pick it up at 25 the Library, but it’s good for one particular day, and then you can discard it after that, 26 because it’s a single-use pass. That allows us to maximize the available passes, so they’re 27 not out and unavailable, waiting for someone to return it. It also protects us from the 28 COVID challenges of returning and having to sanitize something. It’s just far more 29 efficient, and the Library staff is, again, willing to make that work. 30 Chair Cribbs: That’s great, and I suspect that once this gets put into motion, there’s going 31 to be a great display in the Libraries of environmental sustainability and flora and fauna 32 and Foothills Preserve and all of that, knowing librarians who are so great at that. The free 33 Foothills annual pass for fourth grade students. Maybe you can talk a little bit more about 34 that, because I think that’s very exciting. 35 Mr. Anderson: Again, this is another one that was mirrored off a national park program. I 36 believe it was suggested by Council Member Cormack in one of the Council meetings. We 37 did some homework. I think the Ad Hoc did some good homework in finding the details 38 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 out and how we could make it available. The challenge was a little different perhaps in 1 that this would be an annual pass that they would be eligible to pick and that they would 2 need the student in the car, as you can see. Another key part was the conversation around 3 how we would phrase when this is available and when it would be good. I thought the Ad 4 Hoc did a good job of coming up with the terminology that they would be valid for one 5 school year, ending on August 31st, following the student’s fourth grade year. It was our 6 best effort to try to add a little clarity while still having some flexibility. 7 Chair Cribbs: Any other comments? 8 Commissioner Moss: The key thing with this in number c. is when do you offer these, and 9 when are they done? You set a thing on the stand that says you can go from August 15th to 10 August 15th or whatever, so this is the best we could do. 11 Chair Cribbs: I think it works. 12 Vice Chair Greenfield: Something else I’d like to add real quickly. One of the important 13 considerations for these different options for increasing accessibility was to consider the 14 park management side of things and how this impacts that Rangers staff enforcement of 15 entrance fees and things like that. It’s really much preferable for cars to have something 16 to place in their dashboards, particularly on weekdays, when the entrance station won’t be 17 manned and where people will be purchasing a ticket at a kiosk, if they’ve paid. But if they 18 haven’t and they’ve come in by some free means, and it’s important for the Rangers to 19 have some means of distinguishing who doesn’t need to have a pay stub or some sort of 20 annual pass, it makes this much more apparent. That was a consideration of the Ad Hoc. 21 Chair Cribbs: The barbecues. I think we’ve had this discussion for a really long time, and 22 it’s really good to see it made into a motion. Any other comments? 23 Vice Chair Greenfield: This was something that we talked about at our last meeting, and 24 the Commission seemed to be in support of this. 25 Chair Cribbs: Many last meetings, yes. I think everybody was very much in support. Okay, 26 so that dispenses with the first set. Let’s go to the second set. Questions or comments? 27 Vice Chair Greenfield: One thing that I would observe real quickly here is that all of these 28 items were discussed at the Foothills item, with the exception of not charging the entry fee 29 to bicycles and pedestrians. That was something that wasn’t specifically discussed at the 30 previous meeting, so the second half of part D, but otherwise A, B, C and the first half of 31 part D are things we’ve covered already. 32 Commissioner Moss: And I think all of these could be up for review at the end of the 33 summer, or at the end of the year. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 Chair Cribbs: Yeah, good point, David. Which is why it’s great that we have those two 1 checkoff points, or check-in points. 2 Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s also worth highlighting that this is commenting on interim 3 policy that City Council has adopted, so it’s appropriate so that it can become a permanent 4 policy. 5 Chair Cribbs: Okay, I think we can move to number three. Daren, do you have any 6 additional comments on this? 7 Mr. Anderson: I think we talked about it a little bit. There’s one part, I guess, that’s worth 8 reiterating. I mentioned in that stakeholder group we’ve got Los Altos Hills staff with us, 9 and they’re helping think through challenges. They shared with me recently some of the 10 feedback from their residents. I think it’s germane, the previous one where we talked about 11 pedestrians and cyclists coming in for free. Related to that issue, they’ve got a concern 12 about it. Because it’s free, it incentivizes people to park outside the park and walk in for 13 free, which can impact our neighbors. Secondly, they thought a reservation system, which 14 is part of this third category here, would also help limit some of those problems, of people 15 potentially parking outside and walking in if there was a reservation system. And perhaps 16 cut back on some of the crowding on Page Mill Road as well. We did share that we’ve 17 been working on different ways to reduce the crowding – greater efficiencies at the 18 entrance station, little things like a second card reader to get credit cards processed a little 19 faster. The implementation, hopefully soon, of ten-minute parking, where we can have 20 people who are paying by credit cards pull in and just alleviate some of the pressure of 21 vehicles backed up on Page Mill Road. I did just want to mention that those were concerns 22 of our neighbors in Los Altos Hills. 23 Chair Cribbs: It’s going to take some time, I think, to work that out, since so many people 24 and jurisdictions and parties have to be involved in that. And some of it is really outside 25 of what we do as a Commission because it has to do with traffic and enforcement, correct? 26 Mr. Anderson: Yes. There is elements of all that, true. 27 Chair Cribbs: And signage as well. I think what’s important is that it’s good that this is on 28 there, and there will be some time for everybody who needs to have an opinion and do 29 some research about that, to get that done. 30 Vice Chair Greenfield: I would also comment further on the daily entry fee waivers. This 31 is referring to a number of the waivers for free entry the Council has already adopted. 32 Some of these may be more appropriate to include later as an annual pass option, again, to 33 address the staff concerns of how to enforce entry payment, on weekdays especially. 34 Different things we could consider in the future, maybe some of the daily free entry 35 without an annual pass would only apply on the weekends when the entrance gate is 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 manned, or maybe an annual pass is required instead. These are some considerations that 1 we’ll have to follow and see how things go with what we have. This is just highlighting a 2 specific group of policies that we’ll want to keep an eye on. 3 Chair Cribbs: I think it’s all just really important to have this in this motion. Daren, do you 4 have a sense yet of whether you would make a comment or recommendation on this as 5 early as the fall, or wait until December, in terms of a timeline for the staff? 6 Mr. Anderson: Specifically, for the daily fee waiver portion, or all of this? 7 Chair Cribbs: These three that are on here. You don’t have to have an answer right now. 8 Mr. Anderson: I think it’s iterative, and I certainly think we would be monitoring all three 9 ongoing, and if it’s ready and clear by the earlier review in July. For example, if we came 10 to the PRC in July and we’ve got clear path forward on those and good information, I think 11 it would make sense. If not, continuing to do the research and waiting for more data and 12 pursuing it later in the year if necessary would also be fine. 13 Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I was just interested in if there end timeline at this point, so thank you 14 for that. 15 Vice Chair Greenfield: I think it’s important to highlight, as Daren mentioned, that our 16 target for the next Foothills Park action potentially would be July for Parks and Recreation 17 Commission, so that this would go to the City Council in the August/September timeframe. 18 It can be a little confusing, but just to keep it clear in people’s mind, when we’re talking 19 about the fall to go to Council, it’s got to be going to the Commission a couple months 20 before that. 21 Commissioner Moss: I have another couple of comments. Certainly, the visitor reservation 22 system and the dog policy are near and dear to my heart. I fully hope that as soon as we 23 can, we’ll pursue vigorously those two items. I don’t want anybody to think that we didn’t 24 want to spend time with them, or that we couldn’t do something immediately, that we 25 didn’t care. It’s very important, those two, and I agree fully with the Los Altos Hills people 26 about the visitor reservation system. I think it would be very valuable, if we can make the 27 technology work. The big question, of course, is Los Altos Hills and Los Altos, who pay 28 no money towards the upkeep of the park. They are the near neighbors, and they bring 29 their dogs in and spend a lot of time in the park, and will be spending a lot of time in the 30 park, more so than, say, East Palo Alto. So, it’s very important that we deal with those. 31 Chair Cribbs: Any other comments about number 3? Okay, then let’s move on, Daren, 32 please.. 33 Mr. Anderson: Chair, if you don’t mind, just a quick comment on the reservation system. 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 I think it really is wise to do a little more research. I think rushing into one might cause 1 some unintended consequences, such as exacerbating some of those problems we already 2 talked about of people coming to alternative entrances, because they couldn’t get a 3 reservation. I just think it bears a little more thought, probably a site visit to one of our 4 neighbors that has a reservation program. We’ve talked to Santa Clara County Parks, who 5 has one at Uvas, and pick their brains for details. But sometimes seeing it in person and 6 talking to someone out in the field to understand all the implications would be wise before 7 joining one. And then the other takeaway we learned in that short conversation with Uvas 8 County staff was that it does severely limit the number of people who get to come in, 9 because you’ve got to err on the side of reduced numbers, so that you don’t exceed capacity 10 via the reservation system. It’s just something to consider as we think about that one. 11 Chair Cribbs: Thank you for that. Daren, I’m going to ask you once again because you 12 know today when we were talking about it, I had a little bit of confusion, so would you 13 explain this first one, just to make sure we’re all clear about what we’re doing? 14 Mr. Anderson: Yeah, gladly. These are the broader policies that affect beyond just 15 Foothills Park and Open Space. There are Open Space and Parks policies, and the idea was 16 let’s ask the Council to direct us to work on this, because this one is beyond our current 17 scope, if you will, of what we’ve been tasked with doing. But I think it’s a lot of germane 18 things. There’s, of course, requests and activity for videography and photography, and 19 there are special event requests, so it is very much germane to what happens to Foothills, 20 and all these things are likely to increase from where they were before, at least in terms of 21 requests now that our visitation is so much higher. So, each of these has an existing policy 22 around it, and the Ad Hoc looked at it, but it just became clear that it begs a deeper look 23 and a deeper dive into how these existing policies might impact Foothills Park, and is there 24 any prudent policy choices we should put in to safeguard and make sure that we’re doing 25 our best to protect Foothills Park in these different ways to set us up for success, while at 26 the same time making sure we’re consistent with other areas of the city where we have 27 these activities? I’d also defer to the Ad Hoc on this one as well, for their contribution to 28 the conversation. 29 Commissioner Moss: These existing policies are covering all of the city, all of the parks, 30 all of the open spaces, and trying to tweak individual ones with Foothills in mind might 31 have undue consequences to the other parks, urban parks, and other open spaces. So, we 32 have to be very delicate with these. Also, right now the Rangers have a thankless job, in 33 that they have to monitor these and manage these permits, so when somebody comes to 34 them for a group of 25 and over, or to do the group picnic area, they have a tremendous 35 amount of discretion today about how to deal with these groups. So far, over the years, 36 they’ve been able to manage it, and we’re just not sure in this next year whether things are 37 going to break. Maybe they can continue to do what they’ve been doing for the last ten 38 years, but in spite of a 197-percent increase in visitation, can they still do what they’ve 39 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 been doing successfully? We just don’t know, so therefore we left them alone, and we’ll 1 see. This is certainly ones that we’ll have to think about at the end of the summer, for sure. 2 Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you. Jackie, any further comments about the policies? 3 Commissioner Olson: No. I think that covers it. Thank you. 4 Chair Cribbs: Thank you. And Jeff? 5 Vice Chair Greenfield: I’d just quickly add that we’re aware of the potential impacts of 6 the policies at other parks, but we didn’t spend any time at this point researching what the 7 impacts of changes would be at other parks. Really, this all came about in the course of 8 reviewing Foothills Park policy. We identified policies that weren’t applicable just to 9 Foothills Park, so we kind of set these aside as out of scope and really not reasonable for 10 us to address a recommendation given the accelerated timeframe that we’re working under. 11 Also, some of these policies, in addition to reviewing them in general, we also want to 12 look at increasing the transparency of the availability of these permits and the process, 13 because a lot of these permit requests and program requests aren’t easily accessible or 14 discoverable to members of the public, so that’s part of what we’d like to review, and also 15 there is potential for prioritization of reservations for Palo Alto residents, 25 percent 16 amount of time early before reservations are open to the general public, so that’s something 17 we’d want to consider when reviewing these policies as well. 18 Chair Cribbs: Okay, that helps. I guess my concern – and I’m sure that it can be solved – 19 is that we continue to review the policies having to do with Foothills Park and get that 20 solved and settled before expanding to reviewing all the policies and all the parks. 21 Vice Chair Greenfield: I would add that this is specifically related to Foothills Park policies 22 and agree with what you’re saying. It’s important to keep our focus on Foothills. It’s 23 possible that with further research, we could choose to recommend that some policies 24 diverge between Foothills Park and other parks and open space areas, or we might decide 25 that it’s really appropriate to consider a broader new policy for all of the areas. The other 26 thing I’d add is this work doesn’t necessarily need to be included as part of the Foothills 27 Park Ad Hoc. This could potentially be a different Ad Ad Hoc. 28 Chair Cribbs: A different Ad Hoc and a different work plan. Good. Okay, that’s helpful. 29 Daren, I’d like to raise one more question before we go to a vote, because I think we’re 30 close to being ready to do that, and we’re doing really well on our timing – I have my 31 stopwatch running, just for you to know – but I’m wondering, did it make sense, or did 32 you decide not to include anything about research, surveys, counting animals, counting 33 plants? Did I miss that someplace? 34 Mr. Anderson: No. That is not part of the body of the recommendation here. 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 Chair Cribbs: Okay. 1 Vice Chair Greenfield: Chair if I could add something. You’re kind of feeding into my 2 suggestion. I was inspired during Daren’s presentation and consider something that we 3 didn’t include that we probably do want to include, and I would like to propose adding an 4 item 5, which would be the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation that 5 Council prioritize the funding of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Foothills Park. 6 That’s the wording I’ve come up with. Daren may have had something a little bit – 7 Chair Cribbs: That’s kind of along the lines of what I was asking about, Jeff, because 8 there’s a lot of good work that’s being done by a lot of people, and I think it’s important 9 that it gets both acknowledged, and we support that work, even though it maybe doesn’t 10 fit in this motion, but figuring it out. Using a Comprehensive Plan might cover it. 11 Commissioner Moss: It was mentioned in his staff report to do with environmental 12 monitoring and the stakeholders groups, which are a very important part of the work that’s 13 going to be done outside of the Parks and Recreation Commission that we will have to 14 deal with when they make the recommendations. And of course, that Comprehensive Plan 15 or a short version, a quick version, of a Comprehensive Plan, is certainly something that 16 we’re going to deal with, so putting something in here about that…but it’s sort not 17 something that the Ad Hoc is going to be able to do by itself. 18 Chair Cribbs: Other comments? 19 Commissioner Olson: I think if we’re asking for priorities, if we can have our wish list, I 20 would love to have the Head Ranger role prioritized as well, because I think that’s even 21 more important than this, only because we’re still really trying to catch up. 22 Commissioner Moss: Absolutely. 23 Commissioner Olson: If we’re creating our wish list, I would love to have that be picked 24 up. 25 Vice Chair Greenfield: I think that’s a great idea. Daren, maybe you want to add an A and 26 a B on that, after “prioritize” or something. 27 Commissioner Moss: And change Park to Preserve. 28 Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s not a preserve yet. 29 Mr. Anderson: It takes effect April 15th. 30 Chair Cribbs: Gosh, we’re all getting used to it early. 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 Vice Chair Greenfield: It is a preserve. It always has been a preserve. 1 Mr. Anderson: How does that read? Did I capture your thoughts, Commissioner Olson and 2 Commission Greenfield? 3 Commissioner Olson: Yes. 4 Vice Chair Greenfield: So, I wonder if we’d want to include “as soon as economically 5 feasible,” or not. I’m open to other people’s thoughts on that. 6 Commissioner Moss: Just delete that. 7 Vice Chair Greenfield: And you could probably get rid of the semi colon at the end of A, 8 just for consistency. 9 Chair Cribbs: And move the B over. Yeah, there. 10 Vice Chair Greenfield: I wouldn’t try to do that too hard. 11 Mr. Anderson: For some reason, it – 12 Chair Cribbs: Okay, never mind. We won’t try to do that right now. Okay, so any other 13 comments from anybody? 14 Commissioner Brown: Sorry, I’m going backwards a little bit, to number 3. I don’t know 15 if we want to include language based on our discussion tonight about analyzing the impacts 16 to existing policies. To Daren’s point, if we’re looking at doing a reservation system, 17 maybe there needs to be changes to the pedestrian and bicyclist policy. So maybe just 18 make that clear, that there’s sort of the consideration or analysis of the already-adopted 19 policies, or the impact on those policies. There’s probably a much nicer way that Vice 20 Chair Greenfield with his excellent writing skills can figure out how to say that. I just think 21 that it’s not just throwing more policies on. You’re sort of looking at it holistically about 22 how they all interact together, so maybe we’d want to just make that clear to the public. 23 Commissioner Moss: Okay, you could also say that about number 4. 24 Commissioner Brown: True. 25 Vice Chair Greenfield: I think that’s a great idea. I think maybe it’s just more general that 26 we will be reviewing all of the…Do you want to call out specific policies that we will 27 review, or make mention that we’ll be reviewing all current policies? And maybe we don’t 28 need to say that, since Council has already asked us to come back in August with an update. 29 I totally appreciate the sentiment of what you’re saying, and I think we need to do that, 30 and we want to do that. I’m just not quite clear the best way to fit that into a motion, or if 31 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 necessary. 1 Commissioner Moss: Did we just lose Daren? 2 [technical difficulty with Zoom] 3 Chair Cribbs: Here’s Daren back again. 4 Mr. Anderson: So, we were looking at number three and trying to come up with language. 5 Maybe you already came up with it while I was off, but something to acknowledge impacts 6 or considerations to other existing policies? Any suggested language you would like me 7 to do here? 8 Commissioner Moss: I think we also said it applies to 4 as well. 9 Mr. Anderson: Any suggestions for what you would like? 10 Commissioner Brown: I think that’s fine, personally. I just think it’s important to include 11 that it might not just be a blanket new policy. There might be some adjustment to other 12 ones, in order to make a new policy successful. 13 Commissioner Moss: That wording would be that we will recommend investigation and 14 further review of these existing policies, in number 4. With consideration to further review 15 of existing policies. 16 Mr. Anderson: Change this to “with further review?” 17 Vice Chair Greenfield: I think that’s redundant from what’s being said before that. We’re 18 asking Council to direct Commission and staff to review the policies and return with 19 considerations. I’m not clear what is new being added. 20 Commissioner Moss: I’m thinking that there will be things happening in the park because 21 of the number of visitors that the Council will have no visibility to. So, the Council directs 22 the Commission and the staff to review existing policies with regard to Foothills. And 23 return to Council with considerations. I guess that’s okay. 24 Commissioner Olson: Put “consideration of these and other existing policies,” or 25 something. 26 Mr. Anderson: I’m sorry. Which one are we editing? 27 Vice Chair Greenfield: I think Council has already directed us to review existing policies 28 and to return to them with an update. 29 Commissioner Moss: Okay. 30 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 Commissioner Olson: Yeah, I think this works. 1 Chair Cribbs: So, are we ready to have a motion to vote? Would somebody like to make a 2 motion? 3 Vice Chair Greenfield: Sorry. Daren, could you scroll up the 3 again? I’m just trying to 4 read the new part. 5 Mr. Anderson: Sure. 6 Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. How about “along with consideration of other existing 7 policies?” Does that convey the same thing and maybe more clearly? 8 Mr. Anderson: I think so. 9 Chair Cribbs: Yeah, that’s good. 10 Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. 11 Chair Cribbs: I don’t hear any more discussion, so would somebody like to make a motion 12 on this? 13 MOTION 14 Vice Chair Greenfield: I’ll make a motion that we adopt the recommendations as listed for 15 City Council to consider. 16 Commissioner Olson: I’ll second. 17 Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Any further discussion? Lam, may I ask you to call for a vote, 18 please? 19 Mr. Do: Yes, of course. 20 Motion passes, 6-0 on roll call vote. 21 Chair Cribbs: Well, congratulations to everybody. Very, very well done. I want to talk a 22 little bit about the Ad Hoc committees and the Liaisons. 23 Commissioner Moss: Wait, can I ask one question about timeframe, because in his staff 24 report he talked about the timeframe being April and July, something like that. Is there no 25 way to speed that up or to get an additional one? Go over the timeline one more time now 26 that we’ve passed that motion. 27 Mr. Anderson: I think it was that we would try to get this on to the May Council agenda 28 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 for the motion you just passed, and then we would revisit the overall discussions, the things 1 we’ve put on our buckets two, three and four, in July for our PRC meeting. 2 Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, I’m looking at the tentative timeline that you presented. It 3 says, “Council to review the March 23rd PRC recommendation on Foothills Park policies 4 in May, 2021. If City Council discusses the recommendation at the May 3rd meeting and 5 approves an ordinance, it would take effect on June 17th. That’s all that’s listed specifically 6 in the staff report. 7 Commissioner Moss: So, in May, when it goes to the City Council, if they have issues or 8 problems or they want further research, what happens then? And what about a second 9 reading? 10 Mr. Anderson: If they have additional research they would like done, we’ll do as Council 11 directs. The second reading of an ordinance will happen two weeks after, and then it will 12 take effect 31 days after that. 13 Chair Cribbs: Does that answer your question, David? 14 Commissioner Moss: Yes. 15 Vice Chair Greenfield: I also want to add that the timeline has been significantly 16 accelerated for all the work that’s been going on here from any project that I’ve been 17 involved with and seen happen. It’s one thing for the Commission to be putting in the 18 work, but it’s another thing when we consider the burden this creates on staff. Staff has 19 done an incredible job in keeping up with this, as well as their normal workload and 20 dealing with a pandemic. I feel very comfortable that the timeline that we’re suggesting 21 and the pacing is right to give staff a little bit of a breather on Foothills Park, frankly, and 22 then the Ad Hoc can do some work to more thoughtfully do some digging in on things. I 23 support what Daren has suggested. 24 Chair Cribbs: The Ad Hoc may want a little bit of a breather, too, Jeff. 25 Mr. Anderson: Chair, before we move on, if you’d indulge me, I’d just like to acknowledge 26 the Ad Hoc and thank them for their long hours. They were pulling together meeting after 27 meeting, late at night, in the middle of their dinner, and just so gracious with helping. They 28 did a lot of the legwork themselves, and I just want to reiterate my gratitude for all your 29 hard work and efforts. It’s deeply appreciated. 30 Chair Cribbs: I think it’s appreciated on all sides. That’s what I would say, so thank you 31 to everybody. 32 Vice Chair Greenfield: As long as we’re handing it out, I think we should include the 33 Rangers and the staff at the open space areas for all their continuous effort in supporting 34 DRAFT Draft Minutes 23 what we’re working on as a Commission and also the task forces that are working on 1 different issues, in many cases with support from the Ranger staff. 2 Chair Cribbs: Excellent. 3 4. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Update 4 Chair Cribbs: Continuing on, on our business, number four has to do with the Ad Hoc 5 committees and the Liaison updates. To refresh everybody’s memory, I think it’s been 6 three years that we decided that it would be good to have some of the Ad Hoc reports in 7 writing, so a form comes about a week before each Commission meeting. I think some of 8 us scramble to fill in the blanks, and some of us don’t get to fill in the blanks. I’m 9 wondering now if we could have a couple-minute discussion about whether that’s the best 10 way to convey information around what the Ad Hocs are doing. I think that it’s really clear 11 that not only around Foothills Preserve that there’s a lot of good work being done at the 12 ad hoc level. I’m not so sure that we might want to consider moving the Ad Hoc reports 13 up in the agenda before we get so tired, and it’s approaching 11:00, that we’d like to just 14 have a motion to adjourn. Perhaps – I would look to Daren for thoughts – but perhaps after 15 the Department Report, if the Ad Hoc Reports could go in there and schedule maybe 20 16 minutes and if we don’t need it, we don’t need it. What would you all think about doing 17 that, or are you comfortable with just filling in the forms and it feels like not paying too 18 much attention to them? Thoughts? 19 Commissioner Olson: I think we lost Daren again. But I think that’s a great suggestion, 20 because it kind of would fit with the flow of the staff report as well, where it could come 21 right after and shed some light on some other things that are going on before we get deep 22 in the agenda. 23 Commissioner Moss: I like the idea of a deadline and what Commissioner Olson just said. 24 I think that having a deadline clarifies the thoughts for me. “What did I do this month?” It 25 turns out, there’s a lot more than you think, and it sort of goes right over your head, so 26 forcing me to say something does clarify my thoughts. But at the same time, it sure would 27 be nice to have a little bit more time on those things, especially since we have so many Ad 28 Hocs that are not Foothills. 29 Chair Cribbs: Well, I’d like to try to do both. I’d like to have Catherine or somebody send 30 out the form with the date that it needs to be done to be included in the packet, and then 31 I’d like to see if we could move the Ad Hoc reports and take 20 minutes, and put them up 32 after the Department Report before we start on the Business, if that’s okay. Daren, are you 33 with us again? 34 Mr. Anderson: I am. My apologies. I don’t know what’s going on. I missed the last bit on 35 that. Were you suggesting we want to change the agenda so that we have Ad Hoc Report? 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 24 Chair Cribbs: I was, right after your Department Report, and just allocate 20 minutes. I 1 don’t know that this is going to work or not. Allocate 20 minutes for discussion among the 2 Commissioners, so that different people can see and understand what different people are 3 doing in the ad hocs, because I think it’s good for everybody to know. And if there are any 4 Liaison Reports at the same time, that could happen there, too. Maybe we need 30 minutes 5 instead of 20 minutes, or maybe we don’t need any time and it won’t work, but I’d like to 6 try it if that’s okay with everybody. Okay, cool. That’s good. That’s all I have. Were we 7 going to do any Liaison comments today, or not? 8 Mr. Anderson: Up to you, Chair, as far as I’m concerned. 9 Chair Cribbs: Okay, I had just a couple of comments. First of all, I attended the Youth 10 Council meeting last Tuesday. So impressive what our youth are doing in this time of 11 COVID. They’ve done an amazing study on mental health, a survey that they got 200-plus 12 participants to respond, and they’ll be releasing that soon. I invited them to, perhaps in the 13 next couple of months, if we could make a spot for them on the agenda, Daren. It would 14 be really nice. I think, especially coming out of COVID, I continue to be concerned about 15 the effect of COVID on our kids. I know that other people on the Commission share that 16 point of view as well, so that’s the Youth Council. I also attended the Parks and Recreation 17 Commission meeting [sic], and they are very graciously going to support everything that 18 Recreation/Community Services wants to do in terms of community activities with their 19 budget, so kudos to them. The last thing is our favorite subject – Aquatics. Coming out of 20 the pandemic now, and hopefully we’ll see more people in a lane rather than just one, as 21 the restrictions lift a little bit. More on that later because it is a source of concern. There’s 22 not enough water. The City, they need more water time, so those are the three Liaison 23 Reports that I wanted to bring up, and if anybody else has anything to share, let’s take a 24 couple minutes and do that. 25 Vice Chair Greenfield: I have a couple items. There is an update for the Tide Gate Ad Hoc. 26 The CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is likely to be considered for adoption 27 by the Valley Water board at a meeting on April 27th. Once that is approved, that clears 28 the way for Valley Water to come back to the Parks and Recreation Commission for the 29 Park Improvement Ordinance required for the construction that they’re looking to do. 30 Secondly, there is some new signage that Valley Water has been circulating that will be 31 used to highlight the work that’s being done at the area and specifically to note the impacts 32 of various trail closures that will be happening periodically over the next few years. 33 Chair Cribbs: Great, thank you very much. 34 Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, do you have anything to add to that? 35 Mr. Anderson: No, I think you got it, Vice Chair. 36 DRAFT Draft Minutes 25 Vice Chair Greenfield: And then, a brief Field Users Liaison update, I’ve been working 1 with staff to clarify guidelines to maintain the new field and track at Cubberley Stadium, 2 essentially clarifying guidelines to keep inappropriate items off of these surfaces, as teams 3 are returning to play and using these surfaces. This is a new field and track that hasn’t been 4 properly appreciated, given what’s happened the past year. 5 Commissioner Moss: Yeah, there are particularly fitness courses where they will drag 6 very, very heavy objects around the field, and I try to keep them off the field and off to the 7 side, but it’s been a problem, and also throwing medicine balls and throwing javelin kind 8 of devices. So, it’s something that needs to be clarified to people. In addition, there have 9 been classes. Just like with the tennis people, there are classes being taught by people that 10 are not registered to teach, so the ones that are registered have issues that. So, all that goes 11 to Adam. Good old Adam. 12 Vice Chair Greenfield: And Chase Hartmann as well has been working with that. 13 Chair Cribbs: Okay, great. 14 Commission LaMere: Chair, I’d like to say one item about the recreational opportunities 15 Ad Hoc in that we met with Adam Howard and, echoing some of what Daren said, as we 16 move to Orange tier, their team seems ready to pivot and open up more recreational 17 opportunities. That includes different ideas for the upcoming summer, but also seeing a 18 great uptick in field use and field reservations by a variety of sports. Hopefully, we 19 continue on this positive trend with our tiers, and Adam and his team seem ready to 20 respond. 21 Chair Cribbs: Great. Thank you. 22 Commissioner Moss: One thing about Cubberley. The Friends of Cubberley spent a lot of 23 time lobbying during the last election in November the different City Council members to 24 take a more active role in communicating and working with the School District to just keep 25 moving forward, even if we don’t have money. Both the City Council and the school 26 district have responded this last week or two there is a subcommittee from the Council that 27 has been formed and a subcommittee on the School District side that has been formed to 28 start working again together on that. One of the catalysts was the PG&E issue, looking at 29 that very empty parking lot at Cubberley that’s been empty for years, and saying, “Well, 30 nobody needs this. Let’s just do eminent domain and use it for our purposes.” I think that 31 was a catalyst on the School District side, that maybe they should keep working towards 32 this goal that we have. 33 Chair Cribbs: David, do you know who is on those subcommittees? 34 Commissioner Moss: I have it somewhere. I think Kou and Cormack and DuBois are on 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 26 the Council side. I can’t remember the two people on the School District side. I wish Keith 1 were here tonight. He would remind me who they are. That just happened this past week-2 and-a-half. 3 Chair Cribbs: That’s good, because one of the things that we probably want to bring up at 4 some point that is very clear in our Master Plan is continuing to look at shared facilities 5 between the School District and the City, and how we can do better than we have in the 6 past, and the fact that COVID does present an opportunity, with all of its challenges. It 7 may be the time to start thinking about having that discussion, so just bring that up. This 8 is great. I think maybe this trial will work out pretty well, to do some sharing with the 9 different Ad Hocs and the Liaisons. 10 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 27, 2021 MEETING 11 Chair Cribbs: The tentative agenda for April 27, Daren? 12 Mr. Anderson: Thanks, Chair. I think we’ll just get together with Chair and Vice Chair 13 and staff and determine that. Right now, I don’t have anything earmarked. 14 Chair Cribbs: Okay, I think that’s great. Good. 15 VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 16 Chair Cribbs: Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I would like to say that we should have 17 some sort of acknowledgment of the great work done by the staff and the Ad Hoc 18 Committee and all the Commissioners in having this really good discussion and passing 19 this motion, noting that it is now 8:35, and as many years as I’ve been on the Commission, 20 I don’t think there has ever been an adjournment at 8:35. I think it is well-deserved for 21 everybody on the Ad Hoc and certainly for Daren and Lam. Thanks very much, everybody. 22 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 23 Meeting adjourned by motion by Commissioner Olson, second by Vice Chair Greenfield, 24 at 8:35 p.m. 25