Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-26 Parks & Recreation Commission Summary MinutesAPPROVED APPROVED 1 1 2 3 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING 6 March 26, 2024 7 In-Person & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Amanda Brown, Vice Chair Nellis Freeman, Commissioners 11 Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Shani Kleinhaus, Joy Oche, Bing Wei 12 Commissioners Absent: 13 Others Present: Council Member Vicki Veenker 14 Staff Present: Kristen O’Kane, Sarah Robustelli, Javod Ghods 15 16 CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17 Chair Brown called the meeting to order. A roll call was taken with eight present. 18 PUBLIC COMMENT 19 None. 20 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 21 None. 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 27, 2024, Parks and Recreation 24 Commission Special Meeting 25 APPROVED APPROVED 2 Commissioner Cribbs requested a change on line 19, page 9 to read “the Bay Area 1 Senior Games swim meet will be held at Rinconada Pool on March 24. It is open to 2 swimmers 50 years old and over”. 3 Commissioner Oche thought line 31 on the first page needed to be reworded. 4 Commissioner Cribbs made a motion to approve the February 27, 2024, minutes with 5 the modifications prescribed by her and Commissioner Oche seconded by Commissioner 6 Oche. The motion passed by a 7-0 roll call vote. 7 8 CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 9 2. Department Report 10 11 Kristen O’Kane, Community Services Director, started a slide presentation discussing 12 recruitments, Friday Nights at the Drop at the Teen Center, and upcoming special events. 13 Sarah Robustelli, Division Manager, resumed the slide presentation outlining project 14 updates and capital improvement projects. 15 Commissioner Oche was curious to know typically how long it takes for a restroom 16 construction project in the park. 17 Ms. Robustelli said the completion date is June 2024. 18 Commissioner Cribbs questioned if there is an idea of how long it will be before there 19 are results back for the Skatepark Traffic Study. She also wanted to know when the 20 stakeholders would be contacted for the skatepark planning. 21 Ms. Robustelli answered the planning department expects to receive comments back 22 from the contractor who did the analysis that week. She stated once the skatepark plans 23 documents were final they would be shared. 24 Vice Chair Freeman wanted to know the timeframe from when the restrooms are 25 delivered to the time they are operational. He asked if the golf netting information was to 26 make a determination as to who would pay for it. 27 Ms. O’Kane answered that it depends on the work required to connect them. She agreed 28 to provide more information on the timeline when they return the following month. She 29 said the golf netting information was regarding which department had the bandwidth to 30 APPROVED APPROVED 3 take on the project, which has been the common practice with Public Works as well as 1 Open Space and Parks. 2 Commissioner Greenfield wanted clarification on why the construction equipment 3 remained at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in the staging area and when it would be gone. 4 He asked to receive an email when that information became available. 5 Ms. O’Kane did not have an update on that. 6 Commissioner Kleinhaus hoped to get an update each time about the mitigation on the 7 golf course as they had discussed before. She recalled a public comment at the last 8 meeting regarding nighttime lighting along Bol Park Creek Path and hoped to get that 9 information. She hoped to have nature highlights return. 10 Commissioner Wei suggested considering using the park if they have too many people to 11 accommodate for the teen events. 12 Chair Brown asked for more detail about the work party. 13 Ms. Robustelli stated the first one would be the following day and they would have 14 photos to share the following month. She was hoping to get some of the City Manager’s 15 communications out to hopefully tie that in to reach the general public. They currently 16 have a contractor who does the maintenance at this time at Mitchell as well as 17 Rinconada. She discussed some improvement plans. 18 Ms. O’Kane added they have done some native plantings in the Baylands in the past as a 19 way to get things done quickly at low cost when they do not have the budget to do it and 20 also to provide team building. 21 Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested inviting the public to participate as volunteers. 22 Commissioner Wei added it would be good to get teens involved, as well. 23 24 BUSINESS 25 3. Quarry Road Transit Center Project – Philip Kamhi – Discussion – (45 min) 26 Lesley Lowe, Director of Transportation Planning at Stanford University, provided a 27 slide presentation about the Quarry Road Connection Project detailing partner agencies, 28 the Palo Alto Transit Center, the project need, project proposals, parkland use, 29 preliminary concept design, land needed for the design, site design constraints, 30 APPROVED APPROVED 4 pedestrian and bike improvements, transit improvements, trees and landscaping, CEQA 1 exemption and a timeline. 2 Commissioner Oche asked if they would be planting the balance of the 12 trees 3 somewhere else. 4 Ms. Lowe said there were no plans at this point but it could be put on the roster of things 5 to consider. 6 Commissioner Greenfield queried if there is a specific map that shows the current 7 dedicated park area proposed to be undedicated and it would be helpful if there is not. 8 Ms. Lowe answered a civil engineer is working on the language and the exact map that is 9 expected to be presented to the City Staff the following week that will include that 10 buffered area. 11 Vice Chair Freeman wanted explanation the number of bus runs and the times discussed 12 in the presentation. He wanted to know if they already knew what the impact would be 13 on the site design constraints. 14 Ms. Lowe stated some bus operators told her they would probably end up getting to take 15 a bus out of service that could do the routes quicker and not have to run as many buses. 16 She explained the concept design includes the landscape median so they do not have to 17 move the utilities. 18 Commissioner Cribbs needed clarification on where the Quarry Road extension was. She 19 discussed a grove of six redwood trees that were planted close to the outfield of the 20 hardball ballpark in 1984 and wanted to know if these would be preserved. 21 Ms. Lowe used a map to point that area out. She did not believe the redwood trees were 22 in this location. They will have an arborist report before the final design. 23 Commissioner Wei questioned where the buses would be consolidated. She asked if the 24 parkland proposed to be used is grasslands and wanted to be sure the loss of vegetation 25 would be replaced. 26 Ms. Lowe explained all the public buses currently use the Transit Center and she 27 described the routes the private buses would utilize. They estimated around 500 buses 28 would be removed from the circle. She stated the proposed parkland was mostly 29 grasslands. She stated that when they start working with Caltrans they would discuss 30 how vegetation could be replaced. 31 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know if potential future projects would be included 32 in the exemption from CEQA. 33 APPROVED APPROVED 5 Ms. Lowe thought the Everett Tunnel Project is being considered by the City and it is not 1 a part of this project. She wanted a CEQA attorney to advise if this would be considered 2 piecemealing. 3 Vice Chair Freeman asked if the total acreage includes where the existing utilities are. 4 Ms. Lowe answered the 0.33 includes the buffer area. They believe they will be able to 5 rededicate some of this land after the project is designed. 6 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought the loss of usable parkland was potentially an acre as 7 opposed to one-third of an acre. She thought Stanford should compensate the City for the 8 loss of land. 9 Commissioner Greenfield wanted to know what precedent there was for undedicating 10 parkland in Palo Alto. He thought if there were opportunities to do a swap to barter new 11 parkland would help get this passed. He felt it would be helpful to incorporate ballot 12 initiative costs into the cost estimate. He thought it would be worth considering sliding 13 further toward University Avenue to reduce the amount of parkland impacted if possible. 14 He saw this as an opportunity to enhance the landscaping appropriate for a median. He 15 wondered about the current number of bikes using the area. He asked if there would be 16 any adverse impacts to the baseball/softball field with the new proximity of the buses. 17 Ms. O’Kane discussed her findings in the process for undedicating parkland in Palo Alto. 18 She stated there were 800 people saying they use their bikes to make their last mile 19 connection from the Transit Center to the hospital and university. She assumes even 20 people in Palo Alto do that so it is even upwards of 800. She pointed out most of the 21 baseball/softball play happens on the weekends in the evening when there is less bus 22 traffic. The buses already circulate through the Transit Center so it would not be much 23 different for the users of the field. 24 Vice Chair Freeman queried if the existing utilities on that parcel would be relocated and 25 if so, where. 26 Ms. Lowe explained the plans are designed to keep the utilities where they are. If they 27 had to be moved, it would be within the park. 28 Commissioner Kleinhaus opined that lighting should be compatible with the Dark Sky 29 Ordinance and she felt the trees should be native trees. She wanted to know if the City or 30 Stanford would provide analysis of how potential air pollution would affect young 31 people in the park. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 6 Ms. Lowe commented that the project should reduce the number of buses and they 1 would be moving to electric buses which should decrease the air pollutants. She agreed 2 to look into and discuss this with City Staff. 3 Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official, shared the 2018 Fleet Rule for Transit 4 Agencies requires that all public transit agencies gradually transition to 100 percent zero 5 emission bus fleet by 2040 and most transit operators are already taking steps toward 6 that. He noted with buses traveling in the area less, the air quality improves even with 7 existing fleets. He also noted that this is a partnership project between the City, Stanford 8 and potentially all the transit agencies. In relation to the comment about the exchange of 9 parkland, the City believes there is an environmental benefit, public transit benefit and a 10 local traffic congestion benefit for this project. 11 Chair Brown questioned if there are any baked in extensions to the lease agreement on 12 the land. She found the presentation of information difficult to understand what is being 13 proposed versus what is existing versus what is a potential future project but does not 14 have a set date. She felt clarification on that for the general public would be helpful. 15 Ms. Lowe stated it seemed to her it had been extended multiple times. 16 Commissioner Cribbs expressed interest in the how the plans for communication would 17 work with a partnership between the City and Stanford in terms of communicating with 18 the residents. 19 Mr. Kamhi said that was still in development. 20 21 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) Update – Ozzy Arce – 22 Discussion – (45 min) 23 Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner, explained they would be providing a detailed 24 update on the BPTP to include an existing conditions analysis, a draft vision 25 presentation, performance measures and goals. He announced that the existing conditions 26 phase is a phase that many long-range planning efforts go through setting the foundation 27 as baseline information to develop the priorities that make it into the plan. He asked the 28 Commission to focus efforts on providing feedback on the vision, goals, performance 29 measures and establishing a deadline. 30 Amanda Leahy, Associate Planner with Kittelson Associates, gave a slide presentation 31 updating the BPTP including meeting purpose and agenda, meeting #1 recap, meeting #2 32 feedback requests, a technical analysis summary, baseline conditions – analysis topics, 33 bicycle level of traffic stress, major barriers – analysis locations, major barriers – 34 APPROVED APPROVED 7 analysis example, ten-year (2012-2022) collision history data, five-year (2018-2022) 1 collision history data, pedestrian collision data, 2018-2022, bicycle collision data, 2018-2 2022, community engagement, phase 1 engagement summary, phase 2 engagement 3 overview, draft vision statement, draft objectives, draft performance measures, feedback 4 requests. 5 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted detail on what data is modeled by Replica. 6 Ms. Leahy explained Replica data does not consider recreational trips. 7 Commissioner Wei questioned if there is any data for how many facilities are unsuitable 8 or suitable in Palo Alto. She asked if there is a plan of action item to make Palo Alto a 9 more bikeable city in terms of installing the suitable facility. She asked what the 10 challenge would be in making all the low stress facilities available. She made 11 suggestions of partnerships that could contribute to the capital. 12 Ms. Leahy answered there are maps of the types of facilities in the existing facilities 13 inventory. They have not been classified as suitable or unsuitable so they do not have the 14 mileage numbers yet. They are hoping to get feedback related to the performance 15 measures if there are specific targets. One of the performance measures they have 16 preliminarily identified is the facility lane miles for low stress facilities, for example. She 17 said capital need and a question of how to implement would both be challenges. 18 Mr. Arce thought it could be viewed in terms of a level of traffic stress perspective rather 19 than suitable and unsuitable. 20 Commissioner Wei asked how that could be improved. 21 Mr. Arce answered through planning efforts such as these and provided explanation. 22 Commissioner Greenfield asked how seasonal adjustments would be made to the trip 23 data and level of traffic stress data points and how it applies to how they are inclined to 24 use the information. 25 Ms. Leahy explained the Replica data set summarized in the staff report is modeled data 26 from one month that would be a higher ridership or walking month based on the weather 27 they would expect but there is no seasonable adjustment to that. There are studies for 28 pedestrian and bicycle data specifically that do present methods for seasonal adjustments 29 based on count data that might be available. They are looking to expand on information 30 when it comes to on the ground counts. She provided details about data collection and 31 how it would be utilized. 32 Mark S. discussed biking accidents he and others have experienced in Palo Alto. He 33 brought up AB 1909 and the need for safe bike routes in the City. He asked Parks and 34 APPROVED APPROVED 8 Recreation to reconsider its interpretations of AB 1909 only on specific services roads or 1 consider discussing the matter further. 2 Scott M. wanted to know if there would be any education element for adults in the new 3 bike plan given the number of streets in Palo Alto that will continue to have essentially 4 no bicycling infrastructure. 5 Vice Chair Freeman asked if there was a breakdown of the different levels as to the 6 different types of accidents on the 10-year collision history. 7 Ms. Leahy stated there was a breakdown of different primary collision factors and they 8 could overlay the collision locations on the level of traffic stress map. They also have a 9 breakdown of the officer’s report of if it was a bicyclist right-of-way violation or some 10 other type of preceding event. 11 Commissioner Kleinhaus commented about creeks being barriers and thought that could 12 be impactful. She wanted to know if there is a conflict analysis. She suggested taking 13 “road users” out of the first draft objective and some possible revisions to make the 14 vision statement clearer. 15 Chair Brown asked if they were able to further segment the natural landscape around the 16 road when looking for solutions in the next phase. She was also in favor of streamlining 17 the vision statement. She opined the performance measures were heavy in workload 18 indicators and wanted to see more specifics on the efficiency of the programs as well as 19 the effectiveness. 20 Ms. Leahy explained how they look at the different roadway characteristics. 21 Commissioner Greenfield thought the vision statement was long and was missing 22 reference to education. He asked if there are time of day considerations built into the 23 LTS ratings. He thought there should be more focus on peak data. He asked how they 24 were prioritizing multimodal transportation. He wanted information on determining 25 criteria and metrics for prioritization and routes. He advised it would be helpful to have 26 follow-up communication emailed to the Commission. He discussed needing more 27 emphasis on creating more class 4 separated bike paths to increase safety. He wanted to 28 see an official bike lane on the area closed off to traffic on Cal Avenue. He highlighted 29 that turning right on the bike path from Paloma Drive onto Arastradero was an awkward 30 angle. He recalled a comment on the interactive map about the Ramona Street Entrance 31 to the access path leading to Alma Plaza requesting a no parking sign. 32 Ms. Leahy answered the LTS looks at average daily traffic volumes. She discussed how 33 the conditions can vary. She thought they would have to fill in the gaps of the analysis 34 with input from the community. She discussed the limitations they have in the data 35 APPROVED APPROVED 9 collection. They discussed how they were prioritizing multimodal transportation. She 1 stated determining criteria and metrics for prioritization and routes would be the very 2 next phase. 3 Mr. Arce highlighted that the Office of Transportation is working with Silicon Bicycle 4 Coalition to bring adult bicycle riding classes to Palo Alto. It was hoped they would be 5 paid for by Measure B money. He would bring more information on that when it was a 6 bit more established. Regarding landscaping, he thought they were fortunate in terms of 7 sequencing and timing following the City’s effort on the housing element to overlay the 8 proposed future sites for development. 9 Commissioner Oche wanted more information on the Community Walking Tour. She 10 was curious how success would be measured on the draft objectives. She asked how 11 residents access all the details that had been shared. She did not see the role of 12 stakeholders included in the information. She wanted to hear more about the STAR 13 Analysis. She asked if the plan has any positive impact on the bike or walk score as a 14 City. She was curious to know what could have prompted the decrease in collisions and 15 how do they continue that. 16 Ms. Leahy explained the objectives and performance measures are the initial attempt at 17 measuring success. She stated Attachment Q contained quantitative measures to help 18 evaluate how well this plan and implementation of the projects in the plan achieves the 19 objectives. She provided information on the Community Walking Tour. She stated the 20 website and the staff report would be ways for residents to access the information that 21 had been shared. She said they reached out to a number of community businesses and 22 hope to involve them in promoting and participating in the events. She gave a detailed 23 explanation of the STAR Analysis. She did not believe the plan would impact the bike or 24 walk score calculation. The walk score is based on a concentration of shops and services 25 in an area and does not reflect the connection or safety of the network. She described a 26 number of factors that could have resulted in the decrease in collisions but stated it 27 would be hard to understand which one contributed more. 28 Mr. Arce offered to follow up with more information on the Community Walking Tour. 29 He shared that the STAR Analysis might be referred to as the Bicycle Network 30 Development Workship moving forward for more directness. He would be sending that 31 information on that. 32 Commissioner Cribbs queried what the process would be to report hazards or unsafe 33 conditions on the roads. 34 Mr. Arce stated the City’s 311 was for any repairs or issues seen on the road and for 35 emergencies dial 911. 36 APPROVED APPROVED 10 Commissioner Wei suggested looking into all the companies in the City to bring them 1 into the capital campaign, possibly through the Chamber of Commerce. She wondered if 2 the multilingual education for bike safety was in progress. She felt the draft statement 3 could be shortened and offered suggestions to make the message clearer. 4 Commissioner Greenfield asked how ADA considerations were being considered. He 5 wondered upcoming Walking Tour would be an opportunity for some wheelchair 6 experience. 7 8 5. Field Use Policy Review – Adam Howard – Discussion – (60 min) 9 Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, gave a presentation discussing the 10 Fields and Racquet Court Policy Review that was done at a Staff level with the Playing 11 Fields Policy and Projects Ad-Hoc. He provided a background, strengths of the policy, 12 some areas that may need additional review, recommended updates and recommended 13 next steps. 14 Commissioner Wei questioned how to incorporate seniors using the tennis courts to 15 practice for pickleball during the day in Mitchell Park. 16 Mr. Howard answered this policy focused in on the fields portion but the courts policy 17 would be coming in the future. 18 Commissioner Kleinhaus asked what other cities do about residency requirement for 19 sports fields. 20 Mr. Howard discussed Mountain View’s policy. 21 Commissioner Greenfield had received a comment from a field stakeholder 22 recommending an annual meeting of stakeholders that focused only on general status 23 updates. He discussed some of the ideas that have been raised for potential additional 24 review. 25 Mr. Howard commented a general status meeting for stakeholders was on their radar. 26 Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to know if they were looking at the Park’s master plan 27 to see if there are any directions related to this that could be helpful. She advised 28 considering how to go about determining residency requirements. She asked if this 29 applies to school playing fields. 30 Mr. Howard had not looked at that in terms of the way the policy is shaped. He 31 explained it does apply for the playing spaces the City has access to. 32 APPROVED APPROVED 11 Commissioner Oche wanted to know how conflict between field users was managed in 1 the past. 2 Mr. Howard described the policy in managing conflict between field users. 3 4 6. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min) 5 Commissioner Cribbs read an email about the City and school district reaching an 6 agreement to mediate about space at Cubberley. She provided picture slides from the 7 partnership between the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks describing work being done along 8 Embarcadero Road. 9 Chair Brown gave an update on the Tower Well Park Dedication that was approved. 10 More research is being done with the Historical Association on names and with HRB 11 related to the site. 12 Commissioner Greenfield provided updates about the Baylands Tide Gate Project and 13 announced a meeting involving the stakeholders. He described a recent meeting of The 14 Hawthorns Public Access Working Group. The field liaisons had been in communication 15 with stakeholders and Staff learning more about plans for a Hoover School 16 Redevelopment Project that would impact the playing fields at JLS. 17 Chair Brown questioned if a second action was needed to appoint a liaison for the Tide 18 Gates. 19 Commissioner Greenfield’s understanding was that if an ad-hoc was going to be created 20 would require an action but it was at the discretion of the Chair to appoint a liaison. 21 Ms. O’Kane suggested the upcoming retreat might be the opportunity for that. 22 Commissioner Freeman stated the City brought in a new consultant to work on what the 23 City is permitted for in the Wetlands, communications with the Water Board and 24 described the research being done by them. He talked about an interim agreement First 25 Tee received from the City the day before and it is in the process of reviewing and 26 providing additional content with the plan to send the draft back to the City before the 27 end of the week. He added rain has recently caused a dip in revenue for the golf course. 28 Commissioner Cribbs spoke about the success of the Senior Games Week. 29 30 31 APPROVED APPROVED 12 COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 1 ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 2 3 Chair Brown announced a retreat on April 19. For the April meeting, e-bikes shifted to 4 April. Park Dedication may have an item. She stated the May meeting would largely be 5 dedicated to the workplan and finalizing what was decided at the retreat. She discussed a 6 request about information on the Creek Ordinance Update coming to the Commission 7 and wondered if that would be possible for the April meeting. She provided some detail 8 about that. 9 10 Ms. O’Kane stated they would try to get a meeting scheduled with the ad-hoc for some 11 additional work that needs to happen. She agreed to speak to her colleagues in Planning 12 and their consultant about a good time for bringing information on the Creek Ordinance 13 Update. 14 15 Commissioner Cribbs described a short presentation the Palo Alto Pickleball Club put 16 together that might be a good example to fill in for the agenda. 17 18 Chair Brown agreed to keep that in mind for potentially the April meeting. 19 20 Commissioner Cribbs queried how letters and emails from residents get answered and by 21 whom. 22 23 Chair Brown believed a lot of them were fielded by Staff. 24 25 Ms. O’Kane added a lot of times when the Parks and Rec Commission gets an email the 26 City Council also gets it so they respond to the resident, send that in to the City Manager 27 and they batch them together and send to City Council. She offered to talk to Sarah 28 Robustelli and Staff about doing something similar for the Commission. 29 30 31 ADJOURNMENT 32 33 Meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. 34