Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-22 Parks & Recreation Summary MinutesDRAFT DRAFT 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 November 22, 2022 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Amanda 11 Brown, Anne Cribbs, Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, and Joy 12 Oche (virtually) 13 Commissioners Absent: 14 Others Present: Council Liaison Tom DuBois 15 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Adam Howard, Lam Do, Javod Ghods 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 BUSINESS 18 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 19 Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 20 Commissioner Kleinhaus moved to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Vice Chair 21 LaMere, the motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 22 PUBLIC COMMENT 23 Samir Tuma of Barron Park spoke regarding a dog park concept and petition. Early in 24 the pandemic when community members felt scared and isolated, groups of dog owners 25 began to meet at Barron Park Elementary School. This group has become a community 26 with social interaction and support. Dog ownership grew nationwide by 12% from 27 December 2020 to April 2021, and this sustained growth has put significant stress on the 28 limited resources Palo Alto offers to dog owners. After some complaints and being 29 shooed away by Animal Control Services, the dog owners began a process to investigate 30 a dog park. The feedback was that most people wanted a dog park but the question was 31 where. Mr. Tuma was here to open a conversation with the community to try to arrive at 32 something that would be helpful for everybody. 33 DRAFT DRAFT 2 Carole Lin, Clinical Associate Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and 1 Practicing Pediatric Regional Anesthesiologist at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, 2 supported a dog park in the Barron Park neighborhood for the physical and mental health 3 benefits for both dogs and their owners. Dog ownership is associated with healthier, 4 functional individuals and communities. Isolation is not just a side effect of COVID but 5 a pervasive issue for communities and schools. Many studies document the mental 6 health benefits of owning dogs for various groups, such as children, the elderly, and 7 populations with disability. In 2013, the American Heart Association concluded that pet 8 ownership, especially dog ownership, was associated with decrease in cardiovascular 9 risk factors and increased survival in individuals with established cardiovascular disease. 10 Dog parks may provide a safe place for older people or people with disabilities who 11 cannot walk their dogs and also offer area where dogs can exercise and run freely while 12 the owners socialize. 13 John King, resident of Barron Park and President of the Barron Park Association, stated 14 the Association became aware of the petition circulating and discussed it at their recent 15 board meeting with no decision made. He stated he is also a dog owner and knows the 16 importance of dog owners and dogs being able to get together. He was aware of 17 complications of this being at the elementary school. The playground is only available 18 after hours, usually after 6 p.m., but there is an involved group of dog owners who pick 19 up after the dogs in the mornings. The school has been very supportive, but there has to 20 be a better solution. 21 Christian Kalar, resident of Barron Park and Chair of the Creeks and Parks Committee of 22 the Barron Park Association, stated there was an interest in making Bol Park a dog park 23 a number of years ago and the people proposing it felt the creek was a great natural 24 barrier. He stated that it is actually private property halfway through the creek, and that 25 Bol Park has few established fence lines. 26 Arlene Sheehan, Barron Park resident, had no objections to a dog park but stated 27 residents whose properties border Briones Park, one proposed site for the dog park, 28 would be impacted by dogs running along the property line. She hoped there was room 29 for community input in the decision of where to place the dog park. 30 AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 31 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 32 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 25, 2022, Parks and Recreation 33 Commission Meeting 34 Commissioner Cribbs moved to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2022, Parks and 35 Recreation Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Oche, the motion passed, 36 DRAFT DRAFT 3 7-0 by roll call vote. 1 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2 3. Department Report 3 Assistant Director Daren Anderson gave an update on the recruitment status. The Senior 4 Management Analyst position has been filled, and the Budget Analyst position is still 5 vacant. Staff is still recruiting for several hourly Open Space Technicians. He described 6 upcoming events, including a holiday tree lighting event at Litten Plaza, a toy drive for 7 local youth in need, and a holiday decorating contest. There is a contract in place to do 8 the work on the infill at Mayfield Soccer Complex, beginning the week of November 28 9 and taking about 12 days, pending weather. The work will start in the north field, 10 keeping the south field open for play, and then switching fields with a potential 1- to 2-11 day overlap when both fields are temporarily not available. The Foothills Nature 12 Preserve weekday entrance fee is still on hold, waiting for the contract to be completed 13 and expected to be in place fairly soon. The Magical Bridge Playground improvement 14 project was delayed due to equipment and materials being delayed in delivery. The 15 playground is scheduled to reopen on December 1. 16 Commissioner Freeman asked to let people know as far in advance as possible when 17 both fields will be closed at the same time. 18 BUSINESS 19 4. Racquet Court Policy – Adam Howard - Action 20 Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, discussed the multiuse courts in 21 Mitchell Park, specifically the priority hours between pickleball and tennis. He gave 22 background on the courts and policy. Currently, there are 8 designated pickleball courts, 23 all located in Mitchell Park; 51 public tennis courts, some of which are on school 24 grounds and only available after 4 p.m. and on weekends, with 17 lit courts at 3 different 25 locations; and 2 multiuse courts in Mitchell Park, 2 courts when used for tennis and 7 26 when used for pickleball, all lit. On the multiuse courts, pickleball has priority 8 a.m. to 27 2:30 p.m. and tennis 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. Pickleball feedback was that there is a need for 28 either additional space or evening priority, grouping of courts is important, and there is 29 frustration when tennis players displace up to 16 players. Tennis feedback was that lit 30 courts are in high demand and hard to come by; Mitchell Park tennis courts are the only 31 courts available in South Palo Alto; wait time for tennis is substantially different than 32 with pickleball, potentially up to an hour; driving to different locations is burdensome, 33 not good for the environment, and uneconomical; and it is difficult to remove a large 34 crowd of pickleball players or to play tennis there with a large grouping. There is joint 35 frustration around those courts. Staff and the ad hoc did spot checks over a couple-36 DRAFT DRAFT 4 month period. Of the 15 dates that checks were performed, pickleball courts were full 14 1 times and tennis 4 times. 2 Given the feedback and the observations, Staff felt the policy needed to be updated. The 3 recommendation was a policy change to provide pickleball priority 7 days a week, 8 a.m. 4 to 10 p.m., with continued dual-striping and no physical changes to the court. This 5 would allow flexibility to see how these changes impact the courts in Palo Alto. By 6 changing priority, Staff believed a majority of time would be used for pickleball, but this 7 would allow flexibility in the future. Staff also looked at a tiered approach of several 8 nights of pickleball but ultimately steered away from that to remove, rather than 9 potentially increase, some of the conflict and frustration at the courts. There was a 10 suggestion to change priority on only 1 of the 2 multiuse courts. The overlapping of 11 courts was a problem, and that change would not help either group. There was a 12 suggestion to dual stripe more courts and spread it out to other parks. Staff again felt this 13 would create more conflict and also would require moveable nets, storage for those nets, 14 and people willing to set up and take down those nets. 15 Another suggestion Staff will continue to look into was adding lights to existing courts. 16 There are a large number of courts at Cubberley but the cost to bring in an additional 17 electrical source would be in the range of $½M to $1M. Mr. Howard also spoke to 2 18 solar companies who did not feel solar lights would be able to accommodate side-by-side 19 courts. He felt that was not a solution to wait for before making policy changes. 20 Another suggestion was to build additional courts, which is the ideal solution moving 21 forward. Financing those projects is difficult, but finding the adequate space will be key. 22 Both communities have stressed the importance of grouping of courts together, so 23 building 1 or 2 courts in a park is not what either community thinks is necessary. 24 Groupings require space, and Staff will continue to look at ways to do that. That was not 25 in the immediate future. 26 If this change were made, there would be 8 designated pickleball courts and 7 pickleball 27 courts that have continued priority, 15 total courts, all lit, and 51 public tennis courts 28 with 17 lit courts spread over 3 different locations. If this court policy was suggested to 29 move forward, it would go to City Council in December or January. If City Council 30 approves the court use policy update, Staff would begin evaluating in about 6 months' 31 time to see how it is impacting the rest of the courts, how the courts are being used, and 32 if there are other changes that could be made. Mr. Howard stated the creation of a 33 community courts group, made up of both tennis and pickleball community members, 34 would be important to make sure the City is best utilizing its courts. He wanted to see 35 that happen in February and acknowledged this conflict needs to be removed before a 36 group like that could work. Staff will continue to look into better utilizing the courts, 37 look for new court locations, and look at the idea of lighting existing courts. 38 DRAFT DRAFT 5 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if Staff would come back to the Commission after the 6-1 month evaluation to discuss findings and how the community group is working. 2 Mr. Howard stated that is the plan and clarified that the data and information would 3 begin to be collected at 6 months. 4 Commissioner Freeman stated this is a 6-month trial to continue to look at what is 5 working and refining it, a temporary plan to see how everything works. 6 Commissioner Oche asked how many people will be part of the committee. 7 Mr. Howard wished to keep it relatively small, around 8 people. He was open to 8 opinions. 9 Chair Greenfield invited comments from the public. 10 Rich Pearson, pickleball board member and 16-year Palo Alto resident, described a 11 petition requesting the City shift its resources to support pickleball's skyrocketing growth 12 amongst Palo Alto residents. He felt the 600+ signatures of only Palo Alto residents 13 represented the tip of the iceberg in the support that pickleball has in Palo Alto. He 14 appreciated the support the Commission and urged them to approve the recommendation 15 from Mr. Howard and ad hoc committee. He stated the data and the personal stories 16 make shifting resources to support pickleball the right choice for Palo Alto. 17 Kevin Chen, Palo Alto resident living 3 blocks from Mitchell Park, agreed with creating 18 more tennis or pickleball courts but asked not to take away the existing tennis courts. 19 While walking his dog every night, he sees the parking lot is full, including cars parked 20 around the fire lane, which is a hazard. He stated the noise of the pickleball hitting the 21 ground is becoming an issue for the neighborhood. He stated there will never be enough 22 space for pickleball in Mitchell Park because it is becoming a hub for pickleball fans. He 23 did not want Mitchell Park to become too crowded and stated Palo Alto already has the 24 highest pickleball court per person, almost double or triple the other cities in the Bay 25 Area. 26 Jing Huang described that her 14-year-old son plays tennis in Mitchell Park with kids of 27 the same age. She described that one boy ranked #1 in North California and #7 in the 28 country; another boy ranked #4 in North California; and her son ranked #14. They have 29 all played in Mitchell Park for years with great achievements. She did not want kids to 30 feel that tennis is in competition with pickleball and asked for a solution for both to play 31 there. She stated one of these kids may someday play in the U.S. Open, and when they 32 win the championship, they will be able to say they played in Mitchell Park for years. 33 DRAFT DRAFT 6 Yuanye Ma stated he has been playing tennis for around 7 years and supported keeping 1 courts 5 and 6 for tennis only. He has played tennis at Mitchell Park with a friend every 2 weekend for the past 3 years and has also gotten to know countless people from kids to 3 adults, with interactions leading him to feel that the tennis community was a family. He 4 stated taking away these courts would be like taking away their home. 5 Greg Xiong, tennis player and Palo Alto resident, stated he was not against pickleball, 6 yet pickleball players are taking tennis courts and time away from the tennis players, 7 creating tension between the 2 groups. He felt the City should help resolve this problem 8 proactively and suggested finding find a piece of land with a good public access, for 9 example a land parcel near Palo Alto Regional Airport, to dedicate to a new pickleball 10 court development. He stated $1.5M to $3M could deliver 15 to 20 new pickleball 11 courts with lights. 12 Bryan Chan was present to support tennis. He stated he tries to take his kids to play 13 tennis after school and oftentimes drives 45 minutes to find a court or cannot find one. 14 He stated that after 3 p.m. is a priority time for kids to play tennis and that youth tennis is 15 in huge demand. He opposed changing the priority times for courts 5 and 6 at Mitchell 16 Park to pickleball. He stated he has observed that some pickleball players choose to play 17 on the dual courts even when the dedicated pickleball courts are not being used. Giving 18 priority completely to pickleball gives a tennis payer no recourse to ask them to move 19 even if there are open pickleball courts. He proposed 2 solutions: giving pickleball 20 courts priority to residents of Palo Alto and allocating space in the Cubberley Gym for 21 evening use for pickleball. It is a huge, underutilized space that could create many more 22 temporary courts than at Mitchell Park and players could still gather when it is cold or 23 raining. 24 Wenxin He, 22-year Palo Alto resident and USTA tennis captain for multiple teams in 25 Palo Alto, stated that he used to captain a team out of Mitchell Park for mixed doubles 26 but cannot do so anymore with the pickleball courts taking over the tennis courts. Most 27 of the USTA teams in Palo Alto play in Rinconada Park, but almost nobody is hosting at 28 Mitchell Park because the double-striped courts are taken and cannot be used for 29 matches. There are no lights at Cubberley, and usage is limited. He also stated many of 30 the pickleball players come from other cities and that giving them full court access will 31 attract more pickleball players from other cities. He asked the City to find a better 32 solution for both groups of people. 33 Monica Williams, President of the Palo Alto Pickleball Club and past Board Member of 34 the Palo Alto Tennis Club, supported the court usage policy recommendation to provide 35 pickleball priority at Mitchell Park from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. 7 days a week. When the 36 current pickleball priority time of 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. was set, it made sense because most of 37 the players were seniors. With the explosive growth of pickleball by younger people and 38 DRAFT DRAFT 7 working people, the new recommendation of court usage availability will give families 1 and children an opportunity to use the courts. She was excited that the extended time 2 would allow youth clinics after school and family tournaments and that working people 3 would no longer be bumped from the pickleball courts in the evenings. She hoped in the 4 future to forge a partnership with the Palo Alto Tennis Club to work together to help 5 improve the courts and embrace both spots. 6 Paige Cook, Palo Alto Pickleball Club Member, mother and spouse of pickleball players, 7 and volunteer of the City of Palo Alto Middle School Athletics Program, stated she 8 intended to offer free lessons and get elementary, middle, and high school kids on the 9 pickleball court. She stated she and her family have been displaced in the evenings, and 10 with daylight hours becoming shorter, having court priority after 3 p.m. will allow her to 11 teach. Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in America, and each week new Palo Alto 12 residents come out for free introductory lessons that are a gift from the Palo Alto 13 Pickleball Club to residents. She asked the Commission to test out the court use policy 14 giving priority for the courts in the afternoons for 7 days a week. 15 Joy Zhang, resident of Palo Alto and pickleball player, stated the community is 16 exploding with new pickleball players in Palo Alto and it is now a popular social activity 17 among young people. She stated her 7th-grade son had pickleball lessons during PE at 18 JLS Middle School and enjoyed playing with his friends in the pickleball round robin. 19 She stated kids would love to play more pickleball at Mitchell Park if courts were 20 available after school, but they are often packed on weeknights and weekends. She did 21 not agree with a previous speaker that players choose to play on the mixed-use courts 22 when pickleball courts are available because the pickleball courts are often full. She 23 hoped the Commission would give pickleball priority 7 days a week for the shared courts 24 so that more people can enjoy pickleball at Mitchell Park. 25 Jocelyn Tseng stated the pickleball courts at Mitchell Park were designed to be a 26 community place with large, shaded picnic tables and benches. She listed some of Palo 27 Alto's pickleball events in the past 4 weeks, including a brown bag luncheon, a 28 Thanksgiving round robin mixer, multiple weekly free skills clinics and getting started 29 classes for those who have never tried pickleball. In the same period, the club would 30 also have hosted a citywide pickleball youth day in late October, but the event was 31 cancelled because court time was not secured due to the priority hours. She stated that 32 by changing the priority, the Commission will allow many more opportunities for 33 community and public enrichment and requested they vote to change the priority hours. 34 Juan Jaysingh, Palo Alto resident for the last the 3 years, related his background of 35 moving to the United States at age 13 to start a career in tennis and his professional 36 accomplishments achieved through connections with fellow tennis players. He now 37 plays both tennis and pickleball and sees the pickleball community growing. He was 38 DRAFT DRAFT 8 here to support pickleball because of the amazing team behind Palo Alto Pickleball 1 Foundation. He stated Ms. Williams has brought the community together with her 2 energy and passion and has brought pickleball to everyone in the Palo Alto community. 3 He recommended supporting the needs of pickleball in Palo Alto. 4 Chair Greenfield thanked the speakers and appreciated hearing from both the tennis and 5 pickleball communities. 6 Commissioner Cribbs restated that she was in full support of the 6-month trial period. 7 She encouraged joining the joint group to have a discussion about how to utilize all of 8 the courts and make them better for the future. She stated it is important for the 9 community to work together for the benefit of the children. She thanked the Staff for 10 trying to avoid tension and bad feeling when people are trying to get exercise and have a 11 good time. 12 Commissioner Freeman also thanked the community for coming out and being 13 passionate about both tennis and pickleball. The ad hoc had spent a lot of time with Mr. 14 Howard and his team for the last 2 months listening to both sides. Just like pickleball, 15 this policy is evolving quickly and is worth trying. He encouraged his fellow 16 commissioners to approve this. It will give the opportunity to look at other options. He 17 stated a pickleball court can be set up nearly anywhere, even on top of garages and 18 buildings, which is not true of tennis. He also stated it can take 90 minutes to play a 19 game of tennis, whereas it takes 15 to 20 minutes for 4 people to play pickleball. He 20 encouraged the tennis and pickleball communities to work together to help develop this 21 plan going forward. 22 Commissioner Brown felt this was an example of the City being responsive to the 23 evolving needs in the City and determining whether a policy is still working for the 24 users. She pointed out the accessibility and comments about injured tennis players 25 picking up pickleball. The interest in creating youth programming around pickleball 26 with more guaranteed court time was also factored into this decision. She stated data-27 informed decision-making was important to the Commission and felt Mr. Howard did a 28 great job in that area. She did not think it was a bad thing for Palo Alto to be a regional 29 hub for pickleball and did not like the suggestion of a resident requirement or preference, 30 which does not fit with the goals and objectives of the Park Master Plan. A goal of this 31 policy was to improve simplicity and make it easier for people to understand. 32 Establishing a feedback loop to continue to work with Staff is important to evaluate 33 changes and continue the strong record of being responsive. She asked how someone 34 would volunteer or serve on the joint group. 35 Mr. Howard requested they contact him at adam.howard@cityofpaloalto.org. 36 DRAFT DRAFT 9 Commissioner Kleinhaus requested that Staff include in the community group some 1 neighbors in the area, from Stevenson House or across Charleston, to make sure they are 2 okay with the changes. 3 Mr. Howard stated the group would not focus on that neighborhood alone but he would 4 try to involve neighborhood associations around the larger parks where the opportunity 5 exists. 6 Commission Kleinhaus stated noise is troublesome to people. She did not feel the noise 7 was excessive but wanted to know what people who live there had to say. She suggested 8 checking with residents nearby to see that there are no environmental concerns or impact 9 on their lives. 10 Commissioner Oche stated the temporary resolution might help resolve what is on hand 11 at the moment. She hoped for more information about the committee and what the next 12 steps would be. She wanted residents to know they were heard and the Commission 13 wants to make the right decision to fit both parties. 14 Vice Chair LaMere stated these issues point to broader issues of continuing to engage 15 with sports in the winter, the relationship with the school district about Cubberley, and 16 the land by the Baylands Athletic Facility that was designated when the golf course was 17 redone, looking at use of space and trying to find win-win solutions for everyone. He 18 was excited to see how this 6-month trial works out. 19 Chair Greenfield stated it is a complicated issue that a lot of people care about. He 20 wanted to ensure that parking impacts would be monitored during the trial. He asked to 21 include a policy guideline that usage should go to the dedicated courts first. 22 Mr. Howard stated the language would be included that for pickleball priority, the 23 permanent courts should be used first before moving on to the joint-use space. 24 Chair Greenfield asked to come up with a better name for the community courts group 25 and suggested Racquet Court Advisory Group. He found the slide showing the 26 allocation of the courts to be compelling in terms of the numbers if the trial went ahead. 27 There are a lot of other variables, but he stated the numbers felt fair and reasonable in 28 considering the number of people using the pickleball courts. Living near Mitchell Park, 29 Chair Greenfield agreed that there seems to be more demand at the pickleball courts than 30 the tennis courts and supported the trial. He did not take lightly taking courts away from 31 the tennis community and was hopeful this would be temporary. He hoped this issue 32 would push the envelope in the need for change, with Cubberley potentially being a site 33 where lighted tennis courts could be increased. 34 Vice Chair LaMere asked how big the Racquet Court Advisory Group would be. 35 DRAFT DRAFT 10 Mr. Howard stated 8 to 10 people would keep it manageable so good communication 1 could take place. Those people would go back to a larger audience and gather 2 information and would be a mix of court users and neighbors. 3 Chair Greenfield stated it would potentially become an application process. 4 Mr. Howard stated if there was a larger audience that wanted to be included, there could 5 be a selection or making sure everybody has an opportunity to participate. He would 6 like to see the process resolve the conflict and then get the group together, potentially by 7 February, to have a positive path forward. People may contact him about this starting 8 immediately. 9 Mr. Anderson clarified that Staff would begin evaluating the usage in 6 months. He 10 wanted to ensure there was no miscommunication on when this would come back to the 11 Commission and what happens in 6 months. He suggested having the time frame be part 12 of the motion. 13 Mr. Howard stated that the policy would be updated to reflect this change and Staff will 14 begin investigating whether that is working in 6 months. There is no expiration date. He 15 stated 6 months will to give it time to change and see how things are going to be 16 impacted before looking at it. 17 Chair Greenfield asked if this is a trial or a policy change. 18 Mr. Howard stated it is a policy change with no permanent structural changes to the 19 courts. Like any other policy, it could be changed in the future. The intention is not to 20 make a policy change and leave it; whether it is working and/or additional changes need 21 to be made will continue to be investigated. The policy change could happen as soon as 22 next month, and it would be in effect for around 6 months before Staff started evaluating 23 how it has impacted the courts and the community. 24 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated she believed a policy change with change of use needed 25 SEQA associated whereas a pilot would not. She asked if it would be better to have a 26 pilot for 6 months to evaluate how effective it is and how well it serves the population 27 and then change the policy. 28 Mr. Howard stated that was not necessary because the use of the courts would not be 29 changed. It would still be a joint-use policy for both courts with no physical changes to 30 how the courts are being used, only the time of the priority use. He was not sure how to 31 allow the change to take place without changing the policy. 32 Commissioner Cribbs asked Mr. Howard to review again where the tennis and pickleball 33 courts are. 34 DRAFT DRAFT 11 Mr. Howard did so, showing the tennis courts, the designated pickleball courts, and the 1 joint-use courts lined for both sports. On the joint-use courts, priority is currently given 2 7 days a week to pickleball from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and tennis from 2:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 3 The change proposed is that the priority on these 2 courts would go to pickleball 8 a.m. 4 to 10 p.m. 7 days a week but the courts would not physically change and would remain 5 dual striped and available to tennis if pickleball players were not on them. 6 Chair Greenfield asked if the temporary nets on the joint-use pickleball courts would be 7 put away each night and set up each morning. 8 Mr. Howard stated that was the expectation. 9 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if someone may finish a game while playing or must 10 leave right away. 11 Mr. Howard asked that the community allow people to finish their play. 12 MOTION 13 Commissioner Brown moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend the 14 City Council adopt the update to the Court Usage Policy with changes to the priority 15 hours on the joint-use courts in Mitchell Park to provide pickleball priority 7 days a 16 week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., with reevaluation to begin in 6 months. 17 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Freeman, who encouraged the tennis and 18 pickleball communities to work toward supporting a solution that will work for both 19 parties. 20 Information about creation of the Racquet Court Advisory Group would be included in 21 the staff report that goes to City Council when considering the motion. 22 The motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 23 5. E-Bike Ordinance – Daren Anderson – Action 24 Mr. Anderson presented an action item on the Open Spaces and Parks Electric Bicycle 25 and Electric Conveyances policy. The ad hoc and Staff met with the Pedestrian and 26 Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) to get feedback on the draft policy on E-bikes 27 and other electric conveyances, and PABAC passed a motion stating they do not support 28 the draft E-bike guidelines. They recognized E-bikes are becoming more popular and 29 there is a need to create some guidelines but urged the PRC to wait until completion of 30 the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan update, scheduled to begin in early 2023 31 and take between 18 and 24 months to complete, before submitting any 32 recommendations to Council. Some of the comments from PABAC regarding the status 33 DRAFT DRAFT 12 of the current E-bike laws prompted Staff to review existing regulation R1-37 and 1 current and pending California Vehicle Code legislation with the City Attorney's office. 2 The attorney's office explained that CSD Staff had misinterpreted the status of the 3 existing regulation, R1-37. The regulation, which Staff thought prohibited E-bikes on 4 trails, became obsolete when California Vehicle Code 21207 took effect. Additionally, 5 AB 1909, which takes effect on January 1, 2023, will remove the prohibition of class 3 6 E-bikes on trails unless prohibited specifically by ordinance. That means class 1 and 2 7 E-bikes are currently allowed on open space and park trails, except Foothills Park where 8 no bikes are allowed on trails, and on January 1, 2023, class 3 E-bikes will be allowed on 9 those same trails. 10 The ad hoc committee supported a common policy for all E-bikes without differentiating 11 between classes, a change from the previous draft. Transportation Staff had advocated 12 for an E-bike policy that promotes safe speed behavior rather than one based on 13 classification as distinguishing between the different classes of E-bikes is difficult if not 14 impossible. He reviewed the ad hoc's proposal for the draft Open Space Policy: all 15 classes of E-bikes would be allowed on paved roads and trails and prohibited elsewhere, 16 including unpaved roads and trails; all E-bikes would be allowed for city staff in open 17 space and parks for maintenance and enforcement purposes; and other electric powered 18 mobility devices would be allowed on paved roads and trails in the Baylands Nature 19 Preserve and prohibited in other open space preserves. For urban parks, all E-bikes and 20 other electric-powered mobility devices would be allowed on paved and unpaved trails in 21 parks and prohibited elsewhere. On the previous draft, class 3 E-bikes were not going to 22 be allowed in urban parks. There was feedback from Transportation Staff that 23 prohibiting that would cause problems for parents taking their kids to school. The ad hoc 24 felt it was a good compromise and did not want to interfere with that activity. The ad 25 hoc recommended City Council adopt an update to Ordinance 22.04.220 and the City 26 Manager approve an update to the parks and open space regulations R1-18 and R1-37. 27 If the Commission chose to make this recommendation and City Council were to adopt 28 the change, the ordinance would become effective 31 days after the second reading. If it 29 were an emergency ordinance, it would take effect immediately upon adoption. The 30 update to the parks and open space regulations would become effective at the same time 31 as the ordinance, upon adoption by the City Manager. Some of the ad hoc was able to 32 meet with PABAC, and the Chair would share that conversation. Staff also wished to 33 meet with the City/School Transportation Committee. This is an evolving policy 34 because it is an evolving recreational activity. E-bikes will continue to adapt and 35 change, and Staff will need to track those changes and come back to the Commission 36 with updates and feedback. 37 Chair Greenfield stated that after discussing this item at the October meeting, the 38 intention had been to return to the Commission with an action recommendation in 39 DRAFT DRAFT 13 December. Instead it is back today based on feedback from PABAC regarding the 1 applicability of the current regulations. As of 2 weeks ago, E-bikes would not have been 2 permitted at Arastradero Preserve or Baylands because there was a regulation in place 3 that motorized vehicles were not permitted. It is now understood that class 1 and 2 E-4 bikes are not considered motorized vehicles; therefore, class 1 and 2 E-bikes are now 5 permitted everywhere that bicycles are permitted. Beginning January 1, new legislation 6 also reclassifies class 3 E-bikes as not motorized vehicles, making them similar to class 1 7 and 2. That was the reason for coming forward more quickly. He appreciated the need 8 to work in conjunction with other pertinent efforts going on in the City but did not feel it 9 was realistic to wait 18 to 24 months for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 10 update before coming back with a recommendation. The proposal is meant to be simple, 11 straightforward, and easy to understand. There is no enforcement available for this, so 12 the focus is on encouraging compliance and community support. 13 Chair Greenfield stated the ad hoc met with Transportation Staff prior to putting the 14 packets up, and he and Commissioner Freeman were able to join the PABAC meeting 15 this afternoon. Chair Greenfield appreciated the expertise PABAC offers and takes 16 seriously their motion that they were not in support of the previous proposal. He looked 17 forward to hearing from PABAC members as part of public speaking on this item. He 18 added the recommendation is focused on simplicity. To move forward with opening 19 unpaved trails at open space areas to E-bikes, there is still work to do. The open space 20 areas do not all need to be considered the same, but there needs to be improved signage, 21 opportunities for education, and time for Staff to get things set up. He stated it was 22 similar to how Foothills Nature Preserve was opened up very quickly and was a 23 significant burden for Staff to deal with at the time based on the timeline associated with 24 the change. 25 Paul Goldstein, member of PABAC, stated there has been discussion about the need for 26 speed in passing this ordinance. In the Baylands, bicycles and class 1 and 2 E-bikes are 27 allowed but class 3's are currently not; as of January 1, class 3 E-bikes will be legal. 28 This minor change is not deserving of the rushed process. His main disagreement with 29 the proposed policy was the prohibition of E-bikes in the Baylands. Bikes and E-bikes 30 are currently allowed, and he suggest continuing to allow them and monitor the use for 31 any problems. He stated the process to update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation 32 Plan is beginning and suggested delaying any bicycle prohibitions until the update is 33 completed and usage is monitored, using that information to form a policy in due course. 34 Rani Fischer, Environmental Advocacy Assistant for Santa Clara Valley Audubon 35 Society, urged the Commission to oppose the ad hoc committee's recommendation and to 36 prohibit all electronic bicycles on unpaved trails in Palo Alto's nature preserves. She 37 gave information that birds will fly 145 feet from their nests after sensing a perceived 38 threat, wasting energy and body heat and subjecting them to predation, and that fast-39 DRAFT DRAFT 14 moving objects like E-bikes are more threatening to birds than slower-moving 1 pedestrians are. She encouraged reading a recent story by Ed Young in the Altantic 2 titled How Animals Perceive the World, which provides examples of how "every 3 creature lives in its own sensory bubble" and how humans are discovering how impactful 4 their sensory comfort bubble is on other species. People encroaching into animals' 5 habitats may cause displacement, disconnect movement patterns, and increase habitat 6 segmentation. E-bikes erect a wall of sound along trials in the preserves that create 7 obstacles to animal connectivity, reproduction, and safety. She requested the 8 Commission prohibit electronic bicycles on all unpaved trails and provide opportunities 9 for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. 10 Susan DesJardin, Chair of Sierra Club's Bay Alive Campaign, stated the San Francisco 11 Bay is a critical habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife, but urban and industrial growth 12 have put pressure on the Bay's environmental health. Climate change, including sea 13 level rise and groundwater rise, poses a threat to ecosystems all around the Bay. These 14 ecosystems need to remain a vibrant place for wildlife and a buffer against climate 15 change. She requested the Commission limit the E-bike use to only paved trails in open 16 space areas, prohibiting E-bikes on unpaved trails. This policy provides simplicity for 17 bike riders and pedestrians and is consistent with neighboring agencies. These areas are 18 habitats of endangered species and provide high-tide refuge for many other species of 19 birds and animals. It is critical not to degrade these habitats with high-speed and/or 20 noisy vehicles on trails. It is unfortunate that no funding is available for enforcement, so 21 it is doubly important that adequate signage for E-bike restriction and speed limitations 22 be provided both in the Baylands and on the City's website. 23 Penny Ellson, PABAC Chair, speaking as an individual, thanked Staff for revising the 24 draft policy to allow bikes and E-bikes on all park trails and strongly supported the 25 policy. These trails are important, providing safe off-road routes to PAUSD schools, 26 playing fields, libraries, community centers, and other city facilities for less experienced 27 and confident bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Regarding E-bikes in open spaces, she 28 stated all Palo Alto open spaces are not equal and terrain is an important factor to 29 consider. She understand prohibiting E-bikes from hilly areas of open space but asked 30 the Commission to consider the mostly flat Bay Trails open space differently. Because 31 the Bay Trails connect to trails in neighboring communities that allow E-bikes and many 32 of the trails are wide enough to be considered roads, it would be very difficult to enforce 33 a prohibition of E-bikes on the Bay Trails. She encouraged defining and enforcing rules 34 for behavior related to speed and behavior around equestrians, pedestrians, and wildlife. 35 She felt the December City Council action item was premature, with sufficient outreach 36 not having been done. 37 Arthur Liberman, member of PABAC, stated there are 2 key features behind the Staff 38 recommendation. The first is the wish to treat all the open space preserves the same 39 DRAFT DRAFT 15 way. The Baylands is different from the other Palo Alto open space preserves with flat 1 terrain and trails that are wide gravel roadways. The Midpen District treats its open 2 space preserves differently when it comes to allowing dogs off leash and E-bikes, and 3 the half-mile unpaved trail in the Ravenswood Preserve where E-bikes are allowed is 4 essentially identical to the Adobe Creek trail or the unpaved section of the San 5 Francisquito Creek Trail in the Baylands. The second feature of the Staff 6 recommendation is its desire to be consistent with the Midpen Open Space District's 7 policies, but prohibiting access of E-bikes in the Baylands is not consistent with that 8 policy. At the Midpen Directors' Meeting in June, in the discussion of a motion to 9 continue E-bike access in Ravenswood, there was no mention of any environmental or 10 ecological damage caused by E-bike riders. He asked the Commission to reconsider the 11 Draft Open Space E-bike Policy to allow E-bikes on the Baylands unpaved trails or to 12 create a pilot program that would allow E-bikes there for an evaluation period. 13 Eileen McLaughlin, representing the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, 14 supported the recommendation of the ad hoc committee regarding E-bikes. She stated 15 she attended a Palo Alto webinar called Balancing Public Access and Habitat 16 Enhancement at the Baylands in which speakers highlighted local scientific studies of the 17 reaction of wildlife to human activity on trails. There is a direct relationship between 18 human presence and avoidance behavior by wildlife in the vicinity, with a need to take 19 all due precautions for both people and wildlife sharing these spaces, including limiting 20 E-bikes to paved roads and trails. She had accompanied a person in a wheelchair on 21 trails and stated it can be uncomfortable when a rude bicyclist flies by. She stated there 22 needs to be greater emphasis on safe speed requirements rather than a specific speed. 23 She stated keeping bikes on paved trails may not be in the best interest of individuals 24 covered by ADA regulations or others casually enjoying the open space and questioned 25 if the recommendations were adequate for those situations. 26 Mike Ferreira, who is on the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club, stated he was in 27 attendance at the MROSD meeting referenced by an earlier speaker. He felt it was wise 28 that MROSD, with the exception of 1 trail, limited E-bikes to paved trails. He stated it 29 was irritating to deal with speeding bikes or to be shouted at to get out of the way of 30 speeding bikes on the Bay Trail and hated to think of how fast electric bikes would run 31 on that trail. He envisioned different trails for pedestrians and bicycles. MROSD did a 32 lot of environmental studies prior, which prompted them to have caution, and he stated 33 there had not been analysis of that impact for electric bikes on the trails the Commission 34 is thinking about. He suggested proceeding as previously decided and obtaining credible 35 environmental data before going any further. 36 Dashiell Leeds, Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, agreed 37 with the previous comments in support of protecting ecosystems. He stated these 38 policies present a good balance between ecological protection and recreational access 39 DRAFT DRAFT 16 and allow commuters to use the Bay Trail. He supported the recommendation of the 1 PRC Electric Conveyances Policy Ad Hoc Committee and asked the Commission to 2 recommend that Council adopt the ordinance and regulation on electric bicycles and 3 electric coasting devices. He stated habitat monitoring is important and Palo Alto should 4 maintain a science-based approach to trail policy management to ensure ecosystems are 5 protected. 6 Vice Chair LaMere asked if bicycles have always been allowed in Baylands. 7 Mr. Anderson stated regular bicycles have been allowed. 8 Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to comment regarding the urgency and particularly 9 impacts to Staff now that E-bike are permitted at 3 open space areas. 10 Mr. Anderson has discussed with the rangers the concerns they have enforcing this. For 11 example, rangers have increasingly seen one-wheel users migrate off the trail and onto 12 natural areas. The ranger staff fears this is going to grow and become an entrenched 13 habit. A lot of the trails in the Baylands are very road-like but happen to go through 14 habitats filled with endangered species. There are unpaved trails across from the ranger 15 station and the Environmental Volunteer Center that are only 4 feet wide and made of 16 oyster shells. Allowing E-bikes on unpaved trails would include those as well. 17 Commissioner Freeman asked if telling the difference visually between an electric and 18 peddle bikes when regular bikes are allowed on the Baylands Trails would be an extra 19 burden on the rangers. 20 Mr. Anderson stated it would be a challenge. The ad hoc recommended having good 21 signage and education. If this policy moves forward, Staff would concurrently work on 22 the signage plan and website updates for education. The biggest part would be through 23 voluntary compliance. If this policy were to go forward, the rangers would be able to 24 articulate the policy to people who ask. They do not have radar guns, but when they see 25 gross violations of speed, they will stop the rider and speak with them. There would then 26 be a conversation about where electric bikes are allowed. 27 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated science-based decisions are important. In the previously 28 mentioned webinar Palo Alto hosted, one of the first things that came up was that people 29 do not understand their own impacts. There were talks about how difficult it is to keep 30 people from interfering with endangered species, and many impacts are not noticeable to 31 people but very noticeable to the animals. There are a lot of endangered species in the 32 Baylands, and Palo Alto needs to protect that. She felt it was important to study impacts 33 of faster movement with associated sounds before making a decision and wanted to be 34 precautionary rather than do something and find out the impact when it was too late. 35 The ad hoc discussed that if the rules are changing and rangers cannot catch up, there 36 DRAFT DRAFT 17 will be another situation like what happened with Foothills Park, this time involving 1 quite a lot of endangered species, which is of great concern. She supported the ad hoc 2 recommendations. Parks and Rec has responsibilities other groups do not, recreation and 3 also nature. There is no one else watching for those endangered species. She wanted to 4 strike the balance that allows commuters to use the Bay Trail where it is paved and allow 5 non-motorized bicycles to continue to use some of the facilities. 6 Commissioner Freeman stated this was a difficult decision, coming down to people 7 being responsible, which is where safety concerns come into play. One challenge is 8 trying to make it easy on the rangers and Staff, but there is a big growth in electric 9 conveyance vehicles that will get bigger over time. This is a recreational technology that 10 is changing quickly, so having something evolving in place might be the best way to go. 11 The biggest things are the right documentation and signage and protecting the 12 environment. He fully supported the way the policy is laid out but thought it was 13 something that will evolve over time. 14 Chair Greenfield reviewed the policy again. Education and signage is very important, 15 and the need for improved parking for bicycles at the open space areas should be 16 prioritized and specific locations to add parking identified. Bixby Park is part of the 17 Baylands Open Space, so the open space guidelines apply there. As far as the Midpen 18 policy, E-bikes are allowed at Ravenswood and limited portions of Rancho San Antonio, 19 but Ravenswood is essentially an outlier within the Midpen policy. E-bikes are not 20 permitted on paved roads at most Midpen sites, so he believed this policy was consistent 21 with that of Midpen. He believed this policy recommendation struck a good balance 22 between the transportation and recreation needs of the community and preservation. 23 Transportation through the Baylands on the Bay Trail and through parks used as safe 24 routes to school and other destinations has been prioritized. In the open space preserves, 25 the policy recommends prioritizing environmental and ecological protection over the 26 recreational desires of the community. 27 Commissioner Oche asked about the plan in terms of awareness and signage and also 28 speed. As this subject will be evolving, she asked how often it should be reviewed to 29 address balance and respond to community needs. 30 Mr. Anderson stated there is not yet a plan regarding the signage. Most signage is at the 31 trailheads to catch people coming into the preserve or at a trail, so that is where it would 32 be added to reflect any policy, clarifying which bikes are allowed. There are trail 33 etiquette signs in some areas, and more of them are needed to make it clearer. That will 34 help cut down on conflict between equestrians, bicyclists, and hikers. Speed is also a 35 part of that. Staff will work with the ranger staff to come up with layout and messaging. 36 Commissioner Cribbs asked if there is a lot of conflict right now or if the concern is 37 anticipation of conflict. 38 DRAFT DRAFT 18 Mr. Anderson stated there is some conflict right now but not a lot. The rangers have met 1 with the ad hoc, shared their perspectives, and noted where they have seen an increase in 2 things. The rangers at Palo Alto are multifaceted and not spending the majority of their 3 day watching for those things. Rangers get complaints on both sides of the argument, 4 people who want to be able to use their E-bikes and those who do not want E-bikes in 5 open spaces. 6 Commissioner Brown stated this was not unlike the general principal of the sidewalk 7 policy in which there was blanket state legislation to fit into the policy for Palo Alto's 8 specific parks and open space areas. She appreciated the outreach done to PABAC as 9 well as the environmental groups but was disappointed there was not more in terms of 10 connectivity and transportation planning efforts. MTC, the regional planning agency, 11 has a Bay Trail Gap Closure Plan to connect 500 miles of trail in the Bay Area, which 12 this trail is part of, and that was not referenced. Being involved in their public 13 engagement process would be essential, and the Baylands needs to be reevaluated. She 14 was in favor of the recommendation and keeping it more restrictive right now but also 15 being mindful of what other agencies on the trail are doing, not just Midpen or other 16 open space areas, and the transportation aspect. She would like to see more about the 17 equity component moving forward. 18 Vice Chair LaMere also realized a policy was needed with the action being taken at the 19 state level but wanted to revisit the policy in the Baylands at some point. He understood 20 the difficulty in identifying different classes of E-bikes but thought that allowing class 1 21 peddle-assist in the Baylands where regular bicycles are allowed was reasonable. He 22 supported the policy as is. 23 Mr. Anderson stated the Bay Trail aspect was a good note to see what is going on around 24 the Bay. The ad hoc made sure there was connectivity on the part of the Bay Trail most 25 frequently used. He noted that Midpen had commissioned a report entitled E-bikes and 26 Open Space, The Current State of Research and Management Recommendations, 27 prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. In the executive summary, almost all of 28 the takeaways noted the dearth of information and more research needed. That will be 29 coming soon. The impacts to the Baylands should be reevaluated based on the research 30 coming and following the broader Bay Area and leaders like Midpen. He hoped Staff, 31 the ad hoc, and the Commission could track what is happening and make adjustments, 32 having an adaptive management technique. 33 Chair Greenfield stated he would expect to revisit this before the Bicycle and Pedestrian 34 Transportation Plan is completed 18 to 24 months from now. The usage and impacts of 35 E-bikes in the parks, on the paved trails in the Baylands, and on the unpaved trails in the 36 Baylands even if they are prohibited need be evaluated. An E-bike ad hoc needs to be 37 continued in the coming years. 38 DRAFT DRAFT 19 Commissioner Freeman asked if there is a way to monitor traffic over the next several 1 months to see whether there has been an increase in bicycles and whether rangers might 2 be able to tell how many of those were E-bikes or other electric conveyances. 3 Mr. Anderson stated it is challenging. Having 14 entrances to the Baylands makes it 4 difficult to adequately monitor 1 spot without an unfeasible endeavor. Spot checks and 5 trying to extrapolate information from smaller bits of analysis is possible but of uncertain 6 value. The rangers will be directed to make anecdotal observations and notes to the best 7 they can and possibly do an intercept to ask people questions or try to monitor. 8 There was discussion of wording of the motion to be proposed. 9 MOTION 10 Chair Greenfield moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that: 11 1. City Council adopt an update to Ordinance 22.04.220 to include electric bicycles 12 and electric coasting devices; 13 2. City Manager adopt the updated Park and Open Space Regulations R1-18 and R1-14 37 to regulate electric bicycles and electric coasting devices. 15 Seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus, the motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 16 6. CIP Review – Lam Do – Discussion 17 Lam Do, Superintendent with Community Services, presented a preliminary list of 18 Capital Improvement Projects under consideration. Staff sought the Commission's 19 feedback on projects presented, prioritization of these projects, and an assessment for 20 any missing projects not listed that should be considered. He reviewed the CIP criteria 21 and prioritization criteria and presented a list of the CIPs the Department is considering 22 for fiscal year '24, ongoing CIPs proposed annually, and CIPs for years 2 through 5 for 23 planning purposes, primarily projects under Parks and Recreation. He also presented 24 CIP needs identified that are not yet formalized because some need further vetting or 25 more scope and others need more exploration of the cost and/or funding source. He 26 spoke about the CIP process timeline and how projects get from discussion to proposal to 27 adoption. 28 Chair Greenfield stated it would be helpful for Staff to clarify what they need from the 29 Parks Commission. He also thanked Staff for getting this to the Commission early 30 enough to make recommendations and wanted to make sure to get this on the agenda 31 every November. 32 DRAFT DRAFT 20 Mr. Do asked the Commission to consider whether to proceed with the preliminary list 1 presented and what has been prioritized for fiscal year '24 versus the other fiscal years. 2 He also asked if there were any projects the Commission thought the Department should 3 consider that is not on the above lists. It is an open discussion of prioritization, 4 omissions, and whether what the Commission wants the Department to focus on. 5 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated the Parks Master Plan included pollinator corridors and 6 ways to connect parks, either along streets or asking homeowners to plant if they have a 7 creek in the backyard, and there was no follow-up. There was a map of butterfly 8 corridors connecting the parks with a biodiversity overlay, looking at creating ways for 9 birds and butterflies to get through the urban landscape, which are important to prevent 10 the loss of biodiversity. Palo Alto plants native trees but could do more than that. Some 11 of the mitigations that have been discussed and not done may need to come into 12 budgeting. She worried about extra lighting in parks in general. People wanted lights 13 installed at Ramos Park, and it has not increased use but caused a tree to be trimmed 14 severely. She mentioned a webinar discussing the impacts of lighting and did not 15 consider lighting an improvement. 16 Mr. Do stated Staff could talk to the Park Architect in Public Works to implement these 17 aspects and could also address some of them separately, not necessarily through a CIP. 18 The pollinator corridors could be addressed through the operating budget as not 19 necessarily a large project but implemented collectively at different locations. 20 Mr. Anderson stated there has been some headway on that in partnership with Juanita 21 Salisbury, adding 8 pollinator gardens and partnering with churches and other people 22 along the corridor and Embarcadero Road. They are taking passive turf or ineffectual 23 habitat areas, either dirt or nonnative shrubs, and converting them to diverse, well-24 functioning habitat areas that support pollinators. That endeavor was supported through 25 operating funds. He echoed the idea of making sure to have mitigation funding. For 26 plantings in the $50,000 range, it has to be a CIP. He stated he would work with Mr. Do 27 to find a place to put that in. 28 Chair Greenfield stated the Master Plan is an aspirational document that is an unfunded 29 mandate. CIPs are a potential way to get funding, but things have to fit into priority. He 30 stated the process is to suggest ideas to Staff, who can then guide the Commission. 31 Commissioner Brown thought a lot of what has been proposed had come up previously. 32 She was happy to see park restrooms and Magical Bridge. She asked about the cost of 33 the Foothills Park bathroom, which was originally slated earlier. 34 Mr. Anderson stated there are 3 aging restrooms at Foothills where the structure and 35 supporting infrastructure need to be replaced. The water and sewer lines also need work, 36 which is part of why the prices are so high. Staff wants to be empathetic to concerns 37 DRAFT DRAFT 21 about the expense for a restroom project being so high and wants to be judicial with city 1 funds. The large prices were recently vetted by the Facilities Team in Public Works who 2 said they are steep but accurate. Staff is looking into cost savings elements, such as a 3 prefab that would fit with the Foothills aesthetic. Costs are dynamic and frequently 4 change. Staff will keep the feedback in mind when deciding where different projects end 5 up on the final list. 6 Commissioner Brown asked if there is a process to take advantage of a low bidding 7 environment and move things up in the CIP if the price goes down. 8 Mr. Anderson stated things can move up on the list for a number of reasons, such as 9 favorable bidding, grant funding, or a change in the status of the infrastructure itself. 10 Commissioner Oche asked what the ongoing CIPs covers. 11 Mr. Do stated there are 6 ongoing CIPs, and they are not specific to any location. For 12 example, athletic courts resurfacing could be in any park based on the age of the tennis 13 or basketball courts. Of the 6 items, the only one that is location specific is open space 14 lake and pond maintenance, to remove aquatic plant life from Boronda Lake annually. 15 Commissioner Oche asked if this is the final time to give feedback. 16 Mr. Do stated feedback can be given tonight or through the ad hoc within the next month 17 before the proposal is submitted. 18 Chair Greenfield asked that feedback not go through the ad hoc but directly to Staff. 19 Commissioner Cribbs asked if something like an emergency for the soccer fields skews 20 the priorities. 21 Mr. Anderson stated the park emergency CIP was $125,000, which was not enough, and 22 there was not a CIP in place already. In that situation, Staff consults with the Office of 23 Management and Budget for recommendations and looks at other CIPs where savings 24 may be anticipated and the budget may be adjusted. The infill at Mayfield is a prime 25 example of that. 26 Commissioner Cribbs asked if the location of the restroom listed as TBD on the 27 proposed CIPs for 2024 is the Magical Bridge. 28 Mr. Anderson stated it is. He stated the funding is an important element but without the 29 staff to implement it, it is very difficult to make it happen. Staff has met with Public 30 Works Engineering twice, and each time they have asked to push something out. The 31 first reaction to adding another project on top of upcoming ones is to push the Magical 32 Bridge out, but that is critical to the community. One option is to see if another group 33 DRAFT DRAFT 22 within Public Works Engineering can manage it because the typical group is taxed. 1 Hiring a project manager can help, but staff would still need to be involved. That will be 2 something to explore in order to stay on top of everything, assuming the money is 3 available. 4 Commissioner Freeman stated this gives a good picture of the projects. He asked if 5 priority can change over time if something becomes more important. 6 Mr. Anderson stated changes take place as priorities shift. For example, the sailing 7 station at the Baylands is old with not a lot of life left on it. Using $30,000 from the park 8 emergency fund toward that when the 2 docks separated added another decade to the 9 lifespan, rather than replacing it for $1M. Instead of being in the 1- to 3-year time frame, 10 it is not even on the plan right now. 11 Commissioner Freeman stated when Staff put together the budget list for '23, '24, '25, 12 they likely did not anticipate pickleball becoming a big thing. He asked if it would get 13 factored into the budget going forward if there is a decision to build additional pickleball 14 courts and if the price associated with that is under ongoing CIPs or would be a 15 completely new project. 16 Mr. Anderson stated it would likely be a standalone because the ongoing CIPs would not 17 have that amount of money. Rather than earmarking $1M for a pickleball court in '25, it 18 would likely be the other way around, doing some planning and community outreach and 19 then creating a CIP. 20 Chair Greenfield asked if there is an annual increase typically added to the ongoing CIPs 21 and if it is needed this year. 22 Mr. Do stated there have been increases to the ongoing CIPs, but it is not annual. After a 23 number of years without any increases and exhausting of the budget, the Office of 24 Management and Budget gave a one-time bump that is ongoing. At present, there is not 25 another acceleration percentage annually. 26 Chair Greenfield asked if it should be considered differently this year due to 27 unprecedented inflation. 28 Mr. Do stated the Office of Management and Budget is aware of bids for projects 29 coming in much higher than anticipated. Staff has gone back to ask for more funding for 30 both ongoing and existing projects, and that is always on the table as an ask. 31 Commissioner Kleinhaus did not understand why $175,000 was budgeted for improving 32 trails and did not include planting native plants next to them. She stated it was not less 33 important than maintaining or building a trail and wanted to see green infrastructure as 34 DRAFT DRAFT 23 part of the picture. She stated Mountain View has a biodiversity overlay on their 1 programs now with a priority of biodiversity in the city. She wanted to see a wildlife 2 preservation plan with improvements focusing on wildlife rather than things like 3 increasing parking. She suggested looking for a project that actually does something for 4 wildlife and not just removing weeds and fixing trails. 5 Mr. Anderson stated 10,000 native plants are planted every year for almost the last 20 6 years, but there can always be more because these areas are so big. It is also built into 7 CIPs for parks projects and is happening, sometimes via partnerships, operating funds, or 8 capital embedded in ongoing projects. He mentioned a standalone CIP for $100K for 9 habitat improvements to be used wherever it is needed. 10 Chair Greenfield stated once something is on the list, it gains some inertia and gets 11 funded. He stated it was reasonable to ask how to get more established regular funding 12 for some of the natural environment initiatives. 13 Commissioner Kleinhaus stated quite a few projects done in recent years need to be 14 upgraded because of use and asked about the impacts of adding more improvements 15 because they need to be maintained. She questioned why they need to be done so 16 frequently. 17 Mr. Anderson gave the example that the boardwalk is far too new to require a big repair 18 project, but unfortunately due to regulations requiring natural wood to be used, 19 shipworms and wood boring isopods have gotten into some of the pilings. The CIP will 20 probably be to prevent future damage to the natural wood pilings. Some playgrounds 21 have a lifespan of 20 years, but some older ones have wood bases that rot out faster and 22 have a lifespan of 10 years. That changes the typical cycle. The Magical Bridge is 23 interesting because it has 30,000 kids per month rather than the usual 1,000 or 2,000, 24 with more wear. He stated that more assets making it more of a burden can be true. 25 While every playground deserves to be as amazing as the Magical Bridge, bearing the 26 financial burden of replacing it quickly needs to be considered. Staff tries to pool 27 projects together so there would be a bigger time gap before the disruptive project; 28 however, some assets do not age out at the same time. It is multifaceted. 29 Chair Greenfield thanked Staff for the detail on this item. 30 7. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Discussion 31 Chair Greenfield stated next month there is a fairly light agenda and encouraged detailed 32 ad hoc and liaison updates. 33 Commissioner Brown stated she is working with Staff and the dog owners group on 34 exploring a possible location in North Palo Alto area along Palo Alto Avenue for a dog 35 DRAFT DRAFT 24 park. She will also continue discussions with the Barron Park group. She thanked Mr. 1 Ghods for the timely updates to the agenda website. 2 Commissioner Cribbs also thanked Mr. Ghods that the fundraising ad hoc now has a 3 page about how to give money to the Park and Recreation Commission. 4 Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Ghods to send out a link to commission members when 5 adding new pages of interest to the Commission. 6 Commissioner Cribbs mentioned that the golf course tour with Chair Greenfield and 7 Commissioner Kleinhaus to look at trees was incredibly interesting and hoped to 8 continue to look at that. The recreational opportunities ad hoc had a good session with 9 Chase and Adam about middle school athletics and learned about the program, which is 10 serving a lot of middle school kids. There was idea about adding opportunity for 11 fundraising for middle school athletics, and Mr. Anderson has talked with the City 12 Attorney about what can be done. More work will be done on that. Regarding 13 recreational opportunities, a presentation will be brought to the Commission in January 14 to talk about the Recreation/Wellness Center and the status. 15 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR 16 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 17 Chair Greenfield stated all that is on the agenda next month is the urban forestry annual update and the 18 AWPS. In January is the Wellness/Rec Center update, most likely a golf update to include First Tee, 19 an aquatics update, and Cubberley restroom discussion. 20 Commissioner Kleinhaus requested an update on the tree part of the mitigations for the golf course. 21 She stated there is still a lot of work being done on the wetlands but wanted a discussion for the trees. 22 Mr. Anderson stated Staff is behind on that and not prepared to bring a meaningful discussion. 23 Starting with the ad hoc liaison would be helpful. That effort has been prioritized toward the wetland 24 mitigation. Staff was supposed to have been monitoring that for quite some time, and for reasons 25 including COVID and funding, it was not done. The primary push is to get with the Water Board, 26 monitoring and managing those wetlands to reach a certain level of native cover. In addition to having 27 Grassroots Ecology cage many naturally occurring oaks up in Arastradero Preserve as part of the 28 mitigation for the tree loss at the golf course project, there was also other acreage that was supposed to 29 be restored. It is unclear exactly where that is, if it happened, what was promised. 30 ADJOURNMENT 31 Meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m. 32