HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-28 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING April 28, 2015 AGENDA Downtown Library 5:30 dinner
6:00pm meeting 270 Forest Avenue
*In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission
reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV. BUSINESS
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Special Retreat March 20, 2015 meeting – Chair
Reckdahl – Action – (5min) ATTACHMENT
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting March 24, 2015 meeting –– Chair
Reckdahl - Action – (5min) ATTACHMENT 3. Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan to include: Recreation Program Data Analysis Report, Survey Summary Report and Matrix of
Public Outreach and Data Collected with Draft Findings – Peter Jensen – Discussion –
(3hrs) ATTACHMENT
4. Recommendation for a Park Improvement Ordinance for Pilot Batting Cages within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center – Daren Anderson – Action (15 min)
ATTACHMENT
5. Staff update on drought response for Parks, Open Space and Golf - Daren Anderson – Discussion (15 min)
6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Discussion - Chair (15min)
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MAY 26, 2015 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7 ANNUAL RETREAT 8 March 20, 2015 9 Mitchell Park Community Center 10 3700 Middlefield Road 11 Palo Alto, California 12 13
Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 14
Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 15
Commissioners Absent: 16
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 17
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
None. 23
24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26
None. 27
28
IV. BUSINESS: 29 30
1. Review 2014 Parks and Recreation Commission Accomplishments. 31 32
Chair Reckdahl: Our agenda today is work. We're going to start with the handout that 33
everyone should have, the PARC Priorities 2014. This is what we did last year at the 34
retreat. We're going to walk through these and then say, "Are they still relevant?" and 35
what the priority is. Prioritization is just so nebulous that I don't want to go into a lot of 36
detail of highest priority, lowest priority. Of course a priority would be good. At the 37
end, on the very last sheet, I guess it'd be page 4. We have additional ones that staff has 38
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
put in through ones that we've identified. If there are any other ones that we've identified, 39
we can insert those. 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: You don't want updates on last year's . You just want status, do 42
we want to continue it? 43
44 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 45
46
Rob de Geus: I just want to say a couple of words to get it started as well. First I wanted 47
to say that I can't be here for the whole retreat unfortunately. There's another event at 48
Stanford University today. 49
50
Commissioner Lauing: What about? 51
52
Mr. de Geus: Project Safety Net. Dr. Shashank Joshi has gathered some of the leading 53
thinkers around suicide prevention and youth wellbeing from around the country. There's 54
eight of them, really fascinating individuals. We had about 40 people in this meeting 55
including some of the key leaders. I had to present there this morning early, but it's a 56
unique opportunity. It only got put together in the last couple of weeks and that's why it 57
was a conflict. So I will be getting back there. That's one thing I wanted to mention. 58
Two, we have some binders for you that you can take home. This is obviously online and 59
you can access it there too. It relates to the Parks Master Plan. This relates to the data 60
about the Parks Master Plan and trying to put it in a way that we can access it a little 61
more easily. Particularly important when we get to prioritization and defining 62
conclusions and findings, that we can refer back to the data. It's not complete, but there's 63 a lot that we're gathering. The survey data's in here as well, which we'll be talking about 64 on Tuesday. You'll have a chance to look at that with the demographic data which is in 65 your binder. We'll keep adding to that. I wanted to mention that. Also, Keith and I did 66
work on this as well. He was just talking about it. What I had about the first three pages 67
of the 2014 Priorities was to think about them, if they are still relevant for this year and at 68
least actionable for this year in terms of a policy issue. 69
70
Chair Reckdahl: A good example of what Rob is talking about is the 7.7 acres. It's still 71
relevant going forward, but we probably won't have any action until the hydrology study 72
comes back. We're on hold until that comes back. We're going to talk about it as 73
pending as opposed to completed or ongoing. 74
75
Mr. de Geus: Review these and have a discussion about what the Commission's thinking 76
is. There may be differences of opinion about this too. Is it pending? Is it really 77
relevant? Opinions may vary about that. Talking through those things and if there's 78
agreement that, yes, still highly relevant, we can still do some work around it this year, 79
then we move it over to 2015. In thinking about this coming year, you would have 80
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
additional interests that you want to bring up and that can be added as well. We do have 81
lunch here. You didn't see this in advance. One approach might be to get some lunch, a 82
little bit of a working lunch while everybody reviews this and reads through it before you 83
really get into it. That could be healthy/helpful. 84
85
Commissioner Crommie: (crosstalk) hot item. 86 87
Chair Reckdahl: I think that's a good example. I do want to go through some priority. 88
The easiest way to prioritize is not by importance, because that's nebulous, but by action, 89
timeline. The highest actions would be the ones that'll be next for meetings. Ones that'll 90
be three or four months from now will be low priority. Otherwise we'll be debating 91
what's more important. Timeline is crisper. We'll think about these in terms of timeline. 92
Let's take a break, have lunch and be back. Start locking down the topics and then 93
discuss relevancy on each one. Dog parks, that's highly relevant. 94
95
Commissioner Hetterly: That's ongoing. Hopefully, we'll wrap up this year. 96
97
Chair Reckdahl: Do we have an estimate of the next time it goes to the Commission? 98
99
Commissioner Hetterly: We'll have an update this month. What are we? We're March? 100
May or June. After the public outreach or did we want to talk to (inaudible). Maybe we 101
should talk about it before we go to the big public meeting. Maybe April. 102
103
Chair Reckdahl: When is the meeting? 104
105 Commissioner Knopper: Next month. 106 107 Chair Reckdahl: The meeting is ... 108
109
Commissioner Hetterly: April or May. 110
111
Commissioner Crommie: Your outreach meeting? 112
113
Commissioner Hetterly: No, we haven't set an outreach meeting. The question is should 114
we meet as a Commission before we do that or should we meet as a Commission after we 115
do that. 116
117
Commissioner Knopper: My vote is after because we've already talked about it. We can 118
bring the results and we will have spoken to all the stakeholders. 119
120
Commissioner Hetterly: Okay, so May, June. 121
122
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Has anything changed since the last time we talked about it? 123
124
Commissioner Hetterly: We've had a couple of meetings. 125
126
Chair Reckdahl: Our outlook hasn't changed at all? The things we're considering are still 127
the same? 128 129
Commissioner Hetterly: There have been some additional options. 130
131
Commissioner Knopper: We had a stakeholders meeting. 132
133
Commissioner Crommie: You should report back to us. 134
135
Commissioner Hetterly: We are going to, but we won't have a full discussion on it. 136
137
Chair Reckdahl: It'll just be at the end, an ad hoc update? 138
139
Commissioner Knopper: Yes. 140
141
Chair Reckdahl: Let's put down June as the next time we expect to see an agenda item. 142
143
Commissioner Crommie: What is the meeting called? Is it for stakeholders? 144
145
Commissioner Hetterly: No, it's for everybody. 146
147 Commissioner Crommie: Public outreach. You'll notify the whole Commission and we 148 can go if we want? 149 150
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 151
152
Chair Reckdahl: The next one is the website. Are we happy with the website or is there 153
still work to do? 154
155
Commissioner Hetterly: There's still work to do. It's moving very slowly. I don't think 156
there's a lot of work to do. 157
158
Vice Chair Markevitch: I don't think it needs to go to the Commission at all. If you're 159
just looking (crosstalk). 160
161
Commissioner Hetterly: We don't need to discuss it. Once we have it in a form that we 162
think is final (crosstalk). 163
164
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
Vice Chair Markevitch: (crosstalk) complete (crosstalk). 165
166
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) anything changes. Does that make sense? 167
168
Commissioner Ashlund: Can we declare the revision complete and the maintenance 169
mode is no longer actively being redesigned? 170 171
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 172
173
Commissioner Ashlund: You should report on that when we get to that point. The 174
question is do you want a stake in the ground so we get to that point. 175
176
Commissioner Crommie: You guys don't feel like you need any more input from us, is 177
that correct? You pretty much know what you're doing? 178
179
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. The last couple of times we haven't gotten a lot of input, 180
and I think we integrated it. Maybe we don't have to come back at all. 181
182
Commissioner Crommie: I emailed you guys separately saying some of those links 183
weren't working (crosstalk) got those fixed. It's always informative ... 184
185
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) we aren't coming back. I'm sorry. 186
187
Commissioner Crommie: It's always informative to go to the website and try to click 188
around. Occasionally people say, "How do I get in touch with Parks and Rec?" I always 189 say, "Go to our website." 190 191 Chair Reckdahl: What's strange right now is when you go into the website, you have to 192
click agenda. From the home site it's not obvious how to get to the agenda and items. 193
194
Mr. de Geus: You have to scroll to get to the current agenda which isn't ideal. The most 195
current thing should probably be high on the ... 196
197
Commissioner Crommie: Above the pictures. That's the thing (crosstalk). 198
199
Chair Reckdahl: If you go to the City website and go Parks and Rec, you don't end up at 200
the Parks and Rec page with the pictures. 201
202
Commissioner Hetterly: You can say May for the website. 203
204
Commissioner Ashlund: I can agree with that. 205
206
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: In May we'll have some type of an agenda item. CIPs. Rob, you were 207
saying that the CIPs are going to Council. 208
209
Mr. de Geus: Right now we're in the process of trying to get the CIPs that we submitted 210
and worked with the Commission on, a sense of priorities and Staff priorities, through the 211
budget process which will go to the Finance Committee in May and then the City Council 212 in June. Then we start over and start working on the next five-year plan. It's likely it will 213
come up again. 214
215
Chair Reckdahl: That will be the 2017. 216
217
Mr. de Geus: Right. We start thinking about that in the fall. Last year it was good 218
actually. After summer, we immediately started engaging in a conversation about the 219
CIP plan. That's one thing that can happen. Then report back of how the approval 220
process is going. You can also attend those Council meetings and participate, speak. 221
222
Chair Reckdahl: The next item will be fall 2015. 223
224
Commissioner Hetterly: We call this one complete, but then we roll it over to have a new 225
entry for 2015. 226
227
Mr. de Geus: It probably should say CIP 2016-2020, then 2017-2021. 228
229
Chair Reckdahl: Next is community gardens. 230
231 Commissioner Crommie: Stacey and I did a lot of research on community gardens. We 232 should probably write that up. 233 234
Commissioner Ashlund: Come back with recommendations. 235
236
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. I had written a letter to send to PAN, Palo Alto 237
Neighborhoods, leaders to get some feedback, to see who the leaders are in the different 238
neighborhoods who are interested in community gardens. I think I got my email to go to 239
the right place. I was a little bit confused on who to send it to. I tried to send it to the 240
head of the Midtown Neighborhood Association, and it didn't make it to her for some 241
reason. I might have the wrong email address. Sheri? 242
243
Vice Chair Markevitch: Sheri Furman. 244
245
Commissioner Crommie: It didn't get to her. I would like to do that again. That was just 246
an outreach to try to figure out who the key players are. 247
248
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
Vice Chair Markevitch: I'll send (inaudible). 249
250
Commissioner Crommie: Is she the direct head or is she in a partnership? 251
252
Commissioner Markevitch: I think it's (inaudible). 253
254 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, if you could send it to both of them. I'll get that sent 255
out. It's important for me to follow up because there is interest emerging from the Master 256
Plan. I don't have my finger on the pulse as far as level of interest outside of our survey. 257
258
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you have a timeline to move forward on that? 259
260
Commissioner Crommie: If I get that from Pat. We already have it written up what we 261
wanted to send out. 262
263
Commissioner Ashlund: That's not recommendations. That's an outreach base. 264
265
Commissioner Crommie: It's an outreach. Depending on how it goes, we could aim for 266
the April meeting. 267
268
Chair Reckdahl: Are we looking at upgrading the current facilities, adding new facilities, 269
or getting generic input from the users? 270
271
Commissioner Ashlund: We were still at the input phase. 272
273 Commissioner Crommie: Input phase. To do our research we at least had cataloged what 274 we have. We needed to write up a recommendation based on that. It's two arms. 275 276
Commissioner Ashlund: It's two pieces. 277
278
Commissioner Crommie: Two pieces. 279
280
Commissioner Ashlund: Research so far and then community outreach. 281
282
Commissioner Crommie: And then the community outreach. 283
284
Vice Chair Markevitch: The outreach might take longer than writing. 285
286
Commissioner Crommie: Let's say May. If we get it done earlier, that's fine. 287
288
Mr. de Geus: Deirdre, we had just provided (inaudible). The MIG consultants are 289
coming back. They'll be here for a few days early next week and obviously for our 290
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
meeting. We've set up a number of meetings for them to meet with different 291
stakeholders, and community gardeners is one of them. How many gardeners do we have 292
at the meeting next week? 293
294
Catherine Bourquin: He only wanted the gardeners (inaudible). 295
296 Mr. de Geus: (inaudible) 297
298
Commissioner Crommie: You contacted people from your known list of gardeners? 299
300
Mr. de Geus: They're the leagues or the community volunteers that are the liaisons for 301
each garden. 302
303
Commissioner Crommie: The problem is we were trying to figure out in the south Palo 304
Alto where there are no gardens. 305
306
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, yeah. This may not get at that. I mention it because if we let you 307
know when that meeting is, would you be available? 308
309
Commissioner Crommie: I would love to go, yeah. 310
311
Mr. de Geus: (crosstalk) 312
313
Commissioner Crommie: Stacy and I could go. 314
315 Peter Jensen: It's on Tuesday. 316 317 Commissioner Ashlund: Tuesday, yeah. 318
319
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you for letting us know. That would be good 320
(crosstalk). 321
322
Mr. Jensen: 2:00 to 3:00 at Lucie Stern on Tuesday. 323
324
Commissioner Crommie: Tuesday, 2:00 to 3:00. (inaudible) at Lucie Stern. 325
326
Mr. Jensen: In the Fireside Room. 327
328
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm sorry. What room? 329
330
Mr. Jensen: Fireside. 331
332
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: It would be nice if you could just forward us the outreach letter 333
so we know what you said to them. 334
335
Mr. de Geus: Okay. 336
337
Commissioner Crommie: Just before we arrive. How you framed it. 338 339
Chair Reckdahl: Rob, what is the status? We had a CIP in 2015 for community gardens, 340
the irrigation replacement. 341
342
Mr. de Geus: That got approved. 343
344
Chair Reckdahl: That got approved and the work's underway? 345
346
Mr. de Geus: The replacement irrigation system. 347
348
Mr. Jensen: Had a community meeting, I don't know now, three or four months ago. 349
That includes Rinconada, Pardee, and Johnson Park. Going to replace the hose bins. It's 350
not irrigation. It's just the main water pipe that goes out there. We decided based on 351
feedback from the meeting to hold off on the work until fall, early fall because that's 352
when their downtime is for their garden. (inaudible) of the garden to be growing plants. 353
It's still on and it'll happen sometime in October, when I'm imagining the date will be. 354
It'll take a little work. Those gardens at Rinconada and Pardee Park are very large and 355
the amount of piping that has to go into those things is fairly extensive to get back the 356
network of hose bins that are out there. 357 358 Chair Reckdahl: Is this something that could take a week to do or a month to do? Any 359 guess? 360
361
Mr. Jensen: For the bigger garden, it's going to probably take about three to four weeks 362
to do for each one. For Johnson Park, it'll probably take a week, week and a half to do. 363
Most of it is trenching. 364
365
Chair Reckdahl: In May 2015 we will talk about what we've got on the outreach and then 366
(inaudible) that. Sterling Canal. 367
368
Commissioner Crommie: Daren made one point of contact. It was before our joint 369
meeting with City Council. I forgot if I got back to you in follow up or not. I meant to. 370
371
Daren Anderson: I don't think you ever did. 372
373
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: You were so busy on Byxbee Park (inaudible). I'm very 374
anxious to settle this. Where do we stand on this? A lot of people have had their eye on 375
that land for both a dog park and community garden for years now. We've never fully 376
resolved it. It's ongoing. 377
378
Commissioner Ashlund: We should look back in a couple of months. If everything is on 379 the table, maybe put it shortly after that. We didn't have much to say. The findings were 380
pretty limited as far as what to do with the land. 381
382
Commissioner Crommie: What was decided at the joint City Council meeting was to 383
bring it up to another level from where we had it. There's really not a lot for 384
Commissioner Ashlund and I to do on that. Daren, if you wouldn't mind doing that when 385
you get a chance and getting back to us. Maybe once you pursue that, we can have a 386
meeting, just the three of us. You could decide to present to the Commission and skip the 387
ad hoc. Do you want to have it involving that? Daren. 388
389
Chair Reckdahl: What we have to get is what we're allowed to do. 390
391
Commissioner Crommie: The tone that I got from the joint meeting was pushing back a 392
little bit. Not just having Public Works say, "Oh, that's just for us." 393
394
Mr. Anderson: Utilities is giving a knee jerk reaction to say, "We're not allowing 395
anything there. We have easements. We have use for the land. That's it. End of story." 396
That's what the Council's message was, take that (inaudible) and keep working. I'll work 397
with Rob and see if we can't make a little headway with Utilities and see where we can 398 go. Under the same kind of rubric of a piece of property we're not quite sure what we're 399 dealing with, very nearby is a little strip of land that we had once talked about for a dog 400 park. Same kind of analogy. Utilities say, "No, you can't use that. It's part of our lease. 401
If you want to take it over, it's $250,000 a year. You guys can use it for whatever you 402
want." It's just an aesthetic piece of turf right next to the skate bowl end of Greer Park. 403
404
Commissioner Crommie: Across the street. 405
406
Mr. Anderson: Across the street. We said that would be perfect for a permanent dog 407
park. That would be a great one to bring together. Probably a sit down meeting with 408
Utilities and we can hash this out. 409
410
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes, please. 411
412
Commissioner Crommie: What kind of timeline for that? 413
414
Mr. Anderson: A timeline, can we check in ... 415
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
416
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk about that later. Sterling Canal, let's talk about a timeline. 417
418
Commissioner Crommie: That's what I mean. 419
420
Mr. Anderson: I was going to lump them in (crosstalk). 421 422
Chair Reckdahl: At the same meeting, yeah. 423
424
Mr. Anderson: Same meeting. How about in two months I return to the ad hoc? Is that 425
reasonable? 426
427
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. You can tell us if you feel like you want to return to us 428
... 429
430
Mr. Anderson: If it's necessary? 431
432
Commissioner Crommie: ... or bring it to the whole Commission. 433
434
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 435
436
Commissioner Crommie: Two months from now, so we've got it on ... 437
438
Vice Chair Markevitch: June. 439
440 Chair Reckdahl: June 2015, we will get the information and relay that to the ad hoc. 441 Lucy Evans. 442 443
Commissioner Crommie: Stacey, do you want to talk about that one? 444
445
Commissioner Ashlund: Same status. We need to write up what we have so far and 446
report back to the Commission. I don't think there's a lot. 447
448
Chair Reckdahl: Do you have to gather more information or is it just a matter of 449
assembling what you already have? 450
451
Commissioner Ashlund: We haven't done any community. We just did our meeting with 452
John Akin. 453
454
Commissioner Crommie: We learned a lot of the CIP status. We already reported those 455
through CIPs. 456
457
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm wondering if there are any next steps on that. 458
459
Commissioner Crommie: The next step was on the third CIP that has to do with exhibits. 460
There's only been $56,000 or something allocated to it, and that's not enough money. 461
That is something that John Akin very much wants to work on, to figure out how to do it 462
properly, how to get more money. He wanted to take a better look at the park system up 463 there. He wanted to look at the exhibits not just for Lucy Evans in terms of (inaudible) 464
but to think about exhibits in Byxbee. He wanted to think about the whole area. That's 465
what he told us. 466
467
Mr. de Geus: That makes a lot of sense too. In fact, to do it in sequence and the right 468
way, we would line up the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which is now in 469
the CIP plan to be funded. We're advocates for that. It's in there, so hopefully it will 470
happen. That would inform exhibits and signage and all sorts of things. 471
472
Commissioner Crommie: Does it inform that when you're talking about a conservation 473
plan? 474
475
Mr. de Geus: I would think, yeah. 476
477
Chair Reckdahl: That's getting to 2018. 478
479
Mr. de Geus: It's out of sequence. We'd have to do some exhibit work, because at this 480
point they're pretty old and out of date. 481
482 Commissioner Crommie: They're almost unreadable. That's the problem. Maybe just 483 remove them and leave no exhibits while we're waiting. 484 485
Chair Reckdahl: It'd be good to have someone that looks at Foothills ... 486
487
Mr. de Geus: We talked about (crosstalk). 488
489
Chair Reckdahl: ... Arastradero, and Baylands all at once. If you just look at one, a lot of 490
the big picture stuff and organization would be repeated by other people. 491
492
Commissioner Crommie: I don't agree with that. Once you lob them all together, it 493
won't happen. It's too big. They're totally different. Why do we need them all lumped 494
together? 495
496
Chair Reckdahl: Who's going to make the exhibits? Who's going to maintain the 497
exhibits? All that process is similar. Finding volunteers and finding stakeholders that 498
want to help us. 499
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
500
Commissioner Ashlund: It could be separated. 501
502
Commissioner Crommie: Do you mean signage? When we talk about exhibits, we mean 503
educational materials that are posted. 504
505 Chair Reckdahl: Yes. I'm thinking in those three cases the inside of the three interpretive 506
centers. 507
508
Commissioner Crommie: Let's take a step back. You can look at exhibits as just 509
associated physically with interpretive centers. We have those at each of those 510
interpretive centers. What John Akin was saying for the Baylands, because we're 511
developing the park trail system at Byxbee Park and it's a big, sprawled out area, he 512
wanted to look at that whole system beyond the interpretive center at Byxbee Park. I 513
think it's a separate entity to look at that. That's unrelated to Foothills and Arastradero. 514
My sense is that it would fall under its own CIP. 515
516
Commissioner Ashlund: I'd like to keep it separate for now. It might end up in two 517
places. As Chair Reckdahl is recommending, it is part of the larger picture. The CIPs 518
that are in progress there right now including the boardwalk, there is ... 519
520
Chair Reckdahl: I haven't been able to pull up the CIP. The CIP title says Baylands 521
Nature Interpretive Center Exhibits Improvement. 522
523
Commissioner Crommie: We're considering a change on that so it would be broader. 524 That in and of itself might not be enough money, sitting there right now in that CIP, for 525 the stated action. 526 527
Commissioner Hetterly: What is the role you envision for this Commission related to 528
that? 529
530
Commissioner Crommie: If we're going to take the broad look, the people who are on the 531
Byxbee ad hoc would have feedback to give on where we think it would be useful to have 532
signage. 533
534
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you think we need an ad hoc for that or is that something 535
that whatever John Akin comes up with would be presented to the full Commission and 536
we just review (crosstalk). 537
538
Commissioner Crommie: That's possible. I'm open minded if that's the direction we 539
want to go. Either the whole Commission or an ad hoc. We shouldn't drop the ball on it, 540
because the momentum is there right now. (inaudible) Byxbee. 541
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
542
Mr. de Geus: There's also a lot of momentum for the interpretive Center. We've gotten 543
pretty clear direction from Council to do some work out there. Get the boardwalk figured 544
out, whether we can repair it or not, and clean it up and get some of those exhibits 545
improved. We do want to take action there. If we add additional scope, the concern is 546
that it starts to take longer. I get why we would do that, because there is connectivity. 547 548
Commissioner Crommie: Where do we stand on exhibits right now for Byxbee Park? Is 549
there a separate CIP? 550
551
Mr. Anderson: No, there is not. 552
553
Commissioner Crommie: John Akin was saying, "I have to go back and work on the 554
CIP. $56,000 is not going to be enough." Is that already approved? Is the money 555
already allocated to him? 556
557
Mr. de Geus: $56,000 is. 558
559
Commissioner Crommie: Maybe what he was saying is "I'm going to need to do more 560
than what this money is going to buy." He wants another CIP that he's going to work on, 561
that's going to address the areas that are not covered by the $56,000. 562
563
Council Member Filseth: Can I chime in with a question? 564
565
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. 566 567 Council Member Filseth: Probably Rob ... 568 569
Commissioner Ashlund: Real quick before you do. When we met with John Akin, his 570
focus was clearly Junior Museum and Zoo. Is there anybody else on staff that could be 571
our designated person that would have time and energy to focus on the interpretive 572
Center? 573
574
Mr. de Geus: Not really, unfortunately. We used to have staff that that would be their 575
home, the interpretive center. 576
577
Commissioner Ashlund: Our hands are going to be tied as an ad hoc if we don't have 578
somebody on staff who's able to work on it. It seems like a very small percentage of his 579
time is available. 580
581
Commissioner Crommie: Yet you have a strong interest in this. 582
583
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Let's go back to Eric. 584
585
Commissioner Ashlund: Sorry. 586
587
Council Member Filseth: It's sort of another (inaudible) to the same thing. Read the 588
question (inaudible). When does the Parks and Recreation Commission anticipate or 589 target the interpretive center and the boardwalk might be open again? 590
591
Commissioner Crommie: That should be our first priority. I agree with that. It's tied to 592
these CIPs. I found it pretty complicated how they were all staged over these multi-593
years. 594
595
Mr. de Geus: It's not really a Parks and Rec Commission question as much as it is a staff 596
question. There is a policy issue. The policy has been get it done and do it as quickly as 597
you can. You're going to have to help me, Daren. 598
599
Mr. Anderson: Sure. 600
601
Mr. de Geus: The study is the first thing for the boardwalk, because it's in such disrepair 602
that we need to know what's possible and the environmental piece. 603
604
Mr. Anderson: For the timing for that, we're interviewing the consultants right now. 605
That's going to start very, very soon, I'm anticipating. The turnaround time, I would hope 606
in six months we'd have the recommendation completed and have all the information we 607
need to know. That would inform the next step for the boardwalk. Do we go for short-608 term fixes? I did recommend some medium-term or long-term, full replacement and 609 (crosstalk). 610 611
Chair Reckdahl: What was the date on that? 612
613
Mr. Anderson: These are rough guesses. We're starting soon. I would anticipate in three 614
weeks we'd have a consultant selected, put him under contract and get going. I would 615
imagine within six months we'd have something back, completed and ready to go. 616
617
Commissioner Crommie: We need to say that is for a feasibility study. 618
619
Mr. Anderson: That is for the feasibility study. 620
621
Commissioner Crommie: That CIP is a feasibility study on the boardwalk. Once they 622
complete the feasibility study, you think it might be completed in six months? 623
624
Mr. Anderson: That's my guess. 625
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
626
Commissioner Crommie: Then we have to go and (crosstalk). 627
628
Mr. Anderson: We would request a new CIP based on whatever that was. I would say 629
put it in as soon as possible. It would go into the very next CIP budget. Unless it was a 630
short-term fix and we had existing CIP funds in park emergency. Let's say it was under 631 $50,000, I doubt it will but if it were, we could get that going with some existing funds. 632
633
Commissioner Crommie: It's September before we know what is going to be needed. 634
You put out the work order, then it's probably not going to be completed until the 635
beginning of 2016. 636
637
Mr. Anderson: It depends on what they come back with, but yes. 638
639
Mr. de Geus: There's only certain periods of time you can work in the marshland, so 640
you're very restricted. 641
642
Mr. Anderson: Plus the permitting process. 643
644
Chair Reckdahl: That could be (inaudible) problems. 645
646
Commissioner Crommie: (crosstalk) fast track. That one seems to be on the fastest 647
track; although, doing the feasibility slows it all down, of course, because you have to do 648
it in two steps. The second CIP is doing some remodeling of the interior space. It was 649
written somewhat restrictively. Commissioner Ashlund and I asked, "Can you fold in 650 programming in that building and get a design eye?" John Akin thought he could do all 651 that under that CIP. Does that one start next year? 652 653
Mr. Anderson: No, it'll be starting soon. 654
655
Mr. de Geus: It starts (crosstalk) as well. 656
657
Commissioner Crommie: The public is really interested in that boardwalk. This other 658
one's going to flow in there. Because it doesn't require a feasibility study, that might be 659
completed first. 660
661
Mr. Anderson: That's right. 662
663
Commissioner Crommie: That's why it gets ahead; it doesn't require a feasibility. Then 664
there's this third one on the exhibits. The exhibits out there are in horrible shape. You 665
cannot read them. They're all worn away. 666
667
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: The outside, the exterior ones, right? 668
669
Commissioner Crommie: Exterior exhibits are in really poor shape. They're a bit of an 670
embarrassment, the way they look quite frankly. 671
672
Chair Reckdahl: You're talking at the center or all of Baylands? 673 674
Commissioner Ashlund: The center. 675
676
Mr. de Geus: There's four of them. 677
678
Commissioner Crommie: Just the center. 679
680
Mr. de Geus: They're on the right lane. 681
682
Commissioner Crommie: We were discussing this, and we didn't get a good answer on 683
that. Do you agree, Stacey? 684
685
Commissioner Ashlund: Right. The question was do we have any authority to say we 686
need more funding for that third portion of the CIP to do what John Akin recommended 687
and what we agree with. The funding wasn't allocated, so how do we get in that next 688
cycle to request the funding to do that? 689
690
Mr. de Geus: I've talked to John a little bit about this. We have $56,000. That's good. 691
We ought to get a designer on board and actually get them on board at the same time 692 we're thinking about some of this interior work, so they can talk to one another. Maybe 693 we ask the designer to think in terms of a few different concepts. A concept of what can 694 be done with $56,000. What can be done if we do a little more beyond the interpretive 695
center? Let's start sharing some of those (inaudible) and that could then lead to adding 696
another CIP or adding to that CIP the next chance we get. It also allows us to do some 697
things right there in the interpretive center right away. 698
699
Chair Reckdahl: Do you think it would be useful to have John come in and talk to the 700
Commission or maybe some other staff to come talk to the Commission in the next 701
couple of months? 702
703
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, when we get a little further along. 704
705
Chair Reckdahl: Do you think an ad hoc would be better, more productive? 706
707
Commissioner Crommie: We did ask him. 708
709
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: He agreed to do that, and it would be useful. Somewhere in the 710
next six months timeframe, he'll know more. We don't have to ... 711
712
Chair Reckdahl: What is he waiting for? 713
714
Commissioner Ashlund: For some of the progress to be made on hiring these consultants 715 to start the feasibility study, to hire the designer. If we were to put him on our agenda to 716
come back and talk to us in about six months time, it sounds like he would have 717
something tangible to say and show us and tell us about at that time. If we put him on 718
sooner, I don't think he'll have anything else to say. 719
720
Chair Reckdahl: My concern is that CIP for 2017 starts September. If he comes in 721
September, we may ... 722
723
Commissioner Ashlund: Miss the cycle. 724
725
Commissioner Reckdahl: ... miss the train. 726
727
Mr. de Geus: That would be good timing, September. That would be the first time we're 728
thinking about what we would want to add to the new five-year plan. This could be part 729
of that conversation. 730
731
Chair Reckdahl: When was our first meeting this year, Ed, do you remember? 732
733
Mr. de Geus: It was in the summer. 734 735 Commissioner Lauing: July, I want to say. 736 737
Chair Reckdahl: Do we want it to come back in August so we're ready for the CIP 738
meetings? 739
740
Mr. de Geus: We meet in August. (crosstalk) July, August. Whenever we have good 741
information for a substantive discussion, we ought to ... 742
743
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know if our Commission wants to weigh in on design 744
out in the Baylands Open Space Preserve. Are people interested in this? 745
746
Commissioner Knopper: Can I ask you a quick question? With regard to the feasibility 747
study, any work or financial investment the City's going to be doing out there, are we 748
taking into consideration the sea level rise? 749
750
Mr. Anderson: Mm-hmm. 751
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
752
Commissioner Knopper: It seems foolish to put money against something that's going to 753
be underwater eight years from now. 754
755
Commissioner Crommie: That's being considered. The way it typically works is we 756
have someone look at some design and they bring us ideas and then we respond. We 757 should keep in with that ... 758
759
Commissioner Ashlund: Cycle. Yeah. 760
761
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know. 762
763
Mr. de Geus: We could do that. If you still have the ad hoc committee and they're still 764
meeting, then there could be additional meetings with the ad hoc committee in advance of 765
coming to the Commission. I think we'd rather do that. 766
767
Commissioner Crommie: We'll keep that alive. 768
769
Commissioner Ashlund: We're putting here coming back to the Commission somewhere 770
between July and September? 771
772
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, and the ad hoc will work with the staff to get something ready for 773
that. The next three are Master Plan. Let's skip over those, because those are obviously 774
ongoing. If we have time and there's anything we want to talk about, we talk about it at 775
the end. 776 777 Mr. de Geus: I have to get going now. I was just looking through the list. Is there any 778 here that ... 779
780
Chair Reckdahl: There's one I really want to talk about. That is the rental spaces. The 781
one time we're talking about would be to hire someone that would be doing that. Lucie 782
Stern was going to have some sort of manager perhaps hired that would be looking at this 783
as part of their job as opposed to just a separate project. 784
785
Mr. de Geus: We have three managers, one at each community center. Cubberley, 786
Mitchell and Lucie Stern. There's a cohort of three managers within the Recreation 787
Division. We look to them to do some analysis here. Related to that is the cost of 788
services study. I wanted to let you know that there is a plan for that to go to Council in a 789
study session on April 6. That's a couple of weeks away now. It's not coming from out-790
of-pocket. It's coming from Office of Management and Budget. They talk a little about 791
rental spaces in that report. It came up at a Policy and Services or Finance meeting; I 792
can't remember which. It's very much related to this cost of services study. There's 793
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
discussion about rentals and utilization of space and what we should be doing to 794
maximize revenue versus maximize access. It's revenue based (inaudible). In that staff 795
report it does briefly talk about this issue. The cost of services study is the important next 796
thing that will happen that the Commission might be interested in. One is reading the 797
report and maybe even attending the study session or assigning it to a Commissioner or 798
two to attend. Depending on the Council discussion and their direction, we could 799 agendize it thereafter if the Commission thinks we ought to do that. 800
801
Chair Reckdahl: When you start the CIP process, one thing that's unique about this is if 802
we spend money, we make it back. We have this five-year plan; you have to have a good 803
reason to cut in line and this might be a good reason. If we spend X thousand dollars, we 804
get more of that back when we either increase rents or decrease vacancies. 805
806
Mr. de Geus: Case in point is Cubberley Community Center Auditorium which used to 807
be a library. We're very eager to get that renovated so that it can generate income again. 808
It generated $80,000 or so a year before. If it was a little nicer with a little more 809
technology and other things, it could generate over $100,000 a year, just that one room. 810
That's high on the list. 811
812
Chair Reckdahl: When is that supposed to be renovated? What's the schedule on that? 813
814
Mr. de Geus: It's a Public Works project. I asked the same question. I don't have an 815
answer. 816
817
Commissioner Crommie: My daughter's youth symphony rented that arena for the ice 818 cream social. I really miss that. We'd probably go back to that. 819 820 Mr. de Geus: It's a really large space. 821
822
Commissioner Crommie: It had the kitchen as part of it. 823
824
Mr. de Geus: There's an old kitchen for a high school, so we want to renovate the kitchen 825
again. Not as big as it was, because we never really use that huge space, a proper 826
catering kitchen, something more similar to what we have here at Mitchell. 827
828
Commissioner Crommie: What's unique about that space that we haven't found since is 829
you can eat in it when you're doing a performance. The City allowed people to eat in 830
there at least. Where we are now at the JCC auditorium, we can't do the performance and 831
eat. It was a nice space. 832
833
Mr. de Geus: With the libraries here, you can take food and drink of any type upstairs, 834
downstairs just so you know. I didn't know that. When I heard that, it was "wow." 835
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
836
Vice Chair Markevitch: Did you know you can't keep that in the teen room if you don't 837
have a teen with you? 838
839
Mr. de Geus: As you should. 840
841 Commissioner Hetterly: Before you move off the cost of services study, I just have a 842
quick question on that. That went to Council and we looked at it also over a year ago. 843
Council gave direction that kicked off a values discussion to reframe the issues in how 844
the cost of services was presented. Is that what this study session is about, coming back 845
with the new version or a new approach? 846
847
Mr. de Geus: It's pretty much the same approach that we talked about as a Commission 848
when Lam Do came from our department. They're recommending three tiers of cost 849
recovery. It's a study session, so there's no action. It's essentially the same thing. I don't 850
recall seeing anything in there that was specific to an outreach plan in the staff report 851
from OMB interestingly. As soon as it's public, I'll send the link. These reports are 852
going out almost two weeks, ten days in advance (inaudible). 853
854
Commissioner Hetterly: Thanks. That'll be very informative to the Master Plan process 855
as Rob said. We should try to tie them together in the way we think about what we want 856
to do in the future. 857
858
Mr. de Geus: As I recall, the staff report does talk about the cost recovery policy for fee-859
based classes within Community Services. There's a policy that already exists that the 860 recommendation is to review that with the public and probably the Commission. 861 862 Commissioner Crommie: Is there anyone who can volunteer to go to that? I'm out of 863
town that particular week. 864
865
Mr. de Geus: 6:00, I think, is when that's scheduled. 866
867
Vice Chair Markevitch: I can try. 868
869
Commissioner Crommie: It does sound really important (inaudible). Is that videotaped, 870
those study sessions? 871
872
Mr. de Geus: Yes. Is there any other questions that anyone has for me before I leave 873
about any of these topics or anything else? 874
875
Vice Chair Markevitch: It was one I was going to add, and I didn't know. We had a 876
meeting with the high school regarding the most recent suicides. One of the things that 877
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
came up was the need for high school students to have a physical outlet. Currently, when 878
you're in high school, the only thing you have after your two years of PE is to join a 879
sports team. You can go to practice five days a week and if you're not a good player, you 880
don't get play time. It's pretty demoralizing. I asked for a show of hands, and over 70 881
percent of the parents in that room raised their hands and said they would love to have 882
some sort of pick-up, "play for fun" field space anywhere. It would take a little bit of 883 negotiation with the high school coaches, but I think we can make it happen. I would like 884
to (inaudible) if you think it's worthwhile. We would go through the School/City Liaison 885
Group. 886
887
Mr. de Geus: I would be very supportive of it. I would love to see the school district 888
weigh in on that too, though, and provide some more recreational-type offerings on 889
campus. (crosstalk) the competitive. 890
891
Commissioner Ashlund: For both high schools (inaudible). Yeah. 892
893
Mr. de Geus: They have the facilities. We don't have any gyms. 894
895
Vice Chair Markevitch: I know. They do. 896
897
Mr. de Geus: We're finding a way to meet the majority of needs. Of course, the needs 898
are insatiable in some ways. 899
900
Commissioner Lauing: (inaudible) some people want to practice eight days a week. 901
(crosstalk). 902 903 Mr. de Geus: We've defined it, whatever it is, two, three times, whatever it is in the 904 policy. That policy is meeting the need. 905
906
Commissioner Lauing: Even without El Camino which is not being (inaudible) finally. 907
908
Commissioner Crommie: Along those lines, when we did the Field Use Policy, we said 909
we'd review it in couple of years. I've lost track of time. Is it time to reconstitute the ad 910
hoc for review or do you think we can let that go for another year? 911
912
Mr. de Geus: As part of the Parks Master Plan where field use is going to be one of the 913
topics that we'll look at, that's a good time, which will be this year. (inaudible) how does 914
it shake out next to the policy that we have. 915
916
Commissioner Crommie: We can dissolve that ad hoc. It shouldn't even be on there. 917
We didn't even do it last year. 918
919
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: It's easy enough to set back up. 920
921
Chair Reckdahl: Byxbee Hills design is the next one. 922
923
Commissioner Hetterly: That's actually you on that one, not me. 924
925 Chair Reckdahl: That actually is coming back next month, Daren? 926
927
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 928
929
Commissioner Hetterly: Next week or April? 930
931
Mr. Anderson: April. If the agenda is not packed with Master Plan (inaudible) so people 932
on the Commission can see it. 933
934
Chair Reckdahl: 7.7 acres. 935
936
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's just on hold for now. 937
938
Commissioner Knopper: I'm not backup, FYI. I'm backup actually on the Master Plan 939
(inaudible). 940
941
Commissioner Crommie: That's on hold until the hydrology is complete? 942
943
Commissioner Knopper: Uh-huh. 944 945 Mr. Anderson: The next steps is staff will bring it to Council. 946 947
Chair Reckdahl: The Park Communications Plan. What does that mean? 948
949
Mr. Anderson: I'm not sure what that one is. 950
951
Commissioner Hetterly: That was the email list. 952
953
Mr. Anderson: I think we got that one. 954
955
Commissioner Hetterly: We had a couple of meetings about it and you worked on it and 956
Daren worked on it. 957
958
Mr. Anderson: We brought that in. We've got one that's working. (inaudible) 959
distribution list. 960
961
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
Commissioner Lauing: It's a clear victory. 962
963
Chair Reckdahl: Scott Park. That's complete. There's no outstanding issue on that, 964
right? 965
966
Mr. Anderson: The only update is that I'm meeting with the contractor to get that going 967 on Monday. Good news. 968
969
Chair Reckdahl: That's going to be completed roughly when? 970
971
Mr. Anderson: I bet we would start ten days after I meet him on Monday. I'm 972
anticipating somewhere around 2 1/2 months to get that wrapped up, maybe three. 973
974
Vice Chair Markevitch: July. Does that include the redo of the asphalt walkway between 975
the rehabilitation center and the park? It's so torn up with roots right now, they can't get 976
their wheelchairs and walkers over to the park where they like to sit. They have to go 977
back out to the sidewalk and in. 978
979
Mr. Anderson: I'm not sure it does include that. It's one of those things (crosstalk). 980
981
Mr. Jensen: The cut-through? 982
983
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's a cut through and it's asphalt. 984
985
Mr. Jensen: Past that pine tree area? 986 987 Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah. 988 989
Mr. Anderson: (crosstalk) 990
991
Mr. Jensen: I'll add that to the list of work they do out there. 992
993
Mr. Anderson: I don't know about that, but I'm going to try. My contract's already 994
burdened. I've got another CIP with fresh money coming in July 1 where I can do 995
asphalt. We could knock it out almost concurrently. 996
997
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's a fairly small area. I just didn't want it to get (crosstalk). 998
999
Mr. Anderson: You're talking about the one that runs the length of the park, right? 1000
Between the cul-de-sac and the ... 1001
1002
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's not the whole length of the park. It's actually (crosstalk) 6-1003
feet wide. 1004
1005
Mr. Jensen: It cuts through the pine tree area. (crosstalk) 1006
1007
Mr. Anderson: I'm sorry. I thought (crosstalk) the big one. Oh, I'm sorry. That is easy 1008 then. 1009
1010
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's tough for the rehab people to get over there. 1011
1012
Mr. Anderson: Although it might be outside park property. I'll have to double check 1013
that. 1014
1015
Mr. Jensen: I'm sure that is. 1016
1017
Mr. Anderson: I don't think that's ours, but I'll double check. 1018
1019
Commissioner Hetterly: The bocce ball folks were talking to the department about 1020
crosswalk upgrades for that connection. Is that included in the project? 1021
1022
Mr. Jensen: It is. 1023
1024
Chair Reckdahl: That's very good. I thought that would never get done. 1025
1026
Commissioner Knopper: That includes the purchase of the bocce ball, right? 1027 1028 Mr. Anderson: Yeah (inaudible) bocce. 1029 1030
Commissioner Knopper: I don't want to hear about the bocce ever again. 1031
1032
Chair Reckdahl: While we're on parks here, Monroe Park, we've passed the PIO, right? 1033
1034
Vice Chair Markevitch: Where is that? 1035
1036
Commissioner Hetterly: That's not on there. 1037
1038
Commissioner Crommie: I'm wondering what's not on the list. 1039
1040
Mr. Anderson: Peter and I (crosstalk). We're going to get that one started soon. 1041
1042
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: That's my neighborhood, and people ask me all the time. It's 1043
turned into a dog park. It's bizarre. It's full of dogs now every evening. I'm hearing all 1044
kinds of comments about that. 1045
1046
Mr. Anderson: We ran into some struggles with finalizing the play surfacing. It was a 1047
requirement of accessibility and ran into conflict with some of the desires of the 1048 residents. We're very ... 1049
1050
Commissioner Lauing: Our work is done. 1051
1052
Mr. Anderson: I think so. We can double check (crosstalk). 1053
1054
Mr. Jensen: (crosstalk) 1055
1056
Vice Chair Markevitch: (inaudible) signage in that so that it says you're not allowed to 1057
run your dog off leash in the park? 1058
1059
Commissioner Crommie: Every evening it is a dog haven now. I've lived across the 1060
street from that park for 13 years, and it's never been like that. I'm hearing that the smell 1061
is horrible. I haven't gone over there. 1062
1063
Mr. Anderson: Dogs are off leash, right? 1064
1065
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, it's full of off-leash dogs. There's a big group of kids ... 1066
1067 Commissioner Lauing: Send an officer. 1068 1069 Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, send an officer at 7:00 at night. 1070
1071
Commissioner Crommie: What do you guys think? I missed out. 1072
1073
Mr. Anderson: I'll get back to you guys. We need to a little reconnoitering. The 1074
challenge when we get to the management and efficiency of managing projects through 1075
the Park and Rec Commission, this is one area where we exceed staff's capability to 1076
manage all projects at once. Scott, Hopkins, Monroe, El Camino Park are all up in the 1077
air. Something ends up giving, and this one gave. We need to get it back on the plate 1078
ASAP. I'm going to do so. 1079
1080
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 1081
1082
Chair Reckdahl: Once the Master Plan is done, we need to have a discussion about the 1083
need to hire another planner, at least a consultant for a couple of years. We have the Blue 1084
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
Ribbon Commission catch-up and we're not catching up anywhere. Once the Master Plan 1085
is done, we'll have nothing to hold us back and we can address that. Bowden Park. 1086
1087
Vice Chair Markevitch: You've gone off topic here. Can you (crosstalk). 1088
1089
Commissioner Hetterly: Who made this list anyway, Chair? 1090 1091
Commissioner Crommie: He's just doing all the parks, it looks like. 1092
1093
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, but they're not on our sheet. 1094
1095
Vice Chair Markevitch: They're not on our list, so it's confusing to us. Can we do the list 1096
and then he can (crosstalk). 1097
1098
Mr. Jensen: Bowden Park has the 90 percent package. It came back from the consultant 1099
to us to review. It should go out to bid probably next month and start sometime in the 1100
next few months doing the renovation. I would say by the end of the summer that project 1101
will be complete. 1102
1103
Commissioner Hetterly: That's not coming back to us. We're done with that one. 1104
1105
Chair Reckdahl: Back to the list. Magical Bridge, that is complete. Is there any ... 1106
1107
Mr. Jensen: Magical Bridge is opening April 18. The ceremony starts at 10:00 a.m. The 1108
actual ceremony itself is from 10:00 to 11:00, then it goes to 5:00 so there will be things 1109 within the playground all day long. They're going to have entertainment on the stage. 1110 They have some children's choirs and a puppeteer and a musician. Every half hour 1111 someone performs for 15 minutes. That's basically what's happening. I expect the park 1112
to be completed by the end of next week. That's the schedule. 1113
1114
Commissioner Ashlund: It shouldn't be open to anybody who's not construction right 1115
now, right? 1116
1117
Mr. Jensen: Right. 1118
1119
Commissioner Ashlund: There definitely are people in there playing with (inaudible) or 1120
something yesterday when I walked by. 1121
1122
Mr. Jensen: During the day? 1123
1124
Commissioner Ashlund: Oh, yeah. Afternoon, between 3:00 and 4:00 1125
1126
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
Mr. Jensen: It could be the (inaudible). 1127
1128
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. I just happened to be there. A large, cool, remote-1129
controlled thingy. It didn't look like she was working, but she was definitely (crosstalk). 1130
1131
Mr. Jensen: That might be the Friends aerial photographer. 1132 1133
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay. 1134
1135
Mr. Jensen: She brings a drone out every once in a while and shoots the progress. They 1136
keep updating on their Facebook page, so you can see time lapse. 1137
1138
Commissioner Ashlund: (crosstalk) pretty substantial. Cool. Thank you. 1139
1140
Chair Reckdahl: Hopkins Park. 1141
1142
Mr. Anderson: Hopkins Park is complete. The project's done. 1143
1144
Chair Reckdahl: Done. 1145
1146
Mr. Anderson: There's still a little fencing protecting the seed. We seeded the turf rather 1147
than re-sod. It's growing in and the fence is only to allow the seed to fully establish and 1148
then it comes down. The rest of the park is open. 1149
1150
Chair Reckdahl: The next one, ad hocs to develop work plans and timelines. 1151 1152 Commissioner Lauing: That was an appeal for efficiency from the ad hocs last year. 1153 1154
Chair Reckdahl: We were worried that ad hocs were just sitting and not doing anything? 1155
1156
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 1157
1158
Commissioner Lauing: That's a pretty good way of saying it, yes. There should be not 1159
only some specifics that are developed, very specific, but that it should come back to the 1160
Commission regularly as opposed to just hanging out there. In that case, I would agree 1161
with the word ongoing that we have on here. We still need to do that. 1162
1163
Chair Reckdahl: CIPs we already talked about. Field use. 1164
1165
Commissioner Hetterly: It's going to come back. We're going to talk about it again as 1166
part of the Master Plan. We don't have an ad hoc on it. These aren't ad hocs. 1167
1168
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: Right. These are just items. 1169
1170
Mr. Jensen: (inaudible) will be meeting with field users next Tuesday morning to have a 1171
conversation with them as well. 1172
1173
Commissioner Crommie: Is that ahead of a particular brokering period coming up? 1174 1175
Mr. Jensen: No. It's just to get feedback from them about the status of the fields and 1176
their input into if we need more and things of that nature. 1177
1178
Commissioner Crommie: That's good to know. Occasionally I do get people from the 1179
community saying, "I'm unhappy with the fields." I never know who to send them to. I 1180
got to (inaudible) touch with you, Daren, as if you're not busy enough. 1181
1182
Mr. Anderson: Send them my way. 1183
1184
Commissioner Crommie: They have to go your way? 1185
1186
Mr. Anderson: They can go to Adam and then we confer. He's doing the brokering, and 1187
the brokering goes hand-in-hand with maintenance. Too much brokering leads to poor 1188
maintenance. 1189
1190
Commissioner Crommie: You're the contact person? 1191
1192
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. Either way is great. Be glad to address any issues. 1193 1194 Chair Reckdahl: Feeding wildlife, is that totally done? 1195 1196
Mr. Anderson: It's totally done, in place and working well improving the situation. 1197
Several other agencies have contacted me recently to say, "Hey, I really liked what you 1198
guys did. How's it going? What do you recommend in our situation?" Not that we're a 1199
leader; we aren't. This has been in place for a very long time for lots of agencies. For 1200
those that have been in the same situation as us, they're excited that we've taken this step. 1201
1202
Commissioner Lauing: I was just going to make a comment on this. It's complete, but 1203
when we do something like this and create an ordinance, that's a new law. It seems like 1204
at some point in time out there, we should check in and see what's happening. Get 1205
feedback and see if there's compliance. That doesn't have to be something for us, but it 1206
would be great if you could collect some points 18 months out and say this is what's 1207
happening. The underlying issue here, using this as a global example for Eric, is just 1208
generally there's no enforcement on this almost by intent, because there are not enough of 1209
these people to go and check if people are feeding ducks. That news gets around. I'm not 1210
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
sure why we're making ordinances that we're not going to enforce and what's going to 1211
happen. Just as a general question to be thinking about for ordinances that go before 1212
Council. 1213
1214
Mr. Anderson: This is one that we are enforcing. We talk to people everyday about it. 1215
This is the tool that helps get those noncompliant folks that say, "I don't care. Make it a 1216 law." It is a law now. We'll see the next time you get a ticket. It's been effective. 1217
1218
Commissioner Knopper: Have you ticketed anyone? 1219
1220
Mr. Anderson: No one's been ticketed. 1221
1222
Commissioner Knopper: There's no more bacon and doughnuts? 1223
1224
Mr. Anderson: Only when the rangers aren't there. It does still happen. I'm not saying 1225
that it's cured the problem, but it's much better than it was. 1226
1227
Chair Reckdahl: The 7.7 acres we talked about already. Arastradero Preserve. 1228
1229
Commissioner Lauing: That's something that I brought up last year that there just doesn't 1230
seem to be enough parking ever there. What there is, it's jammed and they're parking 1231
down the road. An issue there was it is designated a low-impact preserve, so we'd have 1232
to get almost a legal evaluation first as to what's available. In the short term, you were 1233
going to try to squeeze in some markers or something. In the longer term, maybe it's part 1234
of the Master Plan or not. That's where it was left. 1235 1236 Commissioner Crommie: I just want to hear some clarification on that. During the week 1237 when I go, I always find parking. During the weekend, it's the big cycling groups who 1238
come in there and congregate. I'm not sure we should do anything to these big cycling 1239
groups that are coming from all communities. 1240
1241
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) when they come and park there, then people who 1242
want to use the park can't park. 1243
1244
Commissioner Crommie: Right. 1245
1246
Chair Reckdahl: You could put a limit. 1247
1248
Commissioner Hetterly: If you ride a bike, don't park here. 1249
1250
Chair Reckdahl: No. A limit as in two-hour limit or whatever. 1251
1252
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: That'd be interesting. If you put a two-hour limit, then they 1253
would (crosstalk). There's a great place also down the road where that car commuter 1254
parking lot is at Page Mill and Arastradero. (crosstalk) It's always empty on the 1255
weekend. It's not that (crosstalk) the week. Can you do a little bit of fact checking on 1256
trying to understand the parking situation there? Ed, during the week under your 1257
observations, is it a problem during the week? I haven't. Have you observed that? 1258 1259
Commissioner Lauing: I've observed it not as bad as the weekends. Sometimes there's a 1260
couple of spaces. I'm actually stunned sometimes when I'm up there that it's that 1261
crowded. Amazing. 1262
1263
Vice Chair Markevitch: We could look at maybe a two-hour parking limit on weekends 1264
in the Arastradero lot. Not during the week, because that doesn't seem to be a problem. 1265
1266
Commissioner Hetterly: Is it your sense that bike riders are parked there for a longer 1267
period of time than park users? 1268
1269
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, because they congregate. They all bring their cars and 1270
park. They come and they go on an all-day bike ride. My husband does it, that's why I 1271
know. 1272
1273
Commissioner Lauing: Your husband's one of the violators? 1274
1275
Commissioner Crommie: Not at Arastradero. His group meets at Pete's Coffee or the 1276
Alpine Inn. They meet at a place where you tank up on coffee before you go, so they 1277 don't meet at Arastradero. I know those (crosstalk). 1278 1279 Mr. Anderson: The question would be does that alleviate the problem or are you just 1280
freeing up new spaces every two hours for a higher percentage of bikers to come in and 1281
take those spots too. If the issue is we have non-park users using the lot, I don't know 1282
that necessarily solves your issue. 1283
1284
Commissioner Crommie: We ought to study it a little bit (crosstalk). 1285
1286
Commissioner Lauing: I don't think we're going to try to solve it here. The question is 1287
do we want an ad hoc or do we have any feedback on the legal aspects. 1288
1289
Mr. Anderson: My assessment of what we'd have to do if you wanted to change the 1290
status is add more parking. We'd have to do a staff report and go to the Council and 1291
request them to change that low-impact status to increase the capacity of that parking lot. 1292
That is not without significant impacts to the land and costs as well. 1293
1294
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: Right now there's a lot ... 1295
1296
Mr. Anderson: An overflow parking lot. 1297
1298
Chair Reckdahl: ... that's not used. 1299
1300 Mr. Anderson: It is used for special events and volunteer programs. Acterra has a little 1301
base of operation right in that area. It gets used (crosstalk). 1302
1303
Chair Reckdahl: Could we open that up on the weekends for all? 1304
1305
Mr. Anderson: Universally regardless of purpose? 1306
1307
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. 1308
1309
Mr. Anderson: The cost of that is then you have no place for your designated volunteer 1310
programs to park. If it was just universally open on the weekends, it'll get filled. 1311
1312
Chair Reckdahl: Could we open it on days where we don't expect volunteer programs to 1313
come? 1314
1315
Commissioner Lauing: If we give the volunteers (crosstalk) they can put on their cars. 1316
We're not trying to make this a big ad hoc on this. 1317
1318
Commissioner Crommie: These are management questions. If we don't want to extend 1319 it, maybe it can be managed differently. I also think we need more fact gathering on this. 1320 1321 Commissioner Lauing: Should we make this ongoing and (inaudible) names on there or 1322
stay with it? 1323
1324
Vice Chair Markevitch: You could even do a sign saying, "If you're part of the bike 1325
group, please don't park here. This is for the people who are enjoying the preserve." 1326
Something simple, low maintenance (crosstalk). 1327
1328
Chair Reckdahl: People are going to park there regardless unless there's a time limit. 1329
That would keep them away. Yeah, that means you have a ranger come in every two 1330
hours and swipe the tires with chalk. If you enforced it for a couple of months, then you 1331
probably wouldn't have to enforce it after that. 1332
1333
Mr. Anderson: I don't think I have staff to do that, every two hours to come in. 1334
1335
Commissioner Lauing: It seems like we are continuing this ad hoc. 1336
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
1337
Commissioner Crommie: The ad hoc didn't do any work on that. This is just an example 1338
of ad hoc that hasn't done anything. 1339
1340
Commissioner Lauing: It's not technically an ad hoc. 1341
1342 Commissioner Crommie: No, it's not an ad hoc. Do you want to make it an ad hoc 1343
(crosstalk)? 1344
1345
Chair Reckdahl: Could we have Friends of the Park ticket? 1346
1347
Mr. Anderson: No, we couldn't have them ticket. You could have them do that chalking 1348
(crosstalk) gross violator who could then get a ranger to come down. Things like that. 1349
The every two-hour thing on weekends, it's not feasible. 1350
1351
Commissioner Crommie: We have to study the problem more. I've only seen that 1352
anecdotally. I don't know. 1353
1354
Commissioner Knopper: The ad hoc is going to do it. We don't have to talk about. 1355
1356
Commissioner Ashlund: Is it an ad hoc of one or does an ad hoc need to be more than 1357
one? 1358
1359
Commissioner Hetterly: It does not need to be more than one. 1360
1361 Vice Chair Markevitch: Ed's going to drive a Winnebago up there, take up ten spaces. 1362 He's just going to spend all day watching who's parking there. 1363 1364
Commissioner Lauing: And see if it's enforced. 1365
1366
Mr. Anderson: I could invite you to an Open Space staff meeting. You could sit with the 1367
rangers and talk it all through, throw out all the different options. 1368
1369
Commissioner Lauing: It doesn’t need to be (inaudible) long we can do it. 1370
1371
Chair Reckdahl: The other thing I would like to add is at least some benches and/or 1372
picnic tables up there. 1373
1374
Commissioner Lauing: That comes under the same question (crosstalk). 1375
1376
Mr. Anderson: Low impact, yeah. It brings you back to that measure if that's what you 1377
guys want to pursue. 1378
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
1379
Chair Reckdahl: When the kids were young, we didn't go up there because they wanted 1380
some spot to sit and eat their snacks. 1381
1382
Commissioner Hetterly: There are a lot of ramifications. I don't know what they are. If 1383
you eliminate that low-impact preserve designation, then it opens up the park to a lot of 1384 other stuff that we may not want to open up the park to. The recommendation is not to 1385
(crosstalk). 1386
1387
Chair Reckdahl: The low impact, does it specifically say no benches or does it say low 1388
impact ... 1389
1390
Commissioner Lauing: I'll investigate that. 1391
1392
Chair Reckdahl: If it's the management's or the staff's interpretation of low impact, then 1393
they have some leeway to put a couple of benches here and there. That opens it up to 1394
Frisbee and a lot of stuff. 1395
1396
Commissioner Crommie: Is that the designation of Baylands Open Space Preserve? Is 1397
this our only designated low impact preserve? 1398
1399
Mr. Anderson: The specific guidance was don't duplicate surrounding areas. Keep this 1400
as low impact. The small parking was one of the elements. The lack of benches and 1401
picnics that could turn it more into an urbanized area (inaudible). In the research I did a 1402
year and a half ago on this, I've got notes from Council meetings from when this was first 1403 decided. They mentioned picnic tables and park benches there. I would be glad to share 1404 that with Commissioner Lauing and we can eventually (inaudible). 1405 1406
Mr. Jensen: I've also had a conversation with Enid Pearson, and she'd like to see some 1407
benches up there too. 1408
1409
Commissioner Crommie: As people get older, they do need to stop and rest if they're 1410
walking. It's absolutely necessary. 1411
1412
Chair Reckdahl: Crosswalk at Kellogg and Middlefield. Did we do anything on that? 1413
1414
Commissioner Lauing: No. I think Rob was supposed to consult with Planning and 1415
Transportation to see if that could get on their list. 1416
1417
Chair Reckdahl: Is that something that would be Junior Museum and Zoo? 1418
1419
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
Mr. Jensen: (inaudible) the traffic consultant that's doing environmental work is starting 1420
to do his stuff right now. He keeps sending me questions about parking and stuff over 1421
there. We should have him study that and make a recommendation on what should 1422
happen at that intersection. (crosstalk) design the one driveway. 1423
1424
Mr. Anderson: There's no safe access to the museum there. 1425 1426
Commissioner Ashlund: Can we put you on that as to staff instead of (crosstalk) as the 1427
staff person on there. 1428
1429
Chair Reckdahl: When I go to Lucie Stern in the afternoons, 2:00 or 3:00 in the 1430
afternoon, if you take a left there, you go through three or four cycles just to get through 1431
Middlefield and Embarcadero. It's really bad. Satellite parking. 1432
1433
Commissioner Lauing: Is that the one where Jennifer was supposed to count the buses? 1434
1435
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) on here. That was just something we talked about at 1436
the last retreat, because Council was considering the additional satellite parking shuttles 1437
in the Baylands near the athletic center and the golf course in that Baylands park. We 1438
just wanted to pay close attention to it as it moved forward, because we thought there was 1439
potential for substantial environmental impacts. 1440
1441
Chair Reckdahl: Is that satellite parking dead or is that still ... 1442
1443
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's still moving along. 1444 1445 Council Member Filseth: I think we've directed staff to go investigate or something like 1446 that. The previous Council. I also note that the previous Council was split on whether to 1447
do that or not. Some of the people who voted to proceed with it aren't on Council any 1448
more. Other people on the Council (inaudible). 1449
1450
Commissioner Lauing: This item came up from Council Member Schmid last year at the 1451
retreat to do monitoring. You volunteered to be the one to do the monitoring. 1452
1453
Commissioner Hetterly: What was going on at the Council? 1454
1455
Commissioner Lauing: No, what was going on at Baylands. There was a shuttle back 1456
and forth from Baylands, and he was concerned about that. 1457
1458
Commissioner Knopper: It could go from Baylands to Arastradero. It can just shuttle 1459
people, then up to Foothills. You would just make giant triangles with buses. 1460
1461
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
Commissioner Lauing: Next item. 1462
1463
Commissioner Ashlund: What is BAC? 1464
1465
Chair Reckdahl: Baylands Athletic Center. 1466
1467 Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. As far as the crosswalk, are we leaving Lauing on 1468
that? I'm hearing that. What was (inaudible)? 1469
1470
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, (inaudible). 1471
1472
Commissioner Ashlund: The status is? 1473
1474
Vice Chair Markevitch: Ongoing. 1475
1476
Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. Rental space was ongoing as well? 1477
1478
Vice Chair Markevitch: Mm-hmm. 1479
1480
Commissioner Hetterly: We're going to tie it together with the cost of service study. 1481
1482
Commissioner Ashlund: Hetterly, you are on the BAC satellite parking or you're not? 1483
1484
Commissioner Hetterly: I guess I am, but I wouldn't call it an ad hoc. It's just (crosstalk). 1485
1486 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. This is the follow-up page, not the ad hoc page. Thanks. 1487 1488 Chair Reckdahl: I would say this is on hold, satellite parking unless Council does more. 1489
1490
Commissioner Lauing: It's just monitoring the activity. 1491
1492
Council Member Filseth: It's only monitoring. 1493
1494
Chair Reckdahl: Monitoring. 1495
1496
Commissioner Lauing: Being alert. 1497
1498
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) I'm not counting cars down at the Baylands though 1499
traffic is very (inaudible). 1500
1501
Chair Reckdahl: City class training PARC. 1502
1503
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: There was an interest around some Commissioners to tap into 1504
any kind of issue-specific training that is offered to City staff that Commissioners might 1505
be able to participate in. Rob would lead on that. I'm not sure where he stands. I bet 1506
they've seen a lot of email invitations to some of the nonprofit work that they're doing at 1507
the Community Services Department. I don't know if Commissioners are interested in 1508
specific types of classes that would be helpful. I think Rob probably stalled out unsure 1509 about what we would want and how to match it up. 1510
1511
Vice Chair Markevitch: I'm not understanding why we would be interested in taking 1512
classes. 1513
1514
Commissioner Ashlund: I appreciated the nonprofit and fundraising stuff that's come 1515
along our way. A lot of times when something is going to get funded like Junior 1516
Museum, like the library, like Magical Bridge, it's private fundraising that augments what 1517
the City's able to do to fund the project. I'm happy when those things come across. I 1518
don't know what else we're missing out on, but I like that category. I find that category 1519
particularly useful. We don't have a replacement on our Commission for Rob. He's now 1520
in Greg Betts' position and his old position. I don't know if there's anything we can do 1521
other than keep in touch with our staff person. If there's specific class offerings that we 1522
want to hear about, we let our staff person know. I don't know that there's a master list 1523
that the City ... 1524
1525
Commissioner Hetterly: I think (crosstalk) skills that would be directly related to our 1526
group. 1527
1528 Commissioner Ashlund: If this is coordinated at a higher level than staff, somebody who 1529 oversees training offerings, then we could check that box and get on an email list if we 1530 choose. That'd be great. How do we know if that exists without Rob here? 1531
1532
Mr. Jensen: It does exist. There is an email list because we get it all the time in training. 1533
I could learn how to do the budgeting and purchasing and how to fill out contracts. 1534
There's all kind of (crosstalk). 1535
1536
Mr. Anderson: (crosstalk) human resources. 1537
1538
Commissioner Ashlund: Are Commissioners allowed to monitor that list and see if we 1539
want to attend things or are those class offerings only for staff? 1540
1541
Mr. Anderson: I believe it's just internal. 1542
1543
Commissioner Ashlund: It's not everyone. 1544
1545
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: If there's something you know you're interested in, you can ask 1546
our staff liaison to let you know. 1547
1548
Commissioner Ashlund: Exactly. Project Safety Net puts out a lot of training-related 1549
material. If you're interested in that niche, you follow that. 1550
1551 Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think we have further work to do on that. 1552
1553
Commissioner Ashlund: (inaudible) categories of things that we were hoping for training 1554
on. 1555
1556
Chair Reckdahl: That's EIR (inaudible). 1557
1558
Commissioner Crommie: I was the one who suggested that. A long time ago, I emailed 1559
Karen Holman. Karen Holman had suggested that we might benefit as a Commission if 1560
we had some rudimentary training on how EIRs work. This came up around the golf 1561
course EIR which did come under our purview because it had to do with expanding 1562
playing fields and all these different ideas. Actually Karen Holman had suggested that 1563
maybe I look into getting some training for the Commission. I followed up with her. I 1564
wanted to know if the City ran any (inaudible). It turned out they didn't. Karen Holman 1565
had contact of someone who runs little workshops on this who would come in, if we had 1566
a two-hour meeting, and would do a workshop for us. Can I just have a show of hands if 1567
anyone on this Commission is interested in such a workshop? 1568
1569
Commissioner Ashlund: It's worth some sort of presentation. A two-hour workshop I 1570 would be interested in or if it was even a presentation at one of our regular meetings, just 1571 an overview of what it is and isn't. I would welcome something rather than nothing. 1572 1573
Commissioner Crommie: More like a 30-minute presentation? 1574
1575
Commissioner Ashlund: Up to two hours. 1576
1577
Vice Chair Markevitch: Two hours is separate from having a two-hour presentation at 1578
our meeting? 1579
1580
Commissioner Ashlund: I would be interested either way. 1581
1582
Commissioner Crommie: I've been to one of these workshops. I went to it through 1583
another organization. I found it so useful. 1584
1585
Commissioner Hetterly: Actually everybody should have to do it, everybody on a 1586
Commission. 1587
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
1588
Commissioner Crommie: I'd be willing to follow up. As far as I got was how much time 1589
does your Commission want to spend on this. I really needed to know that before trying 1590
to schedule something. 1591
1592
Mr. Jensen: We could invite someone from the Planning staff to come in and do a 20-1593 minute presentation on what the EIR is, what the sections are, what they're looking for 1594
inside of it, what the process is of how it goes out to the community, and then how it gets 1595
approved. 1596
1597
Commissioner Crommie: I don't think you can do that in 20 minutes. My workshop, I 1598
think, was a four-hour workshop. It doesn't have to be that long. 1599
1600
Mr. Jensen: They're not going to tell you how to fill out. They're going to tell you the 1601
section and what it all means. 1602
1603
Commissioner Crommie: What the language means. It's really good to have some kind 1604
of introduction for when you're trying to read the literature. 1605
1606
Commissioner Ashlund: Did you say you had somebody who could offer (inaudible)? 1607
1608
Commissioner Crommie: Karen Holman gave me a name of somebody, but I dropped 1609
the ball. Where it ended was how much time does your Commission want to spend on 1610
this. It comes down to how we want to organize it. I'm hearing today that there is 1611
interest. 1612 1613 Chair Reckdahl: What is the threshold for EIRs? How often do we have to do EIRs? 1614 1615
Mr. Anderson: Not very often for most of our projects. It does come up though. 1616
1617
Chair Reckdahl: The golf course, we had to do one. 1618
1619
Commissioner Crommie: We had to do one for the bridge. 1620
1621
Mr. Anderson: JPA. 1622
1623
Mr. Jensen: We're doing one for the JMZ and the Rinconada long range plan. (crosstalk) 1624
five or six specific areas that they study; noise pollution. If they find bones, there's a 1625
thing on that. Studying the biology of birds as well as what it has to do with the impact. 1626
1627
Mr. Anderson: Species, flora, fauna, historic resources. 1628
1629
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: Also, in an EIR you have to present alternate plans which is 1630
really informative for policymaking. There's some pieces of (inaudible) project. I was 1631
hoping someone from the City did this. If we're doing it privately, then I have to get 1632
clearance to pay the person. I talked to our staff liaison. 1633
1634
Mr. Anderson: We have people in our Planning that work on EIRs, but I don't know that 1635 you would say they were an instructor for it. 1636
1637
Commissioner Crommie: You'd want to get an instructor who can break it down, give 1638
you pertinent information efficiently. 1639
1640
Chair Reckdahl: This person that Karen Holman gave you, is she external to the City? 1641
1642
Commissioner Crommie: External to the City. 1643
1644
Chair Reckdahl: Does the City have any training on EIRs? 1645
1646
Mr. Anderson: Nope. 1647
1648
Commissioner Crommie: I was surprised by that. The Planning Department people 1649
come in so knowledgeable. They have already taken their course work on that. 1650
1651
Commissioner Ashlund: It's a prerequisite for the job. 1652
1653
Commissioner Crommie: It's a burden to ask a staff person to give a little workshop if 1654 they're not used to teaching that material. It would be most efficient if we hired someone 1655 who had experience doing such a thing. What should I do with this? 1656 1657
Chair Reckdahl: Why don't you talk with Rob and see if he wants to organize a City staff 1658
EIR training. If they do that, then we could sit in. 1659
1660
Commissioner Crommie: Beyond our Commission. 1661
1662
Chair Reckdahl: I can't believe that we would be the only Commission that would be 1663
interested in this. 1664
1665
Commissioner Ashlund: Right. Why are you saying it would be a City staff training? 1666
1667
Chair Reckdahl: Open to staff and Commissions. 1668
1669
Mr. Jensen: Then the City pays for it, is what you're saying. 1670
1671
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: Clearly it should be beyond us. Do you think the amount of 1672
time would be a two-hour study session? 1673
1674
Chair Reckdahl: I don't think I want to spend four hours on it. I'd be willing to do two. 1675
1676
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, yeah. Get some prices and some dates and maybe 1677 coordinate with Rob in scheduling the time. 1678
1679
Commissioner Crommie: It's nice to know there's interest. 1680
1681
Commissioner Ashlund: If we open it up to other Commissions, then we can find out 1682
how many we need to fill the room to make it worthwhile. 1683
1684
Chair Reckdahl: Gatekeeper training. 1685
1686
Commissioner Ashlund: What's that? 1687
1688
Vice Chair Markevitch: QPR training. How many of you are QPR trained? 1689
1690
Chair Reckdahl: What is QPR? 1691
1692
Vice Chair Markevitch: Question, persuade and refer. If someone was thinking of 1693
suicide. It's a training on (inaudible). 1694
1695
Chair Reckdahl: I am not. 1696 1697 Commissioner Hetterly: That is on here because as part of Project Safety Net several 1698 years ago now, the Commission entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and 1699
committed to getting all the Commissioners QPR training to be additional adults in the 1700
community. 1701
1702
Vice Chair Markevitch: You're trained. I'm trained. Daren and Rob, I think are the four. 1703
Peter, are you trained? 1704
1705
Mr. Jensen: I'm not trained. 1706
1707
Vice Chair Markevitch: It probably doesn't come up in your job too often. 1708
1709
Commissioner Crommie: Do we get notices of training sessions? I don't recall seeing 1710
any. 1711
1712
Commissioner Hetterly: There have been a couple of notices of QPR training courses. 1713
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
1714
Commissioner Crommie: Maybe not so recently. I wonder if there was just a push on it 1715
last year. 1716
1717
Commissioner Ashlund: There was one very recently that came out through RICA. I'm 1718
not sure where I saw it. It might have been through Project Safety Net, but there was a 1719 very recent one that came out. 1720
1721
Commissioner Crommie: I don't recall seeing them. Are they coming past us as a 1722
Commission as a whole or is it on separate lists? 1723
1724
Commissioner Ashlund: That's what I'm saying; I don't remember. I might have gotten it 1725
just from the Project Safety Net list. 1726
1727
Commissioner Crommie: What is the timeframe with that training? 1728
1729
Commissioner Hetterly: It's 1 1/2 hours, 2 hours. 1730
1731
Vice Chair Markevitch: You can also do it online, but it's better if you do it in-person 1732
because then you do the role playing aspect that you can't get online. 1733
1734
Commissioner Crommie: Have either of you used your training since having it? 1735
1736
Commissioner Hetterly: I have. 1737
1738 Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah. 1739 1740 Commissioner Hetterly: Rather than being on Rob, that's really on every Commissioner 1741
to just sign up for it and do it. 1742
1743
Vice Chair Markevitch: You can ask Minka how. She's a good person to start with. 1744
1745
Chair Reckdahl: PARC website, we talked about that already. Agenda time slots. I 1746
assume this means trying to keep the meeting to the amount of time that we can spend on 1747
it. 1748
1749
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm not sure why that's on here. It's something that we should 1750
discuss. Here it's not really an issue (inaudible) management (inaudible). One of the 1751
most challenging things for me as Chair was figuring out how long to designate for a 1752
particular topic and then moving the conversation along so that everybody who had 1753
something they wanted to say had an opportunity to say it. There are a lot of different 1754
parts to that. One is the presenter. If you've got a half-hour slot on your agenda and your 1755
Draft Minutes 42
DRAFT
presenter talks for half an hour, then you're instantly backed up when you have no time 1756
for discussions. One of the things is to have staff and the Chair work more closely with 1757
presenters who are on the agenda for a particular month to make sure they know how 1758
long we want them to speak or we know how long they need to speak, so that we can then 1759
adjust the discussion time appropriately. Also, if we've got 30 minutes for an agenda 1760
item for the discussion part of it, that's less than 5 minutes apiece to speak. If one of us 1761 goes over, then that eats into other people's time. It's important to have everybody be 1762
respectful of that. Everyone may well have something to say. I heard from several 1763
Commissioners over the last year that they felt that as time backed up and as we would 1764
get behind on any particular item, they would forego making comments in the interest of 1765
moving on the schedule as opposed to saying what they had to say. That's an unfortunate 1766
outcome. At the same time, there are a lot of times when people have a lot to say or there 1767
are a lot of issues and the Chair doesn't know how much discussion is coming up. It's 1768
inevitable that you'll periodically run over. That should be the exception and not the rule. 1769
I would encourage everyone about not sharing your (inaudible) struggle with that now. It 1770
would be very helpful to him if Commissioners would come prepared with their 1771
comments and concerns prioritized so that we can welcome Keith to cut us off as he feels 1772
necessary to keep the schedule and then come back if time permits. Then you make sure 1773
you get your top priority issues covered before you get cut off. 1774
1775
Chair Reckdahl: The other point I want to make is when we ask questions, sometimes 1776
the answer rambles on. We spend ten seconds asking a question, and it's five minutes 1777
coming back. We have to be more aggressive cutting them off. If we've got our answer, 1778
let's move on with the next question. Sometimes they can eat up the time more than we 1779
do. 1780 1781 Vice Chair Markevitch: Another piece of this is the agendas. Sometimes they're pretty 1782 aggressive. You're looking at this going, "This is not a three hour meeting. This is 4 1783
1/2." To be more realistic in setting what is going to be on that agenda. Sometimes I see 1784
where we've discussed a month before we're going to do this and this and this. When we 1785
get the agenda, there's two or three more items that have been snuck in there after we had 1786
discussed it. It just really frontloads the meeting so we don't have time for that discussion 1787
piece. 1788
1789
Commissioner Hetterly: That's definitely true. Unfortunately, that's (crosstalk) because 1790
we meet once a month. There's a time sensitive issue that needs to come before us, we'd 1791
rather jam it in and stay up late than not cover it all. 1792
1793
Vice Chair Markevitch: There's a way around that too. Let's just be realistic and say, 1794
"Well, this issue has come before us and even though we've discussed it, we're going to 1795
put it on this agenda for the next month. These two have now come up which are time 1796
Draft Minutes 43
DRAFT
critical. Move this one that we discussed to the next month." It's more manageable. 1797
People get tired as it gets late. 1798
1799
Commissioner Lauing: (inaudible) I've seen good progress this year is this. If two 1800
people in the room are talking about something, you can say, "My comments have 1801
already been heard by my fellow Commissioners," and move on. That's an efficient 1802 way. You don't have to get your quotes in the paper (inaudible). We're trying to get the 1803
issues on the table and move on. 1804
1805
2. Consider Potential Areas of Focus for 2015. 1806
1807 Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on now to Priorities 2015. Everything that we talked about 1808
is a priority. We've listed at least an (inaudible) date in the next decade for everything. 1809
That's our priority there. Now other things that we haven't talked about. The Buckeye 1810
Creek study, we talked about that already. Master Plan and we also talked about the 1811
Baylands boardwalk. 1812 1813 Commissioner Crommie: Relative to the Master Plan, we might want to go back to these 1814 ad hocs that we scheduled to make sure they are being completed or do we need anything 1815 more. (crosstalk) 1816
1817
Chair Reckdahl: Let's put the Master Plan on hold. If we get everything else done, then 1818
we could talk about the Master Plan for a long time. Let's get the other ones done first so 1819
we feel more free to talk. Does anyone else have things they want to add? I have a few 1820
things that I want to add. 1821
1822
Vice Chair Markevitch: Mine was the high school pickup games. (crosstalk) lead on 1823
that. 1824
1825
Commissioner Crommie: Daria Walsh when she was on the Commission, she was 1826
passionate about that too. We never made that much progress on it. Since I've been 1827
sitting on this Commission, we've talked about wanting something to be available. I'm 1828
grateful that you're willing to do that. 1829
1830
Commissioner Knopper: Something that I'm not sure how, as a Commission, we do or 1831
not do. Something that's definitely on my mind a lot is water conservation and how, as a 1832
Commission, we can create a communication plan or work along with the City with some 1833 sort of marketing to get people to stop watering their grass. Just something like create 1834
some sort of initiative and conversation in the community. I'm not sure if this is the right 1835
format. Daren and his staff and Peter have to adhere to very strict drought rules at this 1836
point. I feel like there is a way that this Commission could be on the forefront of a 1837
conversation in the community about it. 1838
Draft Minutes 44
DRAFT
1839
Vice Chair Markevitch: I'm not sure it's in our purview. It's coming through the Utilities. 1840
They're going to start fining you if you keep doing what you're doing. Your water rates 1841
are going to go up. They just had some new guidelines come through the County that are 1842
pretty strict. I don't think it's our problem. 1843
1844 Chair Reckdahl: The only aspect that is our problem is from the park use, whether it be 1845
the golf course or the parks. If there's places that we could reduce water, then that's 1846
(crosstalk). 1847
1848
Commissioner Lauing: We talked last year, I think it might have been at the retreat, 1849
about should we more or less intentionally let some areas go brown to demonstrate that 1850
parks were fine. The feedback was the cost to replace that stuff is prohibitive compared 1851
to a little bit more cost for water, just on a cost basis. 1852
1853
Mr. Anderson: On some areas, that's for sure. It'd be a commitment to say we're going to 1854
let this go. We wouldn't just let it go brown. Most likely staff would sod cut and put 1855
down nice- looking mulch. We'd never have to irrigate it again except for the (inaudible). 1856
Another option is native plant landscaping. There are investments associated with those 1857
transformations. Just letting it go brown is less likely. It usually will become a weed 1858
issue. If you don't water it, then you have nothing but 3-foor tall daisies and other weeds. 1859
1860
Commissioner Lauing: I brought that up for the same reason. It was a symbol because 1861
we can only do stuff in parks, but it might help overall. 1862
1863 Commissioner Knopper: That's what I mean, lead by example. 1864 1865 Commissioner Lauing: You gave us a good scientific answer as to why that (inaudible). 1866
1867
Mr. Anderson: We are prioritizing little landscaped areas, unnecessary aesthetic turf, that 1868
are on our to-do list that eventually transform. Some of it could call for a little public 1869
outreach. There'd be a substantive change. As you drive down Embarcadero Road, 1870
there's an eighth of an acre of turf there, a tiny section of turf, that you could change. It 1871
doesn't need to be turf. People would say, "Wait a minute. What happened to our grass?" 1872
If the Commission wanted to be involved, maybe we just give it to the Commission and 1873
we can invite stakeholders. I don't know. Peter and I have talked about this a lot. 1874
1875
Mr. Jensen: I try to cut down turf where it's not useable. Pardee Park, I think we cut a lot 1876
of it out of there. Cogswell Plaza, that was one of the reasons we put the seating area 1877
there. Every time we renovate a park, we're looking at those areas of turf that don't make 1878
sense as far as activity goes and trying to limit them. 1879
1880
Draft Minutes 45
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: In Bowden Park, that grass that's on Alma, the long-term plan is to get 1881
rid of that grass. 1882
1883
Mr. Jensen: Yes. Our idea would be to have a tree grow in there, a native tree oak stand, 1884
then the grass would eventually go away. It would be removed. 1885
1886 Chair Reckdahl: The plan is to establish the trees. 1887
1888
Mr. Jensen: Right. The transition is not as fast. It's more in keeping with the transition 1889
that our society's on in general. It's not a fast lane, but it will eventually be that way. 1890
1891
Mr. Anderson: I have a suggestion for the Commission to consider. Much like when dog 1892
issues first popped saying, "We're underserved," every renovation was asked to look, 1893
"Could you squeeze a dog park in here?" Perhaps a part of very park presentation where 1894
we're doing a CIP, there's an element that says water conservation as a subheading of the 1895
staff report. We can double check what has been addressed regarding water 1896
conservation. It's all summarized. You evaluate the plan. 1897
1898
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's good. 1899
1900
Mr. Jensen: I have all the background work to figure out how much water we save. 1901
Technically it's never published anywhere. I just have an email that I send to someone. 1902
Brad says one time a year at a Council meeting that we've saved so many gallons of 1903
water. It's not tied to anything. 1904
1905 Commissioner Knopper: To your point, part of getting people to stop watering their 1906 sidewalks, at least be more efficient. If you're going to have the sprinklers on, fix them 1907 so you're not watering the street in front of your home. If the City is communicating, 1908
"This is what we're doing. This is part of our planning process. This is where we've 1909
changed the flora of our parks." Maybe people will wake up and say, "Wait. I should 1910
maybe rip out my grass and put in native plantings." 1911
1912
Mr. Jensen: Again, our most efficient mailer is the utility bill, which I know doesn't go to 1913
everyone. If you did a PR thing twice a year or once a year that stated what the City was 1914
doing to reduce water, just as a way to update people, it might spark them to say, "Oh, we 1915
can do this too." 1916
1917
Commissioner Crommie: It does go to everyone actually. Those people on auto pay 1918
don't always open them. Everyone does get one. 1919
1920
Mr. Jensen: The cost efficiency of sending that out. Utilities is paying to send the mailer 1921
out to the whole community. 1922
Draft Minutes 46
DRAFT
1923
Commissioner Ashlund: They've got a huge public awareness campaign ongoing now. 1924
1925
Commissioner Knopper: We do auto pay, so I don't (crosstalk). 1926
1927
Commissioner Crommie: I know. That's what I'm saying. I collect them. 1928 1929
Vice Chair Markevitch: It would be more effective, that messaging that Abbie just said, 1930
as opposed to what you get now which is, "Oh, you're almost as good as your neighbors 1931
in water conservation." 1932
1933
Commissioner Knopper: The shaming. 1934
1935
Vice Chair Markevitch: The shaming. And here's this house over here. It's like, "Yeah, 1936
but that household has three people. We have four, so you can't compare it." The 1937
shaming part, I just mock it at this point. (crosstalk) 1938
1939
Commissioner Ashlund: We do have email lists now and opt-in interest lists of people 1940
who want to be informed of Parks and Rec related things. Do we have any idea how 1941
many people we have on that? 1942
1943
Mr. Anderson: It's about 50 or 60. The one I send out to stakeholders? 1944
1945
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. It sounds like we could even tie this in with that as well. 1946
If we were getting the word out that this was available when people are interested in 1947 water conservation. I don't know if we're the department to be in charge of that 1948 information or if there's somebody better to be in charge of water conservation. 1949 1950
Mr. Anderson: It's Utilities now. 1951
1952
Commissioner Ashlund: If it's Utilities, it's Utilities. It's not this Commission. 1953
1954
Commissioner Knopper: Okay. Let's talk to the Utilities Commission. 1955
1956
Commissioner Hetterly: It's a great idea to include in our staff reports a water 1957
conservation (crosstalk). That does connect directly. 1958
1959
Commissioner Crommie: One thing I just want to add. When we were reviewing the 1960
Urban Forest Plan, I made a comment. I don't know if it got incorporated. We still need 1961
certain kinds of water hungry trees that drop fruit that animals eat and provide insects and 1962
butterflies food. If we want to have wildlife still living in our city, we still have to be 1963
mindful of how water conservation impacts living creatures, animals, and then have a 1964
Draft Minutes 47
DRAFT
balanced approach. My fear with the big drought resistance is that we'll clear all the 1965
wildlife out with it. Can we just assume that staff will naturally be mindful of that? 1966
1967
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely. I know Walter Passmore and my team are. That we need a 1968
diverse plant palate, a diverse tree palate. Peter is. Between Walter, myself and Peter, 1969
that's who's going to be leading these. 1970 1971
Commissioner Crommie: It might be nice if that's just commented on in the staff report. 1972
It doesn’t have to have a separate section. I guess what I'd say is what is the cost of this 1973
water conservation. We're conserving water and are we impacting wildlife when we 1974
conserve the water. 1975
1976
Commissioner Knopper: Removing turf is actually beneficial. 1977
1978
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, I think it is. It comes up in the plant palette, the tree 1979
palette. It came up in the Urban Canopy Plan, not wanting anything messy. I'm always 1980
someone who'd rather have something messy in some regions of the park. 1981
1982
Vice Chair Markevitch: What you're trying to say is removing turf is different than 1983
stressing out fruit-growing trees by not giving them enough water. It's two different 1984
things. 1985
1986
Mr. Anderson: There's the danger that we just revert to a very narrow plant palette of 1987
drought-tolerant species. Soon you'll have what verges on three different types of plants. 1988
You don't want that. That's not good for the environment at all, nor for the aesthetics of a 1989 park either. That won't be the case. I wrote in "list the compromise and effects to 1990 wildlife via those water conservation methods." 1991 1992
Commissioner Ashlund: Deirdre, there was somebody that you and I spoke to on staff. I 1993
can't remember if it was (inaudible) or John Akin. We were talking about how the City 1994
has a sustainability person but doesn't have a conservation person. 1995
1996
Commissioner Crommie: Right. It was when we were speaking with John Akin. 1997
1998
Commissioner Ashlund: It was John Akin. He mentioned that there's some nonprofit 1999
that maybe we could partner with in that aspect. Do you remember who that was? 2000
2001
Commissioner Crommie: I don't remember. 2002
2003
Commissioner Ashlund: All right. I'll check my notes. 2004
2005
Draft Minutes 48
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: That is something that I feel very passionate about, to just have 2006
a balanced focus on City staff. Daren, do you feel like that's your role on the staff? Are 2007
you our conservation person? 2008
2009
Mr. Anderson: I think so. Much like a lot of things we do, we're a small agency, so you 2010
defer a lot to organizations we partner with, like U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They 2011 have a fleet of biologists that work in the very same habitats we do and we can confer 2012
with them. Rather than having our duplicating fleet, we refer to them a lot. The same is 2013
true for the plant experts at Acterra and Save the Bay. They have PhDs in wildlife 2014
biology and specialize in marsh plants. Rather than hiring my own guy who just does 2015
that, I have a partnership with one. I can ask him questions whenever I want. I have 2016
them review plans for me all the time. That's how I end up accomplishing those 2017
conservation elements into the job of what we need. 2018
2019
Commissioner Crommie: We brought in the (inaudible) person. You could have said the 2020
same thing. I want to be sustainable, so I confer with these (crosstalk). Within our City 2021
staff, we didn't make a space for a PhD wildlife conservation person. I don't know if they 2022
have such a person in Mountain View, for instance. We just have a lot of open land for 2023
not having a person dedicated to that, I believe. 2024
2025
Mr. Anderson: The way that Mountain View accomplishes that is through contracts. 2026
They entered contracts with, for example, burrowing owl experts. They don't have an on-2027
staff person. They just contract out. That was one thing that Greg Betts and I talked 2028
about. Do we enter (inaudible). 2029
2030 Chair Reckdahl: When you're talking about water thirsty plants, are you talking about 2031 non-native or native? 2032 2033
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know. It's really the experts who know this. When you 2034
have this diverse palette ... 2035
2036
Chair Reckdahl: You're just saying generically that we shouldn't have blinders on and 2037
look just at water efficiency? 2038
2039
Commissioner Crommie: Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. 2040
2041
Chair Reckdahl: If we have native oaks, for example, we don't water them at all, do we? 2042
2043
Mr. Anderson: We do to establish them, yes. They're less thirsty than a lot of the other 2044
trees. 2045
2046
Draft Minutes 49
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: In general, we are now skewing our trees towards native. We should be 2047
decreasing our water use, I assume. 2048
2049
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 2050
2051
Chair Reckdahl: We still would water some of those just for establishing? 2052 2053
Mr. Anderson: There are some that get water ongoing. 2054
2055
Commissioner Crommie: An example would be how often do we want to plant fruit trees 2056
or mock fruit trees. I don't know how that (crosstalk) I don't think some of those are 2057
native (inaudible). 2058
2059
Mr. Anderson: (inaudible) 2060
2061
Commissioner Crommie: That would be a (inaudible) example. They provide food for 2062
birds. 2063
2064
Chair Reckdahl: For native birds or non-native birds? 2065
2066
Commissioner Crommie: I don't know. I've never drilled in that deeply to understand it. 2067
I just know from the Audubon Society that fruit trees are important to have within our 2068
plant palette. 2069
2070
Chair Reckdahl: I'm just thinking from the lazy man's standpoint, if you just plant native 2071 stuff, you don't have to water it and the native birds would be able to maintain. 2072 2073 Vice Chair Markevitch: For example, ivy has those berries on it. Every spring when the 2074
robins come through, they just clean out the berries on their way back north. It's amazing 2075
to watch. I don't think you can restrict it to native versus non-native birds. You have 2076
migratory birds that use those trees too. 2077
2078
Commissioner Crommie: It's complicated. On the ivy, rats also eat those berries, so that 2079
increases the rat population. Experts study this. I just want us to be mindful of that. 2080
2081
Commissioner Ashlund: We don't have it on staff. Save the Bay was the organization 2082
John had mentioned. I don't know that there's anything that we as a Commission can do 2083
other than wish and hope that staff would someday have a conservationist. We don't 2084
have that, and I don't think that's in our purview to say that there should be. We don't get 2085
to say that, right? We should hire a conservationist. 2086
2087
Commissioner Hetterly: We should say that if we want to say that. 2088
Draft Minutes 50
DRAFT
2089
Chair Reckdahl: We can say it, but we have no (crosstalk). 2090
2091
Vice Chair Markevitch: People who become rangers are conservationists, because that's 2092
their passion. That's why they are rangers to begin with. 2093
2094 Commissioner Ashlund: Rangers aren't (crosstalk) projects and determining budgets. 2095
2096
Vice Chair Ashlund: I understand that, but they make suggestions because they know 2097
what's going on, on a daily basis. 2098
2099
Commissioner Crommie: It's different from a PhD biologist. (crosstalk) 2100
2101
Commissioner Knopper: To Daren's point, it sounds like he draws upon all of the 2102
richness of the resources that Palo Alto has through volunteer organizations that are 2103
willing to help us. 2104
2105
Mr. Anderson: I might add there's a danger in saying, "Hire the PhD. This is our expert 2106
in conservation." I have hiked through marshes with PhDs who couldn't identify a 2107
clapper rail. All my staff can. These are PhDs in the field coming out to look at native 2108
oysters. I said, "You know how to identify a clapper rail, right?" He said, "Of course, I 2109
do." One vocalized 10 feet away and he had no idea. There's a real danger in saying, 2110
"We got our PhD. Everything's set." There's a lot of different kinds of PhDs. That 2111
doesn't mean they have a field knowledge that you need to make the right 2112
recommendations. I wouldn't hang my hat so heavy on those kind of experts necessarily. 2113 Sometimes having this diverse group of PhDs that I have through this partnership may be 2114 better in some ways. 2115 2116
Commissioner Crommie: Also having conservation plans is a great protective layer. I 2117
would hope that we'll eventually have a conservation plan for everyone of our open space 2118
preserves. You have the CIP right now for the Baylands. Do we have a conservation 2119
plan yet for Foothills and Arastradero? 2120
2121
Mr. Anderson: Nope. That's the only one that has it. 2122
2123
Commissioner Crommie: When we were reviewing the natural environment element of 2124
the Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner Hetterly and I made sure there was language in 2125
there to say we wanted conservation plans for all those areas. That would be really what 2126
we need to do, is push those through. 2127
2128
Draft Minutes 51
DRAFT
Mr. Anderson: It's both in the updated Comprehensive Plan and I wrote it into the 2129
updated Urban Forest Plan. You'll have two documents, if and when they get adopted by 2130
Council. They'll both substantiate call out to those Comprehensive Plans. 2131
2132
Chair Reckdahl: Anyone else have additional priorities for next year? 2133
2134 Commissioner Crommie: We've got water conservation. Are you going to have the 2135
creek undercrossing? 2136
2137
Chair Reckdahl: We can talk about that now. 2138
2139
Vice Chair Markevitch: Can we open up the one under the freeway? We're not getting 2140
any more rain this year. 2141
2142
Commissioner Crommie: I worked so hard on that, Pat, you will never believe. When 2143
we were in our meeting (inaudible) I said, "Can we have one clean out and then reopen it 2144
again?" I didn't get that. That's all I want. First of all we took five years to get them to 2145
say we don't need to be on a fixed calendar but we can use seasonal. Finally they decided 2146
that we don't close it on October 15 but we waited until the first rain. I said, "Moreover, 2147
can we do the one clean up?" They said no. They waited until the first storm which this 2148
year came around December. They didn't clean it out, and it's been closed ever since and 2149
we haven't even had another significant storm. At the staff level, Daren, if you're willing 2150
to take that on? I'd go into a meeting with Elizabeth Ames again. I'm indebted to her for 2151
pushing us through the barrier of taking it off of the calendar. This year's a perfect 2152
example of why we should have had a clean out and a reopening. We are losing months 2153 and months of use of that tunnel. 2154 2155 Vice Chair Markevitch: It (inaudible) in an hour and a half literally. 2156
2157
Commissioner Crommie: Officially it's supposed to open on April 15th, but we've 2158
missed this whole year. It could have been open except for a week. My family uses that 2159
constantly. We have to go to San Antonio Avenue. 2160
2161
Commissioner Hetterly: Is that being proposed as a topic for an ad hoc? 2162
2163
Commissioner Crommie: It's so simple. 2164
2165
Chair Reckdahl: Let's back off here and look at the big picture. 2166
2167
Commissioner Crommie: That's would be Lefkowitz tunnel, so we'd have to add onto 2168
this list. I added on Matadero, and Pat is adding on Lefkowitz. 2169
2170
Draft Minutes 52
DRAFT
Mr. Anderson: Is it the same ad hoc? Is that what you're talking about? 2171
2172
Commissioner Crommie: What did we do? We did our creek and urban trails for the 2173
Lefkowitz, about how we worked on Lefkowitz. We'd have to form a new ad hoc. It's 2174
pretty simple work. Actually it's just going back to that platform and saying, "Hey, can 2175
we get this done?" 2176 2177
Chair Reckdahl: Let's get the rest of the Commissioners and then add underneath 2178
meetings. We had a meeting last week with Elizabeth Ames. Deirdre and I have been on 2179
the Byxbee ad hoc and we were talking to Daren. When we go to Byxbee now, we park 2180
over by Matadero Creek and hike up the back way instead of going all the way down 2181
Embarcadero. The thing we realized is when you park there right off of East Bayshore, 2182
you're very, very close to Byxbee. You're less than a half mile away from Byxbee which 2183
made us realize that all those people in Midtown, just on the other side of the freeway as 2184
the crow flies, were incredibly close to, in fact probably closer to Byxbee than Greer. 2185
They are closer to Byxbee than I am to my neighborhood park. That's how close it is. 2186
That underpass is being used right now; people hop the rail and go under there all the 2187
time. There's bike treads and shoe prints on the mud all the time. If we open that up 2188
now, the people who want to walk their dog in the morning can go under the freeway, 2189
and they're right there at Byxbee. 2190
2191
Commissioner Hetterly: That's an issue that has come up many, many, many, many 2192
times in the past. The city has been very reluctant to make than an official crossing. 2193
2194
Commissioner Crommie: Undercrossing. 2195 2196 Commissioner Hetterly: Undercrossing. If you met with Elizabeth Ames about this ... 2197 2198
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. 2199
2200
Commissioner Crommie: Matadero. 2201
2202
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you know that there's a working group for the trail piece of 2203
the bike plan that would go from Greer to Bryant or something like that? They wanted 2204
somebody from Parks and Rec represented on there. 2205
2206
Chair Reckdahl: Jaime mentioned that to me. On his way out, I sent an email saying, 2207
"Can I get it done for you?" One of the things he mentioned was that he had just talked 2208
to you about being a representative. 2209
2210
Commissioner Crommie: Jaime and the working group are working on a different part of 2211
Matadero Creek. That's a more controversial area because it's abutting many more 2212
Draft Minutes 53
DRAFT
residences. This is what we need to strategize around. Is it worthwhile to break off this 2213
section of Matadero Creek that goes under 101 as a separate effort? Maybe led by our 2214
Parks and Recreation Commission, maybe an ad hoc from us to say, "Can we work on 2215
this one section in parallel with the working group working on the whole creek?" Is that 2216
what you're getting at? 2217
2218 Chair Reckdahl: Yes. There are a couple of barriers. One is that the ramps going down, 2219
my estimate is about 9 percent grade and for ADA it's 8.3. There probably would be 2220
some small changes, unless you can get an exception. I'm not sure of the ADA rules. Do 2221
you know, Daren? How hard is it to get an exception for that? 2222
2223
Mr. Anderson: It's possible. 2224
2225
Chair Reckdahl: We have to investigate that. The other is that the clearance under the 2226
bridge is only 8 feet. Elizabeth said that was problematic. If I'm sitting on my bike, I 2227
still can't get 8 feet; 8 feet to me is pretty tall. I think we'd be okay from a practical 2228
standpoint. I'm not sure if those regulations would prevent us from doing that. 2229
2230
Mr. Anderson: We'd have to confer with Santa Clara Valley Water District too. 2231
2232
Commissioner Crommie: Elizabeth seemed pretty comfortable with that. She has a lot 2233
of contacts there now because she's done the bridge over Highway 101. She had to do all 2234
kinds of work with Caltrans, Water District. 2235
2236
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's going to be two separate ad hocs then? 2237 2238 Chair Reckdahl: Matadero is separate from Lefkowitz. 2239 2240
Commissioner Crommie: Lefkowitz should be very quick. You'll either get a yes or no. 2241
2242
Chair Reckdahl: There's a budget issue. If they're going down and cleaning up, who's 2243
paying for that? 2244
2245
Commissioner Crommie: Right. 2246
2247
Commissioner Hetterly: We don't need an ad hoc for Lefkowitz. We just need 2248
somebody who's the lead on coordinating the planning. 2249
2250
Commissioner Crommie: To go and have a meeting with them and say, "Can you do 2251
this?" Maybe (inaudible) can do it, because I've already sat in other meetings. It's really 2252
calling one meeting. I don't think we need to do (crosstalk). 2253
2254
Draft Minutes 54
DRAFT
Mr. Jensen: Sounds to me like that's the Water District issue, why it can't be cleaned and 2255
opened very quickly. If it was the City controlling it, that we'd do it and get it done. 2256
2257
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's the next layer. 2258
2259
Mr. Jensen: The Water District doesn’t move very quickly. 2260 2261
Commissioner Crommie: Our City does the cleanup, don't we? 2262
2263
Mr. Jensen: I don't think we do. I think they do it; that's why it takes so long. 2264
2265
Chair Reckdahl: We're going to have an ad hoc of one for Lefkowitz, and that will be 2266
Pat. 2267
2268
Commissioner Crommie: I think your staff contact is Elizabeth Ames. 2269
2270
Vice Chair Markevitch: Yeah, I know her well. 2271
2272
Chair Reckdahl: Matadero undercrossing ... 2273
2274
Commissioner Crommie: Can I just say one more thing about Pat's meeting? Is it a done 2275
deal that we can't keep Lefkowitz open once we build the new bridge over 101? Who 2276
decided that? I think a lot of people (crosstalk) 2277
2278
Vice Chair Markevitch: I'll ask her in that meeting. I'll ask Elizabeth. 2279 2280 Commissioner Crommie: I was just curious if anyone here knew who had made that 2281 decision to not (crosstalk). 2282
2283
Vice Chair Markevitch: We were pushing to keep it open. 2284
2285
Commissioner Crommie: Do you know, Jen? 2286
2287
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't know who made the decision. 2288
2289
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 2290
2291
Commissioner Crommie: It's just another row with the crowd. (crosstalk) Some people 2292
don't like going over a bridge and they can go down through the tunnel. 2293
2294
Commissioner Hetterly: Especially for commuters. 2295
2296
Draft Minutes 55
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: Again, it would be seasonal. It's never going to be a 2297
(crosstalk). 2298
2299
Chair Reckdahl: You reduce bridge traffic which makes it easier for everyone else to 2300
cross. I don't mind that. 2301
2302 Commissioner Ashlund: Cost of occasional cleanup. 2303
2304
Commissioner Crommie: How do you want to proceed with Matadero? 2305
2306
Chair Reckdahl: We had this initial conversation with Elizabeth Ames. What's the next 2307
step? Is she going to talk to ... 2308
2309
Commissioner Crommie: She was going to talk to Daren. 2310
2311
Chair Reckdahl: She dug up some old planning and forwarded it on to us. 2312
2313
Commissioner Crommie: The documents that she has is a feasibility study that was done 2314
for the bridge across Highway 101. They looked (inaudible) Matadero when they were 2315
trying to figure out the alignment. I think she went back and dug out that study to try to 2316
see what the barriers are. 2317
2318
Mr. Anderson: I haven't reviewed that yet. I'd be glad to help both of you guys. We 2319
could review those together and see next steps. It'd probably be pulling in Santa Clara 2320
Water District and our Public Works team and have (inaudible). After we've identified 2321 (inaudible). 2322 2323 Chair Reckdahl: For now let's keep on working to Byxbee. We may fork this off into 2324
separate ad hocs. Looks like it's going to be time consuming. 2325
2326
Mr. Anderson: You're envisioning Matadero as part of the Byxbee one? 2327
2328
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, I think so. 2329
2330
Mr. Anderson: I'm thinking the Byxbee one's done. If you're talking about the interim 2331
plan (crosstalk). 2332
2333
Chair Reckdahl: I'm talking about the ad hoc. Not you, just the group. 2334
2335
Mr. Anderson: I see. 2336
2337
Draft Minutes 56
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: We may get shot down and this may go away. If it does go on, then 2338
we'll (crosstalk). 2339
2340
Mr. Anderson: Should I add it here as the Matadero Creek Undercrossing Committee 2341
with you and Commissioner Crommie? 2342
2343 Chair Reckdahl: I guess you can mark that down and keep that (inaudible). 2344
2345
Vice Chair Markevitch: Anything else? 2346
2347
Commissioner Ashlund: We should keep Project Safety Net as something that we have 2348
liaison with. 2349
2350
Chair Reckdahl: We have Project Safety Net (crosstalk). 2351
2352
Vice Chair Markevitch: We used to have a liaison to Project Safety Net for the executive 2353
committee on it. When they reorganized the committee, we were dropped off. 2354
2355
Chair Reckdahl: Can we get back on it? Do we want to get back on it? 2356
2357
Commissioner Ashlund: I'd like to propose that we get back on it. 2358
2359
Chair Reckdahl: I think that would be a good idea. 2360
2361
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's got to come from them, not us. 2362 2363 Commissioner Ashlund: The them is Minka and Donna. 2364 2365
Vice Chair Markevitch: What's actually the whole ... 2366
2367
Commissioner Ashlund: The leadership committee. 2368
2369
Vice Chair Markevitch: They just hired a new director. 2370
2371
Commissioner Crommie: Rob was instrumental in helping (inaudible). 2372
2373
Commissioner Ashlund: He's not (crosstalk). 2374
2375
Vice Chair Markevitch: Absolutely. He's (inaudible). 2376
2377
Chair Reckdahl: He asked or they asked? 2378
2379
Draft Minutes 57
DRAFT
Vice Chair Markevitch: I'm saying he's probably going to have to move off because he's 2380
too busy. 2381
2382
Commissioner Crommie: If someone from this Commission wants to do that, I think 2383
that's great, just to have those connections between our Commission and (crosstalk). 2384
2385 Commissioner Ashlund: I'd be glad to share that liaison with you if you want to stay on 2386
it. 2387
2388
Vice Chair Markevitch: No, go ahead. Five years is enough. 2389
2390
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, let's propose that you're the ad hoc of one. 2391
2392
Commissioner Ashlund: Is it an ad hoc or a follow up? 2393
2394
Commissioner Crommie: It's a liaison. 2395
2396
Chair Reckdahl: Liaison then. A liaison of one. We'll see if we can get you in the door. 2397
If you can't get in the door then (crosstalk). 2398
2399
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm already on the list. I was going to the next meeting and I've 2400
been pushing to get a director back in there for a long time. 2401
2402
Vice Chair Markevitch: Are you going to the DE meetings or also the executive board 2403
meetings? 2404 2405 Commissioner Ashlund: I wasn't on the leadership committee. 2406 2407
Vice Chair Markevitch: You need to get on the leadership committee. Push for that. 2408
2409
Commissioner Crommie: Do we need any other liaison types? Anything to do with the 2410
teen community, I remember there was Commissioner, what's Paul's last name? 2411
2412
Commissioner Hetterly: Roche. 2413
2414
Commissioner Crommie: Commissioner Roche went to some of the Teen Advisory 2415
Board committees. Does our Commission feel like we need to reach out more to the teen 2416
community or does Project Safety Net cover everything? It was reaching out to kids who 2417
were interested in local government, that kind of thing. 2418
2419
Commissioner Ashlund: I don't know. I've apparently got myself assigned on a new ... 2420
2421
Draft Minutes 58
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) 2422
2423
Commissioner Crommie: Are there any other needs around that that either of you can 2424
think of? 2425
2426
Commissioner Ashlund: I can't take more on than what I've already got at Gunn. 2427 2428
Commissioner Crommie: Pat, is there anything that you already serve for? 2429
2430
Vice Chair Markevitch: Mine's mostly PTA. It's not Teen Advisory. They can come to 2431
us with the yearly report, how they're doing (crosstalk). 2432
2433
Commissioner Ashlund: It would be great if somebody had time, interest, energy to do it. 2434
It would be great. I have the interest but not the time. 2435
2436
Vice Chair Markevitch: I went to that Senior Summit about a month ago. I loved it. 2437
They're only doing it every year, and I won't be on the Commission the next time it rolls 2438
around. Be nice of somebody else, if you want it. 2439
2440
Commissioner Crommie: That's another thing. You know you're not going to reappoint 2441
onto this Commission? 2442
2443
Vice Chair Markevitch: (crosstalk) 2444
2445
Commissioner Ashlund: Senior Summit as in seniors in high school or seniors over 65? 2446 2447 Vice Chair Markevitch: Seniors over 65. 2448 2449
Commissioner Crommie: That's another thing. I can just make an announcement here. 2450
I'm not going to reappoint. That's another thing, look for more fellow Commissioners. If 2451
you have other ... 2452
2453
Chair Reckdahl: When does your term expire? 2454
2455
Commissioner Crommie: This year. 2456
2457
Vice Chair Markevitch: October. 2458
2459
Commissioner Hetterly: December. They extended it to December. 2460
2461
Commissioner Lauing: They moved it again to December. Are we still talking about 2462
new things to go on the list? 2463
Draft Minutes 59
DRAFT
2464
Chair Reckdahl: Mm-hmm. 2465
2466
Commissioner Lauing: One of the things that I don't exactly know if this is in policy, but 2467
as you know from the CIP discussions, we're really concerned about the safety of the 2468
Foothills Park thing with that fire road issue. That should be a policy for our City to keep 2469 our citizens safe. I think it fits within policy. Is that something you'd be actually 2470
working on? 2471
2472
Commissioner Crommie: Can you give a little background? 2473
2474
Mr. Anderson: I can give you an update. That's a very good question. In 2009, the City 2475
completed the Foothills Fire Management Study. In that study was a bunch of 2476
recommendations and $740,000 worth of work. A lot of it was clearing vegetation on 2477
escape routes and internal parts of Foothills Park. Not just Foothills Park, all the way up 2478
Page Mill Road up to Skyline, Arastradero Road, and all these areas in that Foothills 2479
region. It called for a number of action items. The City sat idle with it for a number of 2480
years, because nobody could manage it. No one could get it going. Primarily it sat in the 2481
lap of Public Works just because they used to do roadside clearing. This has an element 2482
of roadside clearing, so they managed that CIP, but very little happened beyond what was 2483
originally done. The Fire Department was involved of course, and it still sat idle. 2484
Eventually all parties came together and we formed a partnership. This is the recent part 2485
that gets us to where we want to be. We formed the Fire Safety Council. It's a nonprofit 2486
organization that works well as a partner to us. We funnel the money from that CIP. We 2487
didn't get $750,000 to implement the plan. We got $250,000. It sat idle for about four 2488 years. We're just now exercising the last of those funds primarily through this 2489 partnership that's now set up where they contract out with various contractors like CalFire 2490 for example. They contract with their crews, and they come in and do this clearing that's 2491
called for in the plan. Through that partnership, we're now able to really utilize and meet 2492
the goals of that plan. Before we weren't. Now we've exhausted just about every bit of 2493
the funding that was leftover from that previous CIP. We put in a funding request 2494
ongoing for this one as a CIP. It was denied as you probably know. That was the 2495
concern. Your request for new funds was shot down, what are you going to do about it 2496
now? We went back as a team, we formed this group, I'm the Chair, with the Fire 2497
Department, Public Works, and Utilities and CSD. We meet every month to discuss this. 2498
We came up with a plan. We rehired the author of the fire plan to update it, give us fresh 2499
numbers, reprioritize the work that needs to be done, and help us form substantial, 2500
justifiable requests for funding. ASD said, "We don't think this is a CIP. We want this to 2501
go into your operating budgets." We divvied up the relevant portions and the inside the 2502
park fund request will come from CSD. It's about $74,000 a year. Outside the park, 2503
$64,000 or so for Public Works, that's the roadside clearing. Fire is requesting $60,000 a 2504
year for fire assessment, fuel load assessment, and implementing the control burns. 2505
Draft Minutes 60
DRAFT
Those are the three elements of the fire plan broken up for the departments. Now we've 2506
got the request in and we'll see what comes. Right now it's still on the plate and everyone 2507
understands the importance of it. Would it be valuable to have the Commission 2508
advocate? I think so, because during our meetings, ASD came to the meetings and said, 2509
"Give us a tiered approach." I understand this is what Carol Rice, the author of the plan, 2510
says you need to realize the goals. What would it be if we didn't quite get all the way 2511 there? What if we lowball? That was scary to hear that someone would put those options 2512
in this kind of scenario. I understand the need to ask the questions. We tried to formulate 2513
the answers in real impactful statements. If you went with Assumption B, you'd no 2514
longer have safety zones for police or fire and they're not going to come to the calls. 2515
Things along those nature. Your picnic areas are no longer safe for fire safety. We tried 2516
to formulate like that, and we'll see what comes. Maybe the answer is if we don't get the 2517
funding we requested, then we form a team to issue a memo. 2518
2519
Commissioner Lauing: We should be more proactive. We have a major safety problem 2520
in our biggest park. That seems to be a policy issue that we might want to chime in on. 2521
You guys have been shot down for years on this. For us to make a resolution that there 2522
are these three buckets in the budget, and Council needs to approve these three buckets 2523
for safety in our park. We'll get the wording right. It seems to me like quite an 2524
appropriate action for us to take in advance of the budget. It's not let's wait and see if we 2525
get turned down. 2526
2527
Mr. Anderson: I only say that because the budget is all happening right this minute. 2528
2529
Chair Reckdahl: How is the operating budget allocated? I know how the CIPs work. 2530 2531 Mr. Anderson: This comes from the General Fund of course. ASD reviews the request, 2532 the changes and deletions from all the different departments, looks at the overall poll and 2533
sees what's available and divvies it up based on the justifications. I think we've got a 2534
strong, strong argument for why we need to fund this, but it is an increase over what was 2535
asked for before. 2536
2537
Chair Reckdahl: ASD puts together the budget and submits it to the Council? 2538
2539
Mr. Anderson: The Finance Committee and then the Council. 2540
2541
Chair Reckdahl: This is really an issue for Finance Committee then. 2542
2543
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 2544
2545
Chair Reckdahl: Do we want to go to Finance Committee? Would that be easier 2546
(inaudible)? 2547
Draft Minutes 61
DRAFT
2548
Mr. Anderson: Maybe I can follow up. 2549
2550
Commissioner Lauing: We can do a resolution that goes to the Finance Committee too. 2551
Would that be helpful? 2552
2553 Mr. Anderson: Yes. 2554
2555
Commissioner Lauing: It seems to me like this is an action item for a Commission 2556
meeting, not an ad hoc or (inaudible) because you've got all the studies done. We just 2557
want to put our weight behind it that it is a big safety problem. 2558
2559
Council Member Filseth: I believe the 2016 budget issue (inaudible) Finance Committee 2560
in the next couple of months. (inaudible) I don't know if anybody else (inaudible). 2561
2562
Vice Chair Markevitch: I saw pictures of the Berkeley Hills from 1990. 2563
2564
Commissioner Lauing: I like the plan, that you've figured out a new way around the 2565
bottleneck. The risk now is that it's (crosstalk) it'll be ignored. 2566
2567
Commissioner Hetterly: We need a letter or a resolution then to come before the 2568
Commission as an action item. 2569
2570
Commissioner Lauing: Right. 2571
2572 Commissioner Crommie: We'll write a recommendation. 2573 2574 Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) directly to Finance Committee and the Council. 2575
2576
Commissioner Lauing: Which I think we missed Tuesday. So it's got to in tomorrow. 2577
Just because of the public nature of the general (inaudible). You're at least alerted to it, 2578
Eric. If it comes up sooner than that, raise your hand. 2579
2580
Council Member Filseth: I look for it in my inbox. 2581
2582
Mr. Anderson: The other thing I can find out is where ASD is now with the 2583
recommendation. Are they putting forward what we originally proposed? Are they 2584
putting down a tiered response? I don't know; I haven't heard. I can reach out to them 2585
and get that answer concurrent with drafting a memo. 2586
2587
Commissioner Lauing: I'm happy to work with you on that, however you want on that or 2588
not at all. I'd like to see it before it comes to us for a vote. 2589
Draft Minutes 62
DRAFT
2590
Commissioner Crommie: It seems really good that it's moving into the operating budget 2591
ultimately though. That's a no-frills environment. 2592
2593
Commissioner Lauing: It is as long as they don't start trimming here and there and those 2594
are the pieces that get trimmed. 2595 2596
Chair Reckdahl: The easiest way to cut something is to break it into three pieces and 2597
then cut the three pieces. We will put that for April (inaudible). 2598
2599
Council Member Filseth: How much is this going to cost? 2600
2601
Commissioner Lauing: Say again. 2602
2603
Council Member Filseth: How much was the ballpark that this was going to cost. 2604
2605
Mr. Anderson: The total request for annual budget is right around $150,000, $160,000 a 2606
year. 2607
2608
Commissioner Lauing: Per year? 2609
2610
Mr. Anderson: No, this is the entire thing. CSD is $74,000, something like that. 2611
2612
Commissioner Lauing: Instead of putting it into a multi-year CIP, it's now a smaller 2613
piece ... 2614 2615 Mr. Anderson: Ongoing budget. 2616 2617
Commissioner Lauing: ... in the ongoing budget. The same number ends up the same 2618
after four years or five years, doesn't it? 2619
2620
Mr. Anderson: Right. The difference is this would have been a new CIP. The old one 2621
had been funded for $250,000 to cover a certain number of years. 2622
2623
Commissioner Lauing: The only question is do you have a comfort level of getting it 2624
annually, so we're not keeping a high risk situation there for three years because you don't 2625
have enough to do a surge and get it all done at once. 2626
2627
Mr. Anderson: We had talked about that too. I was more comfortable with the CIP 2628
paradigm. It used to carry over whether you spent it all, so you frontload or save money 2629
for the next year if there was a bigger thing looming, like a cleanup year or something 2630
more heavy. ASD is getting away from those kind of projects becoming CIPs. They 2631
Draft Minutes 63
DRAFT
said, "This is no longer the kind of CIP we want. That'll be built into operating from now 2632
on." It's not something they're willing to do. Getting the funding is still great of course. 2633
If it needs to be in operating, we'll do it that way. 2634
2635
Commissioner Crommie: Is ASD Administrative Services Department? 2636
2637 Mr. Anderson: Yes. They're budgets and (crosstalk). 2638
2639
Chair Reckdahl: How much catch-up do we have to do with the fire? Are we in a steady 2640
state now or do we think that we're worse than our eventual goal to get into a steady 2641
state? 2642
2643
Mr. Anderson: We're (inaudible). We've made some really good strides this last year, 2644
just knocking out a lot of significant portions along Page Mill Road, and then inside 2645
Foothills Park. It looks very different in terms of the cutback or the lifting up of 2646
vegetation, the way it once was long ago and before it became all grown in and became 2647
this hazard. We're catching up is the answer. We're getting closer. 2648
2649
Chair Reckdahl: Ed, do you have anything else? The fire plan, is that the only item 2650
you'd like to add? 2651
2652
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. We picked up another one (inaudible) funding. 2653
2654
Commissioner Crommie: Another idea for the list, does anyone want to look at more 2655
camping sites in Foothills Park? Those of you who are on that 7.7 acres committee, do 2656 you think that our Commission needs to do any work on that? 2657 2658 Commissioner Hetterly: No. 2659
2660
Commissioner Knopper: Until the study comes back, because it may well lend itself to a 2661
campsite. 2662
2663
Commissioner Crommie: I wasn't meaning for that part of the park. Just in general. 2664
2665
Commissioner Lauing: The point is do we need more campsites. 2666
2667
Commissioner Crommie: Do we need more campsites in Foothills Park? I'm personally 2668
not in favor of them being (crosstalk). 2669
2670
Vice Chair Markevitch: I wouldn't even bring it up then. 2671
2672
Commissioner Crommie: Don't bring it up, okay. 2673
Draft Minutes 64
DRAFT
2674
Commissioner Knopper: We talked to (inaudible) about it when we doing the analysis. 2675
2676
Commissioner Crommie: There's a lot of demand for the Towle Campground, that's why 2677
I brought it up. 2678
2679 Chair Reckdahl: I think the problem is that if you wanted to do it, the question would be 2680
do you want to do it at the 7.7 acres. We don't know right now because of the hydrology 2681
study. 2682
2683
Commissioner Crommie: No. I wanted it to be disconnected. I'm just saying in general 2684
camping, not connected to the 7.7 acres. 2685
2686
Commissioner Hetterly: As a general issue, that comes up then in our prioritization 2687
discussion over the Master Plan, whether or not we want to prioritize that. 2688
2689
Commissioner Crommie: Okay, that's a good point. 2690
2691
Chair Reckdahl: Peter's not here. Do we know is the Master Plan addressing camping 2692
sites? 2693
2694
Mr. Anderson: I believe so. 2695
2696
Chair Reckdahl: I'll start. I've got a couple more to add. 2697
2698 Commissioner Crommie: Did we get through the first? 2699 2700 Chair Reckdahl: Project Safety Net we have. Another thing that I mentioned to Rob, and 2701
I wish I'd caught this before. This Friends group, I feel like we're unclear on what 2702
Friends groups do. I don't even know what all the Friends groups are. There's Friends of 2703
the Foothills Park. There's Friends of Park. 2704
2705
Vice Chair Markevitch: There's like 40 of them. 2706
2707
Commissioner Crommie: I saw a list once. 2708
2709
Commissioner Ashlund: We need a new one. We need Friends of the Baylands 2710
Interpretive Center. 2711
2712
Chair Reckdahl: I'd asked Rob if he could just give us a list of all the Friends groups that 2713
work our parks. He is not here now. 2714
2715
Draft Minutes 65
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: (crosstalk) 2716
2717
Commissioner Lauing: I vote that we don't have all 40 of them come to the meeting. 2718
2719
Vice Chair Markevitch: We just need a list. We don't need to make a whole big thing 2720
out of it. 2721 2722
Mr. Anderson: We can send you the list. 2723
2724
Chair Reckdahl: I'd like two things. I'd like to know the list of all the different Friends 2725
groups. I suspect some of them are more active than others. The other is that 2726
periodically if a Friends group is doing something new in the parks, it'd be nice for them 2727
to come back and have either an announcement at the end that Rob, when he gives his 2728
announcements, talks about parks. In the two years I've been on the Commission, never 2729
once have we mentioned what the Friends groups have done. Just a periodic update of 2730
what's going on with the Friends groups. 2731
2732
Commissioner Ashlund: Do you mean per park? Do you mean the Friends groups that 2733
are associated with parks? 2734
2735
Chair Reckdahl: Correct. 2736
2737
Commissioner Ashlund: I believe there's also one associated with recreation. 2738
2739
Chair Reckdahl: Parks and recreation. 2740 2741 Commissioner Ashlund: There's one that doesn't have park in its name. 2742 2743
Chair Reckdahl: Not that we want to micromanage what they're doing, but it'd be nice to 2744
know what they're doing. 2745
2746
Commissioner Ashlund: To know what's out there. Yeah, Palo Alto Recreation 2747
Foundation is still out there. They don't have Friends in their name. 2748
2749
Chair Reckdahl: Another thing we mentioned earlier with that grassy area off Colorado, 2750
whether we can use that for a dog park or community gardens or something like that. Are 2751
there other areas that are City land but not parkland and that we could use for purposes? 2752
2753
Mr. Anderson: In the context of looking for a place for dogs, that was the one that 2754
jumped out. I'm not familiar with too many others. Maybe one or two small spots. 2755
There's one behind the Baylands Athletic Center. It's an undeveloped piece of land. It is 2756
parkland. It's between the International School and us. It's a little small. 2757
Draft Minutes 66
DRAFT
2758
Vice Chair Markevitch: Do you mean where the batting cages may go? 2759
2760
Mr. Anderson: No. This is not in the former PASCO site. This is closer to the 2761
International School. 2762
2763 Vice Chair Markevitch: That's too bad. They'd be great ball retrievers. 2764
2765
Commissioner Lauing: Where is it relative to the softball field? 2766
2767
Mr. Anderson: Just on the other side of the fence towards the school. 2768
2769
Chair Reckdahl: The right field fence of the skinny field. There's an area back there 2770
that's just dead. 2771
2772
Mr. Anderson: It's small, so I don't know what could fit on it. It is a piece of land that's 2773
(crosstalk). 2774
2775
Chair Reckdahl: I'm not sure there's parking over there by the International School. 2776
2777
Vice Chair Markevitch: No, there's none. 2778
2779
Mr. Anderson: None. 2780
2781
Chair Reckdahl: There's none there? 2782 2783 Vice Chair Markevitch: Zero. The parents are parking in the post office lot to drop their 2784 kids off. 2785
2786
Mr. Anderson: The only thing that's put that on hold in my mind is as the levee moves 2787
over for the widening of the JPA project, it's compromising that whole area, how you 2788
even get to it. I almost want to see how it shakes out to know what the best use would be. 2789
That's another piece of land that we'd have. It's that lot. 2790
2791
Commissioner Crommie: The question of Sterling Canal is like finding real estate. 2792
2793
Chair Reckdahl: Sterling Canal's is owned by the City? 2794
2795
Mr. Anderson: There are easements in it according to Utilities. I have not seen the map. 2796
From what they say, there's a PG&E easement that runs down the middle. Although it's 2797
owned by the City, they've got that easement which is significant. They said there's three 2798
easements on that piece of land. 2799
Draft Minutes 67
DRAFT
2800
Vice Chair Markevitch: I've mentioned this to Deirdre before. Ramos Park is a great 2801
spot for a community garden. There's a big piece of land to the left side of it. 2802
2803
Commissioner Hetterly: A rectangular chunk. 2804
2805 Commissioner Crommie: I go there a lot to their dog meetings to check it out. They 2806
don't go over (inaudible). 2807
2808
Commissioner Hetterly: That's where I see them. 2809
2810
Commissioner Crommie: They would be closer (inaudible) I'd ever seen, the ones at 2811
Ramos Park. A place where a community garden I thought would be neat to look at 2812
would be that land that we have at Foothill and Arastradero. I think it's called an open 2813
space. Is that that Esther something? 2814
2815
Mr. Anderson: Esther Clark. 2816
2817
Commissioner Crommie: Esther Clark. I want to go check that out sometime. 2818
2819
Commissioner Ashlund: It's an interesting space. 2820
2821
Commissioner Crommie: It's an interesting space that's fully underutilized. I don't think 2822
anyone ever steps foot on it as far as I believe. 2823
2824 Chair Reckdahl: There's deer crossings there. 2825 2826 Mr. Anderson: There's paths that people use. There's not one utility on it. There's no 2827
amenities on it. 2828
2829
Chair Reckdahl: None of the paths are made. They're just ad hoc. 2830
2831
Commissioner Crommie: I was always interested in that for a community garden. 2832
2833
Mr. Anderson: I'm really hoping that the Master Plan will help with that. I just wrote in 2834
the notes on the maps that come out from Master Plan (inaudible). Opportunities where 2835
you've got 22 acres with not a single amenity on it. That's certainly an opportunity for a 2836
Friends group, for habitat restoration, for trail systems, for you name it. 2837
2838
Chair Reckdahl: For Esther Clark, are we constrained at all? That's considered general 2839
parkland that we can do anything we want? 2840
2841
Draft Minutes 68
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: Does it have any preservation ... 2842
2843
Mr. Anderson: It's open space parkland. 2844
2845
Commissioner Ashlund: Does it have any preserved status, any protective status to it? 2846
2847 Mr. Anderson: It's parkland, so it has ... 2848
2849
Commissioner Ashlund: It's just parkland. 2850
2851
Mr. Anderson: ... home facility zoning status like all our parks. It's very closely bounded 2852
by residences which makes it a little different than any of our other places. (inaudible) 2853
2854
Commissioner Crommie: I wanted to mention that (inaudible) the dog ad hoc committee. 2855
They just opened a new dog park in Los Altos Hills on Purissima. If anyone wants to 2856
check it out (inaudible) dog parks. I haven't been to it yet, but I've heard about it. It 2857
might be Los Altos Hills only dog park. 2858
2859
Chair Reckdahl: Turf? 2860
2861
Commissioner Crommie: I think it's dirt. It's near the baseball diamond on Purissima 2862
Road. There's a well-established park there. It's to the south of Arastradero and 2863
Purissima. 2864
2865
Chair Reckdahl: Arastradero? 2866 2867 Commissioner Crommie: The dog park is on Purissima Road, south of the intersection of 2868 Purissima and Arastradero Roads. 2869
2870
Chair Reckdahl: That's very close to (inaudible) 2871
2872
Commissioner Crommie: It's extremely close to Palo Alto, just blocks away. 2873
2874
Vice Chair Markevitch: Is there anything else? 2875
2876
Chair Reckdahl: The only thing that we've skipped over is the Master Plan. 2877
2878
Vice Chair Markevitch: It's ongoing. 2879
2880
Chair Reckdahl: It's ongoing, but it's ... 2881
2882
Commissioner Crommie: How about just the ad hocs, redoing them? 2883
Draft Minutes 69
DRAFT
2884
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk about the stakeholders group and community meetings. 2885
What's the status for community meetings. That is the outreach meeting. Will 2886
(inaudible)? 2887
2888
Commissioner Hetterly: No. There's prioritization meetings upcoming for both of those 2889 groups. Those first two ad hocs should still be engaged. The Master Plan Survey is 2890
completed. 2891
2892
Commissioner Ashlund: That's the only one that's complete, yes. 2893
2894
Commissioner Crommie: We can knock that one off the list. 2895
2896
Commissioner Ashlund: The stakeholders, we only had the one. 2897
2898
Mr. Jensen: We've had one stakeholder meeting while I was at a prioritization 2899
stakeholder meeting. There's three altogether, then there'll be one at the end that'll review 2900
the plan with the stakeholders. 2901
2902
Commissioner Ashlund: The schedule is ... 2903
2904
Vice Chair Markevitch: Stakeholders next week. 2905
2906
Mr. Jensen: It's not scheduled yet. It will coincide with the next community meetings 2907
which will be in a couple of months from now after we figure out our data thing in the 2908 prioritization stage, the main stage. 2909 2910 Chair Reckdahl: Our guess is fall timeframe. 2911
2912
Mr. Jensen: No, I'm going to say summer, June probably. 2913
2914
Vice Chair Markevitch: You don't have the dates up for that? 2915
2916
Mr. Jensen: No, I do not. 2917
2918
Commissioner Ashlund: We have the dates up for the Master Plan retreat? 2919
2920
Commissioner Hetterly: We do. 2921
2922
Commissioner Ashlund: We do? 2923
2924
Commissioner Knopper: We do. We've got a Google (inaudible). 2925
Draft Minutes 70
DRAFT
2926
Mr. Jensen: That was something Robin and I were talking about. Instead of having a 2927
separate retreat meeting like this one, use the majority of our next April meeting to do the 2928
Master Plan, basically do it at our scheduled meeting. Currently the agenda has a Byxbee 2929
Park trails item on it, and (crosstalk) ... 2930
2931 Mr. Anderson: Hold for April? 2932
2933
Mr. Jensen: Yes. Then the Parks Master Plan. It has two items basically. If we want to 2934
have it and segment it out a 2 1/2 hour segment or a 2 hour segment, or we just do the 2935
Master Plan stuff as a retreat. Daren can do his thing at the beginning. We'll move into 2936
the Master Plan thing and we'll just do it on the meeting night instead of having a totally 2937
separate meeting. That's a possibility. That's for you guys to discuss though, what you'd 2938
like to do. 2939
2940
Commissioner Crommie: As long as we don’t have a backlog of any other important 2941
stuff coming through the pipeline. Is there anything that ... 2942
2943
Mr. Jensen: No. The only thing is the Byxbee Park trail (inaudible). 2944
2945
Mr. Anderson: And this fire memo. 2946
2947
Commissioner Knopper: I like that idea. 2948
2949
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk after the meeting on Tuesday. 2950 2951 Commissioner Hetterly: Once we've looked at our binders. We can take them home 2952 today, right? 2953
2954
Mr. Jensen: Yes, you can. Or we can start practicing that stuff inside of it. 2955
2956
Chair Reckdahl: One more topic. Rob talked to me about this. We had the Junior 2957
Museum discussion last week, and I'm going to step on some toes. People were irritated 2958
with that and pushed back about the use encroaching into the park. (inaudible) 2959
2960
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's our goal: protect the parks. 2961
2962
Chair Reckdahl: The (inaudible) is that this is parkland and it is an appropriate use for 2963
parkland. That was their thinking. Just because this is a (inaudible) doesn't preclude 2964
them from using parkland. It's not like we're losing parkland. We're just using parkland 2965
for something else. 2966
2967
Draft Minutes 71
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: (crosstalk) makes any sense to me. 2968
2969
Chair Reckdahl: My response is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We love the 2970
Junior Museum. We think everything's great, but we just want to see them do everything 2971
they can to stay within the existing footprint. At that point, if we're convinced that they 2972
can't fit into the footprint, then we would consider going into the park. Does that 2973 correspond to other people's views? One of the questions was, would it be useful for us 2974
to have a tour of the Junior Museum and talk to them and see what they'd need? 2975
2976
Mr. Jensen: I would suggest that it doesn't have to be a tour where you could show up. 2977
That could be something like a meeting. I did suggest to John Akin that they start to 2978
spray paint or stake out there where they are proposing how far it pushes, so you can 2979
develop the rendering of that side of the zoo and see it better and how it relates to the 2980
park. It will help to stand in the space and see how big it is out there or what that area is. 2981
Like I said, that area of the park is not any usable space. 2982
2983
Chair Reckdahl: What I told Rob is that I'm not concerned about the usable space right 2984
now, but 30 years from now as the population grows and our parklands don't grow. I'm 2985
concerned that we have all these straws on the back of a camel growing and everyone 2986
taking 10 feet here and 10 feet there. We may have some decisions that we regret. 2987
2988
Commissioner Lauing: I'll answer your question. First of all, we can't be muzzled on 2989
something that has to do with parks. That's not in the feedback. We have to be stewards 2990
of the park. Anytime that there's incremental usage or even a review of reconstruction 2991
and they're already on parks, we have to consider what other uses 5, 10, 15, 20 years. 2992 There couldn't be anything that's more in our jurisdiction than this type of thing. 2993 2994 Mr. Jensen: I think your question is about encroachment into the park and the size of it. 2995
Those are legitimate questions. That's what you should be asking them. That's the whole 2996
process. 2997
2998
Commissioner Lauing: Right. Some of the questions that I asked and others asked is do 2999
we need that much office space in there? Can that be separate or smaller or maybe 3000
(crosstalk)? 3001
3002
Vice Chair Markevitch: Two stories. 3003
3004
Commissioner Lauing: Or storage or some of the outbuilding places. I don't know the 3005
answer because I'm not the expert. They can work on that. You can work on that. If it's 3006
going to be a wish list, which in my judgment that's what I see right now is a wish list and 3007
a two story and all that, then I'd make a radical question of did you consider other places 3008
for it? It's a wonderful, wonderful resource, a unique one, for Palo Alto. If you can't 3009
Draft Minutes 72
DRAFT
really shoehorn that wish list in there, then what else can you do to fix that a little bit? 3010
There's the whole size of the design, which the Architectural Review Board looked at this 3011
week and they were not very pleased with the actual architecture. They gave a pushback 3012
on that, changing the size and the kind of lacquer. It was in the Weekly this morning. 3013
3014
Mr. Jensen: They want it to be more playful. Their comments were based on the façade 3015 and the way that the exterior façade looked. They thought they were laid out okay. One 3016
of them suggested pushing further into the park. If they needed more room, that would 3017
mean that they (crosstalk). 3018
3019
Council Member Filseth: (crosstalk) just on the procedure here. I think what you said is 3020
right. I think that's what I expect the Architectural Review Board to look at in terms of 3021
the design. I actually am not sure who in the City looks at the site, because on 3022
commercial projects the ARB doesn't have okay. The Planning and Transportation 3023
Commission doesn't seem like the corporeal body in this case. I think it's between the 3024
staff (inaudible). This group, like you said, this is the sweet spot of parks and rec issues. 3025
We all like John Akin. He's a big vision guy. It's all well and good to ask him to go and 3026
see if he can use a little less park space and so forth. Either of which is (inaudible). This 3027
group is going to have to decide (inaudible) or not. 3028
3029
Vice Chair Markevitch: I also suspect we were the first group to push back. Everybody 3030
else was, "Oh, this is great." We were the first ones to do it. If they get upset, that's just 3031
too bad. I'm not insulted by it at all. 3032
3033
Mr. Jensen: I don't think they're upset in any type of way. That's why I (crosstalk). 3034 That's why the exhibits that you were looking at did show all those things. That was not 3035 really a part of the original things that you guys were supposed to look at. I thought you 3036 should see the footprint now, the footprint overlaid with the new (inaudible) related to the 3037
property lines. Those things are in your purview. Your purview really is to say, "Yes, 3038
you can't have that piece of parkland." They have to do more due diligence to prove that 3039
that is a legitimate thing, to push the parkland. 3040
3041
Commissioner Knopper: I liked your suggestion, Peter, that they stake out or spray out 3042
(crosstalk) ... 3043
3044
Mr. Jensen: That would definitely help out (crosstalk). 3045
3046
Commissioner Knopper: ... would help. To the ARB's point that having that façade, that 3047
wall thing. It was very imposing, office-like, facing the park. From a design perspective, 3048
again this is probably not our purview, but they have some sort of exhibit facing out to 3049
the park that kids can interact with on that portion. They need to start thinking out of the 3050
box like that, so maybe it becomes part of the park activity, whatever is happening on that 3051
Draft Minutes 73
DRAFT
back wall. Maybe the BOT, the advising body, we would say, "Oh, okay, we see this 3052
because this now has added value to the park." 3053
3054
Mr. Jensen: That is the one key aspect of the design of the zoo as proposed now. It does 3055
connect itself visually to the park, which currently it does not. Currently, it just looks 3056
like it could be someone's house back over there by the fence. That was a main idea of 3057 the long range plan, how do we communicate what these amenities are around the park so 3058
people understand that those things are there. Developing that and understanding what 3059
happens along that façade or veneer of the zoo and how the bathroom building and the 3060
back of house building all work, how it interrelates to the park itself. It needs to be 3061
explored more and developed more. If it is going to push in there more, then there are 3062
things that we can look at to make it look like it's more seamless into the park, so you're 3063
maybe not losing more space there. Maybe there's more green roofs on that side that you 3064
can access somehow or something like that. 3065
3066
Commissioner Ashlund: Peter, that design's not set in stone at this point, right? 3067
3068
Mr. Jensen: No, it is not. This is just going through the process of the design. All our 3069
feedback (crosstalk). 3070
3071
Commissioner Ashlund: Did they hear our feedback that we'd like to see alternative 3072
proposals that maybe used less park space, ideally no park space. Are we asking them to 3073
do that? Are they willing to do that or are they just saying we're meanies? 3074
3075
Mr. Jensen: I think they're now going to develop plans that look at how they can reduce 3076 the impact into the park. That's definitely one of the things that they got here. 3077 3078 Commissioner Crommie: To me it comes down to this idea of "we're using up park 3079
space, so we're going to mitigate it by making something slightly interactive on the back 3080
of the building." To me, that doesn't cut it. What really cuts it is an alternative plan that 3081
doesn't use up as much space. You can have your one plan that uses up the space and 3082
then you mitigate it by making that connection. 3083
3084
Mr. Jensen: Again, it's about looking at what that space is used for now. You can't lose 3085
sight of the fact that that space is (crosstalk). 3086
3087
Commissioner Crommie: I don't buy that argument. Even if it's not being used now, that 3088
doesn't mean it can't be used. 3089
3090
Commissioner Ashlund: Open space is valuable in its own right. 3091
3092
Draft Minutes 74
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: Yes. You can always envision uses for space. By just saying 3093
it's not used now; therefore, we should use it for this building, that's not a valid argument. 3094
Also the argument that we're just doing more park activities in the park, so let us come 3095
into your park, that's a different use of the land to have a building on it. 3096
3097
Mr. Jensen: Yes, the part that they're expanding to. The Zoo sites in the park, so that is 3098 part of the park. 3099
3100
Commissioner Crommie: We understand that. I understand that it sites in the park, but it 3101
doesn't mean that it just has carte blanche opportunity to go further into the park, just 3102
because it already sits there. 3103
3104
Vice Chair Markevitch: This isn't the right body to be talking to. 3105
3106
Commissioner Hetterly: We have 8 minutes left. Are we done with the agenda? 3107
3108
Chair Reckdahl: I think we're done with everything except this list. 3109
3110
Mr. Jensen: They are going to develop more plans and respond to your comments about 3111
the expansion into the park. 3112
3113
Commissioner Knopper: Since we're talking about Rinconada Park. I was walking by 3114
there the other day. There was a temporary structure built. It was like a ... 3115
3116
Mr. Jensen: Greenhouse? 3117 3118 Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, or a ... 3119 3120
Mr. Jensen: A sustainable house? 3121
3122
Commissioner Knopper: Right. This sign says, "Oh, people 2012" or whatever. Why is 3123
it just sitting there empty now? 3124
3125
Mr. Anderson: I think they're just looking for a place to use it. I had heard a bunch of 3126
different ideas thrown about. I don't know the current status on it. We can follow up and 3127
get back to you. 3128
3129
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah. It looks dumpy and unloved. It's just there. 3130
3131
Vice Chair Markevitch: (inaudible) how to put things in the binder? 3132
3133
Draft Minutes 75
DRAFT
Mr. Jensen: Yes. These are your binders. They're tabbed to the different sections that 3134
correlate to that matrix that we were talking about. Some of the sections don't have 3135
anything in them yet, like prioritization workshops don't have anything for their tab. I'm 3136
going to give you, which I think you've received already as far as the packet goes, the 3137
survey summary information. I've got that printed out here. I don't know what section 3138
that is. Section 10. If you look at the sheets in the front, the numbers tell you what each 3139 section is. 3140
3141
Commissioner Lauing: Survey results 14? 3142
3143
Mr. Jensen: Yes, 14 is (inaudible). It took some time to put together. All day yesterday, 3144
I had two people in my office building them. Let's just pass it around and you guys can 3145
add it in there. The green binders are easier to use than the white binders because of the 3146
mechanism of the clip. You're supposed to be putting this in Tab 14. 3147
3148
Commissioner Hetterly: While we're doing this, if we're done with the regular agenda, 3149
(crosstalk). 3150
3151
Chair Reckdahl: We are done with the agenda unless ... 3152
3153
Commissioner Hetterly: I just wanted to raise the Brown Act. I don't know how recently 3154
you've had Brown Act training. A very tricky area of the Brown Act is the serial meeting 3155
issue. There's been a lot of confusion for the Commissioners about how that works. I 3156
just wanted to remind everybody to go to your training. Also at serial meetings where 3157
you run into trouble is you can't talk to more than two other Commissioners about any 3158 particular topic that's in our jurisdiction. 3159 3160 Mr. Jensen: Everyone's got 14? 3161
3162
None. 3163
3164
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3165 3166
None. 3167
3168
VI. ADJOURNMENT 3169
3170
Meeting adjourned at 2:45pm. 3171
Draft Minutes 76
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
March 24, 2015 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13
Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: 15
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
None. 22
23
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 24
25 None. 26 27 IV. BUSINESS: 28 29
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 24, 2015. 30 31
Approval of the draft February 24, 2015 Minutes was moved by Vice Chair Markevitch 32
and seconded by Commissioner Hetterly. Passed 7-0 33
34
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
2. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan to Include a 35
Review of the Community Survey Summary and Park Existing Conditions 36
Maps. 37
38 Chair Reckdahl: We have the MIG consultants. Thank you for coming down. This is a 39
two-hour chunk of time, so hopefully it will be very productive. You can start with your 40
presentation. 41
42
Rob de Geus: Just a quick comment. We don't have to take two hours if we get through 43
more quickly. It is actually pretty rich information in this survey. Most of all, the 44
Commission did a great deal of work in helping prepare the survey and get it ready for 45
public consumption. I don't know if you remember, but we spent a whole afternoon 46
reworking the survey, making sure that it had the questions that we really needed and 47
wanted. That was well worth it, because we had over 1,000 respondents. Pretty 48
interesting information that we're going to discuss tonight. We do have a presentation. 49
We welcome back Ryan and Ellie from MIG. We'll have them start off. Thank you. 50 51 Ryan Mottau: Thank you again for having me here, Chair Reckdahl and all of you 52 members of the Parks and Rec Commission. We wanted to reserve a chunk of time here, 53 because I know that this is an important topic for you all and there's a lot of information 54
provided. I want to start off with a quick explanation of what you're seeing in front of 55
you. It's been a little while, and we've taken this step back to pull a bunch of data 56
together. You've got your binders in hand now that include a lot of background 57
information organized more specifically by reference numbers and sections as explained 58
in the first sheet there. This is already inserted into your binders from the retreat, so you 59
have that information. The summary is in front of you for the survey at this point. We're 60
calling it Initial Summary because it is the first of two steps of digging into this 61
information. We wanted to make sure to get a chance to talk with you all about what 62
information might need some further clarification. We've talked about from the start of 63
this process, this survey effort was going to involve getting as many responses as we 64
could, but then also doing a breakdown of those responses to rebalance for 65
representativeness across the population. We're going to talk about that a little bit at the 66
end of this presentation. What I really want to do is go over a few points that stood out to 67
us as we went through this process of breaking down all of these results; and also ask you 68
all if there are things, either from the points that I’m going to bring up this evening or the 69
charts that I'm going to bring up or from any of the other questions, that you would like to 70
discuss with us while we're here and set you off on a path to review this a little more. We 71 will dig into that last little bit about the quota-based analysis. As Rob said, this survey 72
was a joint effort. We administered it per the scope request with the web service that the 73
City has subscribed to as part of our original plan from the start. We got a chance to 74
really dig in both with your ad hoc committee and with the full PRC to make sure the 75
questions addressed the topics that were close to your priorities and making sure that we 76
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
got to the response we wanted and also to give you guys some time to provide feedback 77
about how to get the word about that. I want to say, echoing again what Rob said, that 78
we really feel like that was a big success; 1,164 responses once we had culled the limited 79
number of duplicates that inevitably happen, people hitting submit twice, that kind of 80
thing. We did not see any evidence in our review of quality control of any people who 81
had taken this survey lots of times or tried to load down a particular answer. I have no 82 concerns about the quality of this information as we move forward. Just to give a quick 83
profile of who responded. This is the entire set of responses. What you'll see here are 84
percentages all based on that 1,164 number with a couple of very limited exceptions that 85
are really representing out of the number of people who responded to this survey overall 86
is how we can look at these percentages. Overall the general respondent profile was 87
primarily people identifying as living in Palo Alto. We have the racial and ethnic 88
breakdown compared against the American Community Survey. If you aren't familiar 89
with that, between decennial census they do the estimates and updates for updated 90
information. This is the most current census information aligned here with that 91
breakdown for the entire survey count. Also looking at a couple of key questions, which 92
were very important to you all, making sure that we were including those parents with 93
children in the household or youth in the household. We had asked that question on our 94
survey in detail, what age groups do you have children in. We also aggregated that so 95
that we could do a quick comparison to what the ACS shows the overall community 96
breakdown is. Where we came out on that point is that we actually got a little bit 97
stronger response from the households with children. It actually flip flopped that overall 98
demographic in terms of what the ACS shows. We had 35 percent of households in Palo 99
Alto with children, 66 percent of our overall survey respondents have children of any age 100
in their household. Just to point out here, the math on the upper table here, which I'm 101 assuming you guys are seeing on your screens as well. On the upper table here, just to 102 note that these people were allowed to answer for multiple categories, and so the math on 103 the county column will not add up to 100, but the math on the percentage column will 104
also not because of the basis on the 1,164 responses. There is a double counting in that, 105
but not in the lower set there. Moving on to the meat of this. The summary presents 106
upfront, after the profile of what this survey is, a breakdown of some, as we called them, 107
themes and key findings. The two categories of what we really drew out of these results 108
overall. Themes being things that we saw across a wide set of questions. We tried to pin 109
those down so that you could see where those themes were being drawn out of, 110
referencing specifically to the different graphs that addressed those questions. In a 111
second section within that, what we labeled as strong findings on some key issues. So 112
drawing out from the topics that you have pointed out, that Staff has pointed out, the 113
community has pointed out are very important, starting to find those particularly strong 114
results. By strong I mean really looking at the things that look overwhelmingly 115
supportive . We are not trying to split hairs here, it's not 50 percent versus 51 percent. 116
We are looking at things that are more like overall 75 percent of people were supportive. 117
We are looking at things that overall 75 percent of people were supportive. Thinking 118
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
about those, one of the topics that hit, and this chart covers a couple of different points. 119
You also have a handout. I will note that it goes through all of these graphs with a little 120
bit more detail. They have the raw numbers of responses in each category. Looking at 121
this graph, there were a couple of these strong findings that we identified. The topic of 122
water conservation as part of the overall sustainability questions that we asked really did 123
garner a lot of support. There were many strongly supporting responses to things like 124 expanding the use of recycled water and reducing the turf grass where it is not needed for 125
sports use. On a related note, on that same graph there are a couple of questions related 126
to the choice of using or not using artificial turf on athletic fields. It has some 127
sustainability implications on both sides. Artificial turf fields as noted in the question can 128
reduce the watering needs compared to a natural turf fields, but the support overall in the 129
community was stronger for avoiding artificial turf fields in favor of natural grass which 130
also allowed for drainage and reduces the need for the plastics and rubbers and things in 131
that environment. Overall we were seeing in this context of sustainability and water 132
conservation not as much support for artificial turf. Onto Graph 6. This question was 133
really tying into improvements to parks generally across the system to make those visits 134
more comfortable and convenient. This captured a variety of topics including one that 135
has been a perennial favorite here, which is the restroom topic, adding restrooms into 136
some of your park facilities. What we heard overall really was a pretty overwhelming 137
response. Over 80 percent of the people responding to this survey said that it was either a 138
4 or a 5, with 5 being very important, 1 being not important on our rating scale. This 139
came in with a group of amenities that we were actually hearing a lot about in other 140
venues as well. Restrooms come up in a lot of our meetings and our public forums as did 141
seating and shade, which both polled well here and really got the kind of support. I'll 142
note in addition to the blues on the charts, we're also looking at the red and the orange 143 which are very small in a lot of those areas. There's a fairly good chunk of people who 144 are a little bit more undecided, but there's a very strong voice in support and a very small 145 voice that says it wouldn't be appropriate. These are feeling like the kinds of findings 146
that we could take action based on and really put some support behind. The next graph is 147
Graph 8, if you're following along elsewhere on the summary. Thinking about the ways 148
to address dogs within parks; another topic that we know has been very important. With 149
all of the responses considered, the strong responses really came on the positive side from 150
improving where you have existing dog parks and the strong negative, or the strong not 151
appropriate, response came on the off-leash answer in non-fenced areas. We specifically 152
asked it and made the clarifying point, which gets cut off on this caption, that it would 153
require a change to our current City policy around this if that was to be a solution. 154
There's a lot more people saying that that would not be an appropriate solution from the 155
overall set. We have done a little bit of preliminary breaking down of this for dog owner 156
versus non-dog owner, which seems the logical next step of looking at this question. 157
Predictably what we see on the how parts of this question, the second, third and fourth 158
answers, you really see almost a complete flip-flop, that dog owners are more in support 159
of all of the above options with no one clear frontrunner. Non-dog owners basically 160
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
saying none of those seem as appropriate as improving existing dog parks. The one thing 161
I will say is that both agreed in general and across the board, looking in the specific 162
categories, that doing nothing, the no additional dog parks answer, was inappropriate for 163
both dog owners and non-dog owners. That was a useful finding. While it doesn't 164
necessarily clarify from the population as a whole what should be our immediate 165
solution, it does provide some guidance about what did not test well. These were 166 questions about some recreation programming options that are based on the categories of 167
programming options that are offered and match up to general categories that we've used 168
in other situations to capture the range of common recreation programs. Thinking about 169
the enhancement or addition of the following programs, this is not a question about the 170
quality of the existing program or whether it should exist, but should we be adding to it, 171
should we be improving it. The top testing items here with the most importance 172
attributed to them were gym-based sports and then in no particular order fitness classes, 173
social events and spaces, and clubs and classes organized around interests. The general 174
interest classes with lesser support, less importance placed on martial arts and fitness 175
equipment or weight room spaces. In parallel, thinking about the services and activities 176
that are provided by the various providers and spaces at Cubberley Community Center, 177
we see a parallel in that the importance placed on outdoor sports and indoor sports and 178
health programs at that facility with closely following some reflection of the unique role 179
that building or that facility plays in the system. The senior wellness, stroke and 180
cardiovascular programs as well as the rooms for rent for other activities, all of those 181
tenants that have provided the variety of services across the board. Across all these 182
categories there really is quite a bit of importance placed on each of the things. The 183
categories being based on the groupings of things that are currently being offered there as 184
well, thinking about the long-term future of that facility. Jumping back a little bit to 185 some of the broader patterns and some of the broader themes, I had a couple more points 186 that I wanted to draw out. One is the overall importance placed on the ways and methods 187 to connect people with nature, to bring nature and sustainable practices into our park 188
system. The natural paths and nature play both tested very positively when asked about 189
the ways to bring some of these features closer to people. That's a finding that we can 190
use. Thinking about overall additions and improvements to achieve health and well being 191
in community members across Palo Alto, a lot of options here. This topic overall 192
resonated very strongly with people, but some of the specific ones reflect national, 193
California, local trends around the self-directed activities. Bicycling, walking and 194
jogging in a park, going and enjoying a park in a quiet or more contemplative or 195
connected to nature kind of way, and those nature activities. All of those things really do 196
match up to national and regional trends around what people are using their park systems 197
for. One of our big questions that we wanted to get a little bit of preliminary 198
prioritization and ranking around. In Graph 16, this question asked folks to rank this list 199
of options in order. The color coding here is a little bit different than the other questions. 200
Starting from the left, the blues represent the highest rankings. That scale is backwards, I 201
apologize. Oh, the color reversed. I'm sorry. In my PowerPoint, the color reversed from 202
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
what it is on the actual chart. I'm looking at one and reading off the other. The bars are 203
actually correct. From left to right, we are seeing ranked 1, ranked 2, ranked 3, ranked 4, 204
ranked 5. The legend that is showing on the PowerPoint is incorrect. I apologize about 205
that. The overall highest ranking item, to cut to the chase, was to invest in enhancing and 206
improving neighborhood parks across the City, really distributing that benefit across. I'm 207
losing my space here. 208 209
Commissioner Crommie: Ryan, we can follow it on our sheets. That's fine. 210
211
Mr. Mottau: I'm sorry. I'm trying to track on my laptop which is not matching what I'm 212
seeing. Looking at some other options popping up in this. This brings us to a point that 213
I’m sure will come up in some of your minds about other questions, other responses to 214
some of these other questions. One of the things I want to note is that in almost all cases, 215
except for where we just asked an open-ended question, where people could write in their 216
thoughts and comments which is the final chart in your summary, these other responses, 217
while they often rank highly, are based on a relatively smaller number of responses. I 218
don't want you to necessarily line those up in your mind because you've got a percentage 219
of people saying that this other choice is 30 percent of the people ranking it number 1. 220
That represents a pretty broad range of responses and that 30 percent is a smaller number 221
than 30 percent of the people who ranked the overall question. When thinking about 222
percentages on those open-ended other questions, let's not give them quite the same 223
influence as your other results. 224
225
Chair Reckdahl: Would it be possible to see these results? I'm talking about Graph 16. 226
227 Mr. Mottau: The other answers? 228 229 Chair Reckdahl: Not so much that. The problem is that if you ranked other number 1, 230
then your number 2 has less influence on the top five. 231
232
Mr. Mottau: I see what you mean. Removing other as an option to get a sense of the 233
other questions. 234
235
Chair Reckdahl: The people who put other for number 1 ranked their number 2 as a 236
number 1. Now we can see not so much their views over all issues, but just an apples to 237
apples comparison. 238
239
Mr. Mottau: Zero it down into the defined choices. 240
241
Chair Reckdahl: Exactly. 242
243
Mr. Mottau: Okay. That's a good clarification. I appreciate that. 244
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
245
Chair Reckdahl: That's possible to do? 246
247
Mr. Mottau: Yes, yes. That shouldn't be a problem at all. We will take note of that. 248
249
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 250 251
Commissioner Crommie: On this graph number 16, there are 85 people that ranked 252
something other number 1. Did they coalesce? 253
254
Mr. Mottau: A pattern in those? No. 255
256
Commissioner Crommie: A pattern. 257
258
Mr. Mottau: No. There was a pretty wide range of responses here. It echoed a lot of the 259
things which we will talk about on the final point. My observation of surveying in 260
general and of the results in this survey was that when people had the opportunity to write 261
things in, the patterns that we saw were basically the same question to question to 262
question. If they were passionate about dog parks, they were writing in dog parks all the 263
way across the board. If they were passionate about getting more sports fields on the 264
ground, that was what we were seeing written in across the board. The patterns are best 265
represented when you're looking at your overall set of charts, the last chart in the packet. 266
It's not the last chart in this packet. I have the last chart in this set that is the overall 267
open-ended responses. It's the last chart in your summary. It's on the last page of your 268
overall summary. What this shows across all of the open-ended responses is what the 269 patterns really were for people responding. The way that we dug into that was we looked 270 through all 500-plus open-ended responses and started tagging them with individual 271 markers for topics. As we started doing that for all of them, we aggregated those into 272
some groups. These are the groups that resulted from that. In answer to your question, 273
Commissioner Crommie, this pattern followed in the other open-ended questions, but we 274
can provide the open-ended ideas much like we did for that final question on the 275
summary. 276
277
Commissioner Hetterly: Did you do the same thing with the open-ended response from 278
the Mapita? 279
280
Mr. Mottau: We did. I'm trying to remember. 281
282
Commissioner Hetterly: We have a huge list that's broken down (crosstalk). 283
284
Mr. Mottau: There were a lot of different open-ended questions in that effort. I'd have to 285
go back and look. Specifically, we did have a general, overall comment. I believe that 286
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
we did do a summary of what we heard in that. Otherwise, a lot of the open-ended 287
comments were designated specifically to a park. The way that we illustrated those was 288
around the park. I can go back and check that. 289
290
Commissioner Hetterly: If you have it, I think it would be helpful to see. I thought this 291
was useful. 292 293
Mr. Mottau: Yeah, sure. 294
295
Commissioner Crommie: If you calculate the percentage of people that didn't rank one of 296
the things that we gave them as number 1, it gives you a sense of the confidence people 297
have in the survey, that we're hitting upon something they care about. Just a rough 298
calculation, 10 percent or so might not have thought that we hit it right for something 299
they really care about. It'd be good to notice that kind of breakdown. 300
301
Mr. Mottau: Okay. We'll take a look at that with those couple of comments in mind. 302
Like I said, this is the initial version. We want to bring you back a little bit further 303
analysis on this set. That's helpful information for us. Let me just run through one or 304
two more graphs here. The question around the Baylands property, this is Graph 17 if 305
you're looking at your set. Asking again the appropriateness of different options as we go 306
through this. A strong response to mainly two different responses which were the 307
additional sports fields or expanding essentially the function of that site now. The other 308
one, which was an idea that surfaced in other ways, was a natural area for hiking or bird 309
watching which really expands on the theme of the golf course redevelopment. I do 310
believe that between those two not only is there a good indication of some ideas, but also 311 things that are very compatible with that site based on our information so far. I think that 312 that's a useful finding. I have the opportunity here for more comments about things that 313 you found interesting. I would like to ask you all if you would like to talk about the 314
quota sampling process first or point out other things that you found interesting through 315
your review of this survey so far that we could use as we're refining and revising. Let me 316
give a quick run. This is not a long section. I tried to keep this presentation short, 317
because I really do want to field any questions you have and then go from there. The 318
basic premise, as you probably noticed, is when we look at the overall results, out of our 319
1,164 people who responded to this survey, the demographic characteristics don't match 320
very closely. They match fairly closely but not exactly to the census information that we 321
provided. One of the questions that we've been asked a couple of times, and we've asked 322
but now have the process in hand for you with our data, is how do we use these responses 323
with some confidence that we are seeing a representative group of our population. The 324
overall methodology is around taking that large sample and breaking it down, using a 325
research method known as quota sampling, to take a sample out of that population 326
randomly that matches certain characteristics that are known about the overall population. 327
The characteristics that are best known about the overall population based on census data 328
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
that seem most relevant to this overall survey are that race and ethnicity breakdown and 329
the children in the household. Those were the ones that I chose to present about this. I 330
think that the questions that we have heard, the concerns that we've all expressed about 331
let's make sure that we get as representative an answer as we can, center on are we talking 332
about people who have kids, people who don't have kids, are we capturing a 333
representative view of the population as a whole. What we propose to do here and what 334 we wanted to get your buy-in on before we went down this path was that we take from 335
this larger sample a sample of about 400 responses that are randomly balanced for these 336
demographic criteria. Essentially working to, as I said, rebalance or negate any over-337
representation of different demographic groups that were over-represented in the larger 338
sample. This will bring us to a very close match to the overall demographics. The 339
difference between these would give us a sense of do these overall results really vary 340
from what we would see if we had managed to sample the entire population and we were 341
matched up to that census population. That inevitably raises some questions as we start 342
getting into this. What we would like to know overall is if you have specific questions 343
about that method or if there are other criteria or if there are criteria that you're curious 344
but seem more relevant or these may be just work as we go forward. This is a proposal to 345
you. It's one of the things that we promised as part of the original scope, to come back 346
through and do some post-sampling analysis on this to rebalance. Our process and 347
method would be to randomly select based on these criteria. I wanted to put that question 348
out there. Of course, I'm happy to field any other questions about survey findings, 349
especially if there are ones that you would like to call out as particularly interesting or 350
relevant to your discussions. 351
352
Chair Reckdahl: I have one question about this. If you added one more criteria, what 353 would be the next when you look at correlations. 354 355 Mr. Mottau: If we were to add one more? 356
357
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 358
359
Mr. Mottau: In terms of the demographics that we asked, I would probably ... 360
361
Chair Reckdahl: We don’t have income? That was not asked? 362
363
Mr. Mottau: We don't have income. We intentionally did not ask income. It's a question 364
that tends to bump people out of the survey. They don't like to answer it. Especially 365
when we were asking so many questions, we didn't want to ask anything that was going 366
to make people uncomfortable about finishing the questionnaire. We don't have income. 367
We do have one other option that I would consider, some basic breakdown of the overall 368
population around the City. We did ask where people live by neighborhood. In the 369
summary you'll see that we broke that down preliminarily based on the breakdown that 370
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
we most commonly heard in the community and have seen overall, which is that 371
north/south along the Oregon Expressway. We took all of the neighborhoods in the north 372
and all the neighborhoods in the south and provided a summary overall of that. I would 373
say that an either/or separation like that would be possible. The only challenge to that is I 374
don't have currently, because the census won't break this down for me, a solid population 375
known number for the population north of Oregon Expressway versus south. I wouldn't 376 want to run this process with all pretty well established and known data and not the other. 377
378
Chair Reckdahl: Before we go to Commission questions, we have one public speaker. 379
Shani Kleinhaus. After she completes, then we'll have questions from the 380
Commissioners. 381
382
Commissioner Lauing: We may want to decide if we want to deal with this question first 383
or the survey comments first and then this question. 384
385
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Shani, you have two minutes. 386
387
Shani Kleinhaus: Good evening, Commission, staff and consultants. Wonderful. So 388
many people responded. It's unbelievable. These things don't happen. What it does tell 389
me is that anyone in Palo Alto who wanted to respond knew about it. You don't need to 390
go that way. You have all the responses. You have enough people who participated, and 391
it doesn't look like anybody who wanted to voice their opinion did not have a chance. If 392
you had 200 responses, that would make sense. When you have over 1,000, it doesn't. 393
You don't need to go to that scope, my opinion. I did take a lot of statistics when I was 394
doing my Ph.D. The other thing I wanted to say is a few comments on some of the 395 results. One thing is that I'm very happy to see all the support for nature in natural areas 396 as well as in the City. This is something that we are always saying to people, but there is 397 no data to support that. I've seen that recently in Cupertino when the city completely, 398
overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to create something that they didn't like in a park. 399
We see that generally, and thank you to the community. I'm extremely impressed with 400
that. There are two things that won a lot of points here. I wanted to just say one little 401
thing about loop trails and nature play. Those things are really important, if you don't 402
stick them where they don't belong. Nature play really belongs in urban parks, not in 403
nature. In nature, they can play in nature; you don't need to build something for it. This 404
came really strongly in Cupertino when their proposal to create nature play in natural 405
areas, and the community just said, "No way. Why do that? We can have nature there. 406
We don't need to create and build something for that." The other one is the loop trails. 407
They're really good and they're really important, but you have to be careful that the 408
people walking around don't see each other. They see nature. If the loop trail is such that 409
it's too close, instead of seeing the animals and birds or whatever else is there the people 410
just see each other. That's what you do downtown where you look at people and not at 411
nature. Just pay attention to the location as it moves forward. I'll help you with that as 412
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
well. Thank you. This is a wonderful document, and I'm very, very happy to see it. 413
Thanks. 414
415
Chair Reckdahl: Thanks. Since this is on the board, let's tackle this right now and then 416
we'll move onto general questions. Do we have any comments or questions about the 417
quota sampling? 418 419
Commissioner Lauing: I could put a question back to them. With this breakdown, it's 420
not clear to me what you get. Make sure it's literally up there. With the possible 421
exception of the children, the first four bullet points, do we care if we need fields or if we 422
want somebody that's out enjoying nature or kicking a ball or those other things? I'm not 423
sure what we get, what the outcome is. 424
425
Mr. Mottau: The outcome basically is an exactly identical set of charts unless there is a 426
substantial difference that is hidden by the fact that our overall survey responses are more 427
like 75 percent Caucasian instead of more closely representing the result. I think the 428
opportunity here is to provide that check against overrepresentation. 429
430
Chair Reckdahl: That first chart that you put up that talked about the big findings, have 431
you broken that down by race and see if that changes from race? 432
433
Mr. Mottau: We did some preliminary looks just at cross-tabulating them, just putting 434
them in one column versus the other, the overall results versus non-Caucasian results, for 435
example. Because those were the smaller group, we wanted to make sure that we weren't 436
seeing big result differences. We didn't identify any big result differences in that initial 437 review, which doesn't indicate to me that once we go through this process, we're going to 438 see some big shift in any given response essentially. I'm happy to go through the process 439 to make sure and to be able to present that and say that we did that. That was part of our 440
original promise. Based on what I've seen in terms of our initial breakdowns, I don't see 441
anything swinging widely based on taking this subsample. 442
443
Chair Reckdahl: From your experience, what's your opinion on self-selection? If people 444
don't answer, does that mean they really don't care or does that mean that they care but 445
they didn't get out there and answer the question? 446
447
Mr. Mottau: In terms of self-selecting to answer the survey overall, we just don't have 448
them in our sample. I think that has less to do with not caring than about the time and 449
interference that interferes with any given activity. I'm sure that we are seeing a slightly 450
higher population of park and recreation users in this group. They are self-selecting in 451
terms of choosing, but those folks that are already connected also got the direct emails, 452
the extra reminders and that kind of thing. There's no argument that there's going to be 453
more people who are already connected to parks and recreation in this sample. I don't 454
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
think that that has changed the response to surveys that we have run in parallel. Self-455
selecting web versions, totally random digit dial phone surveys, when we've done that in 456
parallel we've seen basically the same patterns across both surveys. I can't speak for this 457
one because I don't have a parallel survey to hold up and say, "This is the definitive 458
proof." Overall I don't see big differences in how people respond to these kind of 459
questions. 460 461
Chair Reckdahl: Deirdre. 462
463
Commissioner Crommie: I'm leaning against doing this. I want to understand it a bit 464
better. Are you getting at trying to weight this data to compensate for a population that's 465
missing? Is that what it's all about? 466
467
Mr. Mottau: It's similar; it's not weighting though. The difference between weighting 468
and sub-sampling is that instead of giving, for example, Hispanic responses more credit 469
for the answers that they gave, we are reducing the overall answers down. It's a reductive 470
rather than an additive process. Both processes would be for the same purpose, to 471
balance that representation. Rather than giving one answer more credit than 15 or 10 472
answers, it's really reducing the overall sample in a random way. 473
474
Commissioner Crommie: I'm against that, because I don't think these criteria are 475
significant enough to do that. Maybe, if you presented us with other criteria. I don't 476
think we need to weight this. I'm calling it weighting even though you're saying it's a 477
little bit different. I don't think we need to weight this by race particularly. I don't think 478
that gives us more information. I think there are other, probably more important criteria 479 going on. If our Commission was interested, if you can cross-correlate and say, "This 480 group of Asians felt this was really important." That would be more significant. Again, 481 I'm not sure I want to do that quite frankly. 482
483
Mr. Mottau: One alternative, that is a possibility and we've done a little bit of as I 484
mentioned, is taking some of these results and comparing them against the overall result 485
to see if there are big differences. I would be reluctant to do that with small subgroups 486
for all the appropriate reasons. If we don't have 180 or 200 responses, I don't want to talk 487
about responses from a group that small. 488
489
Commissioner Crommie: I agree with that. 490
491
Mr. Mottau: I'm open to suggestions about things you would like to see broken out as 492
opposed to going through this process. Like I said, we've done a little bit of that already 493
in terms of dog owners and non-dog owners and thinking about the cross-tabulation of 494
that. If there are other criteria that you would like to look at, that's certainly an 495
alternative. 496
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
497
Commissioner Lauing: I can answer that, but Commissioner Hetterly hasn't spoken yet. 498
499
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. I don't think it's useful to do a sampling based on 500
ethnicity. I'm not sure that's going to tell us anything new or different. I am interested 501
though in understanding more about the breakdown between households with children, 502 households without children, seniors, and the north/south distribution. What I'm really 503
interested in is how did the answer choices by them break down rather than a sampling. 504
I'm not a statistics person, so I'm not sure what extra we gain from doing a sampling 505
process. I would, by those categories, be very interested in knowing out of these 451 506
people who rated this, how did that break down. Do we know how supportive our seniors 507
are of playing fields as opposed to natural spaces? That's something that might be 508
interesting to me. 509
510
Mr. Mottau: One of the things that would help us to zero in on that and to get you both 511
quickly and cost-effectively those answers is if there are specific questions that it feels 512
like I really want to know what families with children versus families without children 513
had to say about this particular answer choice. Each of these answer choices ends up 514
amounting to an entire question unto itself, because of the way we asked it; is it 515
appropriate. It's really helpful for us to be able to zero in on those specific ones. We've 516
done the general scan and didn't see a lot of big swings in one direction or another. If 517
there were specific ones, it would certainly keep it from becoming a phone book of cross-518
tabulations and things. If you have suggestions as you go through, we'd love to hear 519
those. 520
521 Commissioner Hetterly: In the packet you suggested that rather than doing an age 522 breakdown, you were going to do some follow-up focus groups with youth. I think that's 523 still important to do regardless of what you (crosstalk). 524
525
Mr. Mottau: We have started that process. We had a meeting last night with the Youth 526
Commission which went really well. We got some good ideas to supplement some of the 527
ideas that were here. We had a chance to bounce a few ideas off of them that we'd heard, 528
getting a sense of if that resonates with them as representatives of that population, 529
understanding that they don't speak for and about all of them. Getting some opportunity 530
there where we had it with the experts representing youth here in Palo Alto. 531
532
Commissioner Lauing: My comments were close to Commissioner Hetterly's, but just a 533
little bit additional. There's still a lot of things that have to be decided here. For 534
example, the dogs, the fields, etc. To her other point, we still have some other questions 535
that aren't even covered here, what are senior needs. We didn't ask a question about it. 536
What might specific Hispanic needs be? That still has to be done somewhere somehow. 537
Speaking to the first one, this one on dog parks, there's so much stuff that's important 538
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
there. For one thing, you have a complete numerical breakdown, and you see exactly 539
who's in which camp. I don't mean that they're necessarily feuding camps. When you 540
look at the data, the verbiage says only 30 percent of non-dog owners indicated off-leash 541
areas are appropriate or very appropriate. If you look at that, that's really significant in 542
another way. It's all in how you read statistics. There's no benefit to a non-dog owner to 543
have off-leash dogs. None whatsoever. In fact, some would say it's a detriment. 30 544 percent say, "This is a great idea. Let's do this." That's the kind of data that we can take 545
some action on, when you have the dog owner thing. We don't have that, for example, in 546
any of the responses on fields. If we had that and we knew that it was in the age group of 547
6-12, which is most of the younger kids that are the dominant players on the fields, that 548
would be interesting. I don't want to be quoted out of context in the newspaper. There's 549
still an ignorance factor there, because parents don't necessarily know what field 550
availability is. It would be good to see if the perception is that those parents think we're 551
fighting for fields all the time. There's some sub-segments that you could do that would 552
be much more helpful than the one you proposed here. It's around some of these 553
substantive questions that we're going to spend tens of millions of dollars on, if we say go 554
or not, if we say it doesn't need doing for ten years but we'll look at it in the second ten 555
years. That's well worth investing in. 556
557
Mr. Mottau: I'm hearing from you that if I could interpret the breakdowns of questions 558
relating to the implementation of different options for field use or field investments by 559
households with children, households without children to understand that same kind of 560
dynamic that we were seeing with the breakdown that we did run on the dog owners and 561
the answers to the dog parks. 562
563 Commissioner Lauing: Right. 564 565 Mr. Mottau: That's exactly the kind of detail that I was saying would be useful. Places 566
where you see that connection between a demographic switch that we can pull one way 567
or the other and a specific set of answer choices that you'd like to know those details 568
about. That's a great one. 569
570
Commissioner Lauing: Similarly there was quite a bit of interest in a second pool. It's 571
obvious to do that geographically and see if 90 percent of the folks are in the area where 572
the pool is not. Nothing good or bad about that; it's just the fact that it would be helpful 573
to know. 574
575
Commissioner Ashlund: When I first read this, I interpreted it as MIG recommends 576
addressing youth focus as well. On second reading, it actually doesn't say youth; it says 577
under age 35 for your recommendation here. Do you see where I'm referring to in the 578
MIG recommendation? It has no page number. It's the back of the very first page. The 579
back of the memo, yes, the cover memo. 580
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
581
Mr. Mottau: The cover memo. Yeah. 582
583
Commissioner Ashlund: It says due to the low number of respondents in age groups 584
under 35, MIG recommends addressing the age representation separately with a 585
combination of additional focus group-based outreach to younger residents. By merely 586 saying below 35 is the under-represented portion, are we talking the 14-18 year olds who 587
are enrolled in school and living at home with their parents? Are we talking the 18 to 588
mid-20s who are maybe taking part-time classes or are we talking young professionals 589
who are working in Silicon Valley who may not have time or interest in going to the 590
parks? It's unclear if they're under-represented because they don't use the parks and they 591
have no interest or time or if they're under-represented and there's validity there. 592
593
Mr. Mottau: It's an interesting point. What we were speaking to primarily was the 594
number of people who responded in those particular age categories and seeing that our 595
response profile fell off in the age groups under 35. A number of the follow-up 596
conversations that we have been having are starting to touch on both younger adults and 597
youth. That's one of the targets that we would like to hit as we're doing this follow-up 598
conversation effort. In response to some of the other points, we've also talked pretty 599
extensively with Avenidas and some of their staff about the trends and issues they're 600
seeing around seniors. The groups that I met with today that represented some of the 601
field users and the middle school athletics groups were trying to find ways, it's not 602
directly asking those populations but we're trying to find ways to get information out of 603
interests that are connected to those age groups. It's less than perfect. It would be great 604
to say, "Well, I can now go out and get another couple hundred responses from people 605 who are under 35." I don't think that is practical. A chunk of that population is just very 606 difficult to reach in this method. We're open to ideas. We've been continuing to generate 607 with staff some ideas about how to supplement this information, which is one piece of the 608
larger picture we're trying to assemble about the overall input. I'm open to other 609
suggestions, but we are trying to fill in everything under that. 610
611
Commissioner Crommie: On this point, at the intercept on California Street, we saw a lot 612
of people in that demographic group, between 20 and 35. Did we take any demographics 613
when we doing that? 614
615
Ellie Fiore: We did take some, but not consistently. We put it in people's hands as an 616
option. If it got busy, there might not have been time for that. We got some 617
demographic data, but not with the rigor we have here. 618
619
Mr. Mottau: It is one of the reasons why we specifically do those kinds of events, to 620
expand beyond the people who are going to fill out a survey or come to a workshop. We 621
can catch those people. The fact that we don't have a count of them is unfortunate. The 622
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
reality, as you're noting, is that your experience was we did actually talk to a number of 623
those folks. They've been incorporated as part of this process. That's important to us. 624
625
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Ashlund. 626
627
Commissioner Ashlund: I just wanted to follow up. Is your MIG recommendation that 628 we pursue, when it says under 35, it's in that 14-18 range? That's a captive population. 629
They attend school; they live with their parents. They're certainly easier to target in some 630
ways than if they're over 18 and independent and not in secondary education. Are you 631
recommending either or both? 632
633
Mr. Mottau: I would like to supplement everything under 35. We are faced with those 634
practical limitations as well. Our hope would be to capture more of that perspective all 635
the way up to 35 if possible. 636
637
Commissioner Ashlund: Great. I didn't see this in the demographics. I thought we had 638
this on the survey, but maybe we didn't ask it at all. We asked age, so we know whether 639
they're checking the senior box versus not. Did we ask disability as a demographic? 640
641
Mr. Mottau: No, we did not. 642
643
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay. My caution is if we're approaching the Youth Council 644
for that youth voice, the under-represented populations are under-represented 645
consistently. If you have your high achieving non-disabled youth on a youth panel, 646
you're not hearing from the kids who aren't able to be on youth panel. I would just 647 caution against using that narrow selection of voices. 648 649 Mr. Mottau: Thank you. 650
651
Chair Reckdahl: This is page 3 of the memo that you gave us. There is some, for 652
example, Asians. We only got 15 percent of the people taking the survey were Asian, 26 653
in the population. That's almost a factor of 2. That's 180 people. I do wonder if there 654
would be a difference in answers. It would be useful to look at a few select answers and 655
look at the difference between whites and Asians. That would be a test. Whites and non-656
whites if you want to lump them together. I suspect it would be better to be white and 657
Asian. The other was male/female. We have 63 percent of the people in the survey were 658
female. That is not 50 percent; that's significant. 659
660
Mr. Mottau: That is a big shift. It is not an uncommon shift in all surveying efforts. You 661
will see that in every single surveying methodology. You will see a 10 point or more 662
spread from the actual population, skewed towards females. Research indicates that they 663
are more willing to participate in research. I don't know if that research was also skewed 664
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
towards females or not. It is pretty much a universal finding in survey research. There's 665
not a lot I can do about that. We can rebalance for gender. I don't think it would change 666
a lot of the responses. 667
668
Chair Reckdahl: If you look at the youth in household, 35 percent of the people in Palo 669
Alto have kids in the household; 66, almost double, answered the survey. That would be 670 interesting to see do the answers change significantly. I suspect that they would. I 671
wouldn't say you need to that on the whole survey. I would look at some of the big 672
questions that we want and examine the difference between those. 673
674
Mr. Mottau: Would it be useful to examine these ones that we were calling out 675
specifically as these strong findings against some of these demographics? I know that not 676
all of them feel like they are a direct match. I'm just trying to think of the best way to 677
attack. We don't need to do all of them, so which subset should we look at specifically? 678
It does seem like these strong findings that we identified are ones that we are most likely 679
to recommend action based on this tool as opposed to the larger mix of tools. That would 680
be a place to start certainly, those specific findings that we call out in that section. 681
There's a couple others that Commissioners have pointed out that they would like, 682
specifically field-related questions. I'm happy to add that into it. Does that seem like a 683
place to start? 684
685
Commissioner Lauing: I don't think you'd have to go after all of them. For example, 686
expanded use of recycled water or items like that. A lot of those were predictable and 687
common sense and that's good. There's some actionable data here, if we want to go into 688
any of more that. Nobody wants any food service. That was very good information, 689 because there was a lot of anecdotal perception that that was something that would be in 690 demand. 691 692
Mr. Mottau: It also came up with the teams the other day. They do want food service. 693
694
Commissioner Lauing: They always want food. 695
696
Mr. Mottau: I agree. That's an interesting finding. 697
698
Commissioner Crommie: When you start to drill down to teens wanting food service, 699
then you have to drill down to where are teens hanging out. None of this information is 700
useful unless it's linked to other behavioral patterns of teens. We don't know that those 701
teens aren't going to certain quadrants of the City. They tend to hang out near food more 702
often. They like it; that's why they're hanging out near food. Does that mean we have to 703
put food in open spaces? Standing by itself, it's not that meaningful. 704
705
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 706
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
707
Vice Chair Markevitch: When we were doing the outreach for the Rinconada Master 708
Plan, there was an interest in reopening the snack shack in that park. It's in place. Is 709
there any method to look at that data versus the data that was in the survey? 710
711
Mr. Mottau: We can definitely pull that forward. As we've been saying, the past efforts 712 are definitely one of our research sources for all of this. Pulling that issue forward is 713
something that we could definitely look at. I don't know that it will be directly 714
comparable necessarily, but it's something that we can use as another source. 715
716
Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on to general questions on the survey. The action for you is 717
to go and look at an isolated set of questions and see how they differ on these various 718
characteristics and see if they're there and see if it's something that we should pursue or 719
not. 720
721
Mr. Mottau: Great. Thank you. 722
723
Chair Reckdahl: General questions on the survey. Questions or comments, either one. 724
725
Commissioner Ashlund: I had a follow-up question on the under 35 outreach. Is that 726
something that's already happened? Who on staff is handling that and when is 727
(crosstalk). 728
729
Mr. Mottau: It's something that we've started. We're still working up ways to continue to 730
expand on that. The meetings will be given you as we did for this update that you were 731 handed this evening. On the back page is an update log of other meetings that we've been 732 having with experts in your community. In the next round, you'll be seeing the report of 733 the meetings that I've added onto this trip. I've been meeting basically straight since 734
yesterday morning with various stakeholders in your community on a variety of topics 735
that were identified by staff as being particularly interesting to follow-up on. We're 736
tapping into some expert knowledge, both in the community as well as on staff. Some of 737
that will definitely address that demographic gap, and some of it will address other topics. 738
It is in process and not yet complete. 739
740
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 741
742
Commissioner Hetterly: On the survey memo, I thought the key findings provided a 743
really good summary. It was really interesting information. I was pleasantly surprised 744
how much of it felt like it gave us actionable guidance about where we should head. For 745
instance, the top aquatic improvement was for less competitive, more recreational sports. 746
That's really helpful to us. Commissioner Markevitch is going to spearhead an effort to 747
figure out how to provide more of that. This is a good backup for that. The concession 748
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
stand stood out. Supporting wildlife habitat and corridors was borne out by the bike 749
bridge decision this last week. Also, it's actionable in the short-term by us as we consider 750
the Byxbee Park loop trails. There's a direct connection there that we've talked about 751
before, and this helps us move forward with that. Outdoor sports at Cubberley showed 752
very strongly. Some loss of those fields in the mid-term future is very likely. Maybe that 753
means we should think more about the 10.5 acres. There's a lot of informative stuff in 754 here. That was great, and I was really happy with the survey results as well as your 755
presentation of it. I do have some questions about a couple of them. On the restrooms, 756
that was a really solid, strong response. I'm curious if we can drill down just a little 757
further to understand is that a general desire, we want restrooms at every park or parks of 758
a certain size, parts in a certain area that are underserved with restrooms, types of users. 759
Is this just at parks where we have a high young kid population? Maybe that's where we 760
put restrooms. That kind of detail could help us prioritize where to invest. The pros and 761
cons for prioritizing youth over adults was really interesting. That was something that we 762
hadn't heard before. Maybe it suggests an unmet demand for adult use of certain 763
facilities, if we could flesh out that question. That raises more questions to me than I 764
thought existed. Finally, in terms of the comfort and convenience items, we didn't 765
include lighting in that list on the survey. It seemed clear from the open-ended response 766
here as well as in the Mapita survey that there are sizable concerns about safety, security, 767
and desire for lighting. Of course, keeping in mind dark sky interests, we ought to 768
consider lighting and ask the question where is it appropriate in neighborhood parks to 769
have lighting, where is it not appropriate. We can work with our stakeholders on that too 770
to figure out where is the best place. This helps us get to that next step. Finally, I had a 771
data question. On page 8, you say something about the open-ended comments being not 772
numerous enough to set direction, but they are very similar to the kinds of open-ended 773 comments we got through Mapita and through intercepts and the community meetings. I 774 wonder if there's not a way to combine all that input in a way that is significant enough to 775 help us set direction, altogether instead of separately. That's all I have. Thank you. 776
777
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing. 778
779
Commissioner Lauing: Just a few things. One, we've got 1,164 responses. That's 780
terrific; we all agree on that relative to this type of survey. It was contrasted in your 781
cover memo by only 400 responses that wouldn't have covered as many topics. Totally 782
true. That's a different kind of survey. From my own limited work with market research 783
and statistics, that would be truly random and, therefore, a bit more projectable. We don't 784
want to lose track of that and put all our weight on these 1,164 people, which is barely 1 785
percent of the population of Palo Alto. A bit of a data question on your graph, in terms of 786
integrity. Maybe there's some errors here or maybe I'm not reading it right. On page 2, 787
the graph says live in Palo Alto 86. Up at the top, it said 84. You also said nearly all 788
respondents as opposed to saying nearly 84 percent of respondents. For your own, 789
candidly, credibility, I just want to make sure it's being presented correctly. 790
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
791
Mr. Mottau: I see the discrepancy there. I will double check that. I appreciate and 792
certainly respect that point. I'm trying to remember. I did manipulate to get to that chart, 793
because Table 1 is another one where people could choose multiple answers. There's a 794
possibility that in my adjustment, it should have been noted if I did, of aggregating some 795
of those that had indicated multiple responses that it would shift the percentage overall. I 796 will clarify that, so that it doesn't present that apparent or possibly real difference. 797
798
Commissioner Lauing: I just wanted to point that out. One of the things I thought was 799
really interesting from this data coming back is that our residents are saying, "Hey, things 800
are pretty good here. Things are pretty doggone good." They didn't say we have to re-801
imagine this whole thing or change half the things. Let's make some tweaks here; get a 802
little bit better. We keep that in mind as we go forward. As I said, some things are 803
definitive. I've already mentioned that. Some where we need to drill down a little bit 804
more on some of these factors. I think that's it. Thank you. 805
806
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 807
808
Commissioner Crommie: Hi. I was really pleased by the respect for nature in this 809
survey. It doesn't surprise me. Our population really holds that dear. I'm glad it was 810
reflected in this. There was a wide distribution of the survey, so I'm trusting that it 811
covered people of all different persuasions and that it rose to the top, even people who 812
have an emphasis on being at athletic fields, using other forms of recreation. I'm really 813
pleased to see that. I did want to echo something that we did here in the public 814
comments. That has to do about the conflict sometimes between the preservation of 815 wildlife and loop trails. Those are asked in two separate questions. That's the kind of 816 thing where the general public doesn't understand that loop trails have a very high impact 817 on wildlife. As you walk by wildlife, if there's not a lot of natural area for the wildlife to 818
go to, they get flushed out as people walk by. We do have to look at that as we review 819
the Byxbee Park plans. Commissioner Reckdahl and I have worked on that a lot, to look 820
at the trail system in there and try to keep it in balance with nature. At least that was my 821
feeling about it. I just want to make sure that we keep that perspective that not everyone 822
who wants a loop trail really understands. On one hand, they might want the loop trail 823
and on one hand they might want the wildlife. Sometimes they're not compatible. I also 824
like to see that there is a great emphasis on dirt trails, to lower impact trails. I saw under 825
the sustainability graph that people really did feel that community gardening was a 826
sustainable practice, and that ranked very high. In some ways I was a little disappointed 827
that that question was hidden in sustainability. We never asked our public, "Would you 828
be willing to give away park space for a community garden?" We didn't get that kind of 829
granularity. Within the context that the question was asked, I was happy to see that 830
getting rated as high as it did. Also, quiet areas in parks really stood out, so that is a wish 831
for a lower impact. One theme in this sampling of the residents is lower impact. Even 832
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
when we got to the graph where it's asking do you want artificial turf versus natural turf, 833
that came up. I wish I could find that page quickly. Do you remember what graph that 834
is? 835
836
Mr. Mottau: It's Graph 4. 837
838 Commissioner Crommie: Graph 4. If you look at Graph 4, I was interested in that. 839
More people would actually prefer not to have artificial turf. The rankings for natural 840
turf came up higher than artificial turf. That was interesting to me. I don't know where it 841
comes from, but in part it might be that craving to have more natural connections. When 842
you have the natural turf, you can potentially use it for more purposes. It's just like a 843
teaser really. Where do we go with that? Do you have any comments on where you put 844
that question and how far we could take those results? 845
846
Mr. Mottau: We looked at this pretty directly in this question. The reason it's inserted 847
into this question is the environmental sustainability aspects of turf. You'll notice that 848
there's actually three questions about turf in this question overall. The third one being 849
removing turf where it's not needed for sports to reduce the overall water usage. There's 850
an ongoing discussion/debate throughout the State of California and the United States 851
around artificial turf as water-saving versus artificial turf as introducing a synthetic 852
environment essentially. That's part of what you're getting at there. People have pretty 853
strong reactions to those two things. In fact, there is a current moratorium on building 854
additional artificial turf fields based on some ongoing research at the Assembly right 855
now, just working out how to evaluate that very question. Is it more appropriate or 856
sustainable overall to create a synthetic environment that uses less water or to use the 857 water but not have the synthetic environment? Plus there are other concerns around the 858 use of recycled rubber and various other things in those artificial turf fields. It's a lively 859 debate currently. In certain environments, heavy, heavy play environments and also in 860
very, very water-starved environments which we may be approaching or in for the 861
foreseeable future, that equation is not as simple as it may appear. This is informative in 862
terms of how people see it. It is placed in the context of water conservation and 863
sustainability. That's an appropriate place for thinking about this. I don't know that it 864
gives a broad direction, but it definitely expresses an overall preference. That's an 865
important finding overall. As you said, people flip flopped around that artificial turf. If 866
you look at those responses, they're almost a mirror of each other. 867
868
Chair Reckdahl: I do want to add about the artificial turf. I don't want this taken out of 869
context. All the new fields that we've put in, none of them use recycled rubber. I don't 870
want the public to think that we're putting fields in with recycled rubber. 871
872
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: No. This moratorium is very recent. This is current research and debate 873
going on right now that is not definitive. It is only a hold on moving forward with certain 874
types of materials, but looking at the research around it right now. 875
876
Chair Reckdahl: This would be a good question to break down. If we had soccer users 877
versus non-soccer users. When they put the fields in over at Page Mill, I thought, "Why 878 would you put in gross artificial turf?" If you talk to the adult players, they want the turf. 879
For them, it is an important feature. 880
881
Mr. Mottau: We heard this again today with field users. Soccer, because it is so high 882
impact, I talk about where the environment warrants that artificial turf in a lot of cases is 883
where those fields get torn up from heavy, heavy use. Regardless of how important it is 884
to have the green and natural environment, you can't maintain green and natural. What 885
you get is brown and muddy in certain play environments. As the Chair is noting, soccer 886
is one of those that we do hear for the intensity of use, for being able to play on it all year 887
round, that is their preference in a lot of situations. 888
889
Commissioner Crommie: I was just going to finish up. 890
891
Chair Reckdahl: Quick question. Do we have any insight who's a soccer player and 892
who's not? The questions don't specify a specific sport? 893
894
Mr. Mottau: Not specifically. We could poll a proxy for that. The vast majority of 895
soccer-interested folks are families with children in the household. While there are vocal 896
adult soccer players, it's a relatively small population in the grand scheme of things 897 compared to the number of youth soccer players in the overall population. 898 899 Chair Reckdahl: At least currently, artificial turf is primarily used for adult games, and 900
the youth soccer is natural turf. It's a very small sample that wants that turf, but they 901
think it's a very important feature. I think we need to be careful you don't throw the baby 902
out with the bath water. 903
904
Mr. Mottau: That's a good point. 905
906
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 907
908
Commissioner Crommie: Just to finish up. That's a place where we have the conflict 909
between sustainability and desire to have the sports outlet, the ability to get onto a field. 910
Most people using artificial turf in the adult population for certain is aware that you can 911
get higher impact on that field. That's governing their feelings about that, and they're not 912
thinking about sustainability at that moment. Both of those things are very real. Lastly, I 913
thought I'd comment on Graph 15. I thought it was interesting. How well do you think 914
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
the following would work to enhance the park system in Palo Alto given the geography 915
constraints? It was nice to see that the thing that rated the highest was enhance the 916
walking and biking experience. What that calls out to me is that this was a very active 917
group that responded to our survey. They were recreationally minded. We're not missing 918
that group of people; yet, we have a group of people that are recreationally minded but 919
still support nature. I'm really happy to see that borne out by this survey. Thank you. 920 921
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Markevitch. 922
923
Vice Chair Markevitch: One comment and it's not regarding the survey. It's tied into 924
Cubberley and what Commissioner Lauing said early. We may need a pool. I know they 925
filled in the Cubberley one. If in long-term that possibly gets opened as a high school, 926
they need to think about putting that pool back, because it is a graduation requirement in 927
this City, that you have to be able to swim. I want that noted somewhere that that may be 928
a possibility in the future. 929
930
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you have any questions? 931
932
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm not sure how to phrase it as a question, but I'll try. The key 933
findings under meeting community needs on page 20 includes the importance of 934
universal accessibility and the percentage of responses regarding that. Without looking 935
back at the question, if somebody were reading this key finding, it reads a little bit like 936
accessibility is referring to facilities only. Whereas, the actual question that it came from 937
in the survey referenced both facilities and programming. I'm not on a graph. I'm on 938
page 20 under the importance of universal accessibility. That it mentioned facilities and 939 programming. We didn't call those out as a question. We put them together as a 940 question. In the key findings, it's important that it not look just like facilities. Frequently 941 that is referred to only with regard to facilities. 942
943
Mr. Mottau: I appreciate what you're saying. It's not that it's stated here that this is only 944
facilities, but that's where people's brains go to. Making that clarification is important. I 945
agree. I remember talking about that, and we structured that question intentionally to ask 946
about both topics. The universal perspective really is about all things. That's a good 947
clarification point for us. Thank you. 948
949
Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. 950
951
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 952
953
Commissioner Crommie: I don't want to take time from other people's comments, but if 954
we're slowing down I want to spend a little bit more time on the dog questions. We are in 955
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
an active phase of needing to establish policy. Before we get back to that, were there 956
other comments? I've already spoken. 957
958
Commissioner Knopper: Everything I was thinking was already discussed, so I chose 959
just for briefness not to chat. What Commissioner Hetterly said and Commissioner 960
Lauing, I concur whenever we can drill down so we can have actionable points. There's a 961 lot of information here that's really great. If you want to talk about dog parks. 962
963
Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, I wanted to talk a little bit more. 964
965
Chair Reckdahl: I've one more comment. 966
967
Commissioner Crommie: Okay. And bathrooms, I also want to comment on. 968
969
Chair Reckdahl: One thing that caught my eye was on page 18, Graph 14, talking about 970
open longer hours through additional lighting. We've heard complaints over the years 971
about lights, but we've also heard a lot of sports people saying they want that. It'd be 972
really interesting seeing that very last bar graph broken down between field users and not. 973
I'm not sure if we can do that. 974
975
Mr. Mottau: Not directly. 976
977
Chair Reckdahl: I'm not sure if we can do it by age. 978
979
Mr. Mottau: We'll take a look at that and see if there's a way that we can pin that down. 980 981 Chair Reckdahl: See if there's any interesting demographics that break that down or if 982 that's uniform. If that's uniform, that's a big finding, because that has been a source of 983
friction sometimes. 984
985
Mr. Mottau: I'm not going to speak for Palo Alto, because I've not spoken to the 986
neighbors around existing fields here. Our experience across the board has been that the 987
primary objections to that are very proximate. They're very much about the immediate 988
neighbors. That is a very tough call for all communities. Lighting can be a big impact, 989
and that's an understandable concern. The number of people that it's impacting is usually 990
relatively small. When you look at it in this context of a large sample looking across the 991
whole community, not a lot of the community is necessarily directly impacted by that. 992
For those who are, it's high. 993
994
Commissioner Hetterly: There are also a lot of wildlife concerns about lighting. 995
996
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: At El Camino Park we're putting the visors on the lights, and it'd also be 997
interesting to see how that changes things. Maybe it's just that the newer lights will have 998
less impact and people will have less complaints about that. 999
1000
Mr. Mottau: That is also true. There's been a lot of work that's gone into modern lighting 1001
to reduce both the light pollution issues as well as the habitat concerns. 1002 1003
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 1004
1005
Commissioner Crommie: I was just going to comment on the same graph, number 14. 1006
There's not a lot of support for allowing more access for competitive teams. If we had a 1007
lot of field users weighing in on this, which it does seem from other questions that we 1008
really did capture field users, that is a significant finding, that particular graph. On the 1009
bar graphs, 50 percent are saying they don't support it. We don't see that on many other 1010
graphs. That's a very, very significant finding. I wanted to talk a little bit about dog 1011
parks, but maybe the bathrooms will be quicker. When I was talking about these 1012
conflicts of interest, it's probably no surprise to any of us who have served for any length 1013
of time on this Commission that people overall want bathrooms at the parks. We 1014
encounter what I call a "not in my backyard" response. When you start to do the outreach 1015
meetings at the neighborhood surrounding that park where they think they might bring in 1016
more transients to use the bathrooms, then we get the push back and that's where we have 1017
to have really strong policy to work that through. Sometimes it's a larger issue at stake. 1018
It's a very hard struggle that we faced. We might feel it's quite important to have a 1019
bathroom there, but yet how do we balance that. With a lot of these issues, we come up 1020
against that. As far as the dogs go, if we could all turn to that particular graph. I forget 1021 now which one it is. 1022 1023 Mr. Mottau: I brought it up. 1024
1025
Commissioner Crommie: I have this sense we're winding down; I don't know if that's 1026
true or not. It's really important before we adjourn to get everything we needed from this. 1027
What we have in the works is some kind of community outreach meeting from ad hoc 1028
committee. This is just one phase of data, and then we're going to have other sources of 1029
data. Did everyone feel like they got enough out of this? Did you write out in the text 1030
how this breaks down between people who own dogs and don't own dogs. 1031
1032
Mr. Mottau: We did. 1033
1034
Commissioner Crommie: What page is that on? Do you have any graphics on that? 1035
1036
Mr. Mottau: We didn't include graphs on that. It is something that we broke down in 1037
detail. The pages are 11 and 12. This overall Graph 8 is on page 12. The text, sorry, it's 1038
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
not 11; it's farther back than that. It's page 9 and 10 that talk about dog parks. At the 1039
bottom of page 9, we talk about the breakdown of the 662 non-dog owners and 421 dog 1040
owners indicated in the survey. Overall the split, which I tried to quickly summarize, 1041
amounts to dog owners were universally more supportive of all three alternatives to the 1042
existing dog parks than non-dog owners, which is not a huge surprise given their specific 1043
interests. Overall one of the important findings and probably the most useful overall was 1044 that it appeared to us based on the people who said it was not appropriate to essentially 1045
do nothing. The non-action, no additional dog parks answer was equally not appropriate 1046
to both dog owners and non-dog owners. 1047
1048
Commissioner Crommie: To do nothing. 1049
1050
Mr. Mottau: Yeah. 1051
1052
Commissioner Crommie: That's what Commissioner Lauing pointed out. That means 1053
that people who do not own dogs are sympathetic toward the plight of those who do. I 1054
agree with Commissioner Lauing that that's important information. Again, this balancing 1055
act. We only have so much money to put into dog parks. It takes a lot of resources to 1056
work with our existing dog parks. When we go into the community outreach, it might be 1057
really interesting to understand what improvements people think they need. I don't tend 1058
to use the Palo Alto dog parks with my dog. I don't enjoy the dog park at Mitchell, 1059
because it's all dirt. I ironically go to an artificial turf dog park that's on the border of 1060
Palo Alto and Mountain View. That's a choice I make. I'm just giving this anecdotal 1061
information. I don't know how much money it's going to take to improve Mitchell Park. 1062
Sitting on this Commission, I hear that's it's a bottomless pit of resources to try to grow 1063 the grass there. I would opt out of going to that one; I have another one I can go to. I 1064 would support the pot of money going to a new one. What are we going to do to improve 1065 these existing parks? It comes up very strongly in the survey. We really need to 1066
understand what people want. That's the first point I would bring up. What is our data to 1067
support that people want additional dog parks? Can we go back to that? We know a lot 1068
of people want to improve. 1069
1070
Mr. Mottau: The point that I was making is less about people assertively saying they 1071
want more dog parks. It's more that they were saying it was inappropriate to have no 1072
additional dog parks. They were refuting the negative more than they were affirming the 1073
positive. That answer was fairly clear and also fairly consistent between dog owners and 1074
non-dog owners. 1075
1076
Commissioner Crommie: What we see showing up in Graph 8, if we look at the very 1077
appropriate, I see how it is split between these three different categories in the middle of 1078
the graph. I guess we have a little bit more people leaning toward the second bar, 1079
designated times when dogs can be off-leash in parks and partially are non-fenced. When 1080
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
I observe what Palo Altans are doing, they're doing just that. We have Palo Altans all 1081
over this City congregating in parks with their dogs off-leash. The reason I was 1082
interested in that question making it onto the survey is because that's what people are 1083
doing. The greatest response on the bar number 2 is that that is not appropriate. The very 1084
thing that people feel is most inappropriate is the thing that is most being done in this 1085
City. That's the dilemma that we face. I'm not sure what to do about that. There might 1086 be nothing to be done about it. 1087
1088
Chair Reckdahl: The dog park people will talk more about it next month. They have 1089
looked into this more. If we had a small dog park at every park, would there be as much 1090
off-leash activity? Even if we had a convenient dog park, people would still want the off-1091
leash, unfenced activity. I don't know. 1092
1093
Commissioner Crommie: I'm sorry to be so anecdotal here. I live next to Monroe Park, 1094
and our tiny Monroe Park in the last year has turned into a dog park. It's phenomenal. 1095
It's all dogs. Anyone can stop by there an hour before sunset, and you'll just see it full of 1096
dogs. It's a tiny park. We have a dog park that's a 10-minute walk from our 1097
neighborhood. Ten-minute walk. I don't really understand it. As a Park Commissioner, I 1098
do not bring my dog to go off-leash inappropriately in the Monroe dog park, yet most of 1099
my neighbors are doing that. I don't know ... 1100
1101
Chair Reckdahl: Is there a specific request or are you frustrated? 1102
1103
Commissioner Crommie: I'm not frustrated at all. I don't like to see my tiny park turned 1104
into a dog park, because it's using all the existing turf. With a really tiny park, when it all 1105 becomes a dog park, that's very high impact. I support having policy that allows dogs 1106 off-leash in parks. Personally I support that, because that's what I see everyone doing. 1107 It's a very complicated issue. People don't like to go very far away to dog parks. That's 1108
my observation, but I don't know. I wonder if we can figure this out more. 1109
1110
Commissioner Hetterly: There are a lot of issues that are going to be in the Master Plan 1111
that are going to require that kind of noodling around to figure out how do we get to the 1112
right policy. What we're here tonight to talk about is the survey. I wonder if you can tie 1113
your comments back to the survey. Are you suggesting that there's some more 1114
information that we might want to seek to be able to support those policies? 1115
1116
Commissioner Crommie: I'll go back to my statement that the very thing that people say 1117
in this survey is inappropriate is what people are doing. Okay. For that particular bar 1118
graph, which is the second bar down, maybe it would be good to break that out between 1119
dog owners and non-dog owners. It would be very interesting if all the people saying it's 1120
not appropriate are all the non-dog owners. 1121
1122
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
Mr. Mottau: It primarily is. 1123
1124
Commissioner Crommie: It is, okay. 1125
1126
Mr. Mottau: It primarily is. As I remember, that one in particular was a really big 1127
polarization, that particular answer. What I think you're seeing there overall is the 1128 tension between the 662 versus the 421. If you look at that proportionally, you're close to 1129
that. You're basically seeing dog owners saying it's almost universally appropriate, and 1130
non-dog owners saying it's almost universally inappropriate. You're seeing the 1131
proportion of dog owners versus non-dog owners in those second and third bars for the 1132
most part. 1133
1134
Commissioner Crommie: In some ways that's not surprising. Non-dog owners draw the 1135
line in the sand probably right there. It'd be interesting to understand why. The people 1136
that I've spoken to, it might be because of safety issues and dog poop issues. If you don't 1137
own a dog, you're a lot less likely to be understanding about such a thing. That's 1138
interesting information. All the people with the strong bar to improve existing dog parks, 1139
on the very first bar graph, we have a lot of people weighing in as very appropriate. How 1140
does that break down between dog owners and non-dog owners? Do you know right 1141
now? 1142
1143
Mr. Mottau: I would have to double check that. What I'm hearing overall in terms of our 1144
next step of analysis, this one is one that you need to see the side-by-side on that topic 1145
much like we talked about with some of the others. For other demographic breakdowns, 1146
this is a critical one to get you the side-by-side comparison. I can't recall on that one 1147 specifically. My recollection is that it was pretty heavily by both. In order to get to this 1148 aggregate response, it would have to be supported by both. I believe it was similar in 1149 both dog owners and non-dog owners. 1150
1151
Commissioner Crommie: Would you recommend that we go on to do any pointed survey 1152
in the future? When we hold future meetings with stakeholders, is this tool useful for us? 1153
1154
Mr. Mottau: This tool being the set of questions that we broke out here? 1155
1156
Commissioner Crommie: No, future questions that drill down more. Would this be a 1157
technique that we as a Commission should consider using? Just based on your 1158
recommendation. 1159
1160
Mr. Mottau: Our recommendation overall would be to take this support for what it is. 1161
There is support for dog parks out of this response. The how is unclear from this survey 1162
response, but we can also bring best practices from across the country. Every park 1163
agency in the country is struggling with same question or has recently. There are 1164
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
established and emerging best practices around the how of this. Those are not solutions 1165
that apply to every community. There is a shortlist of options. You're getting close to 1166
that shortlist of options in this question. The reality is that nobody on the ground in Palo 1167
Alto has seen the other options actually working. They've seen it happening. They've 1168
seen people having their dogs off-leash in an area, but it has always been illegal. There is 1169
a different behavior pattern that's observable when you are already forcing people to 1170 break the rules by having their dog off-leash in the park. They are not behaving the way 1171
that they would if there were rules in place that allowed them to not be rule breakers to 1172
start with. We've seen that in a lot of places. Once the rules are established, then people 1173
start self-policing a little bit more. People also say, "You know what? I can avoid that 1174
park from this hour to this hour when it's an off-leash dog area. That's not a big deal for 1175
me." It might sound like a big deal written down here in this question, but it turns out I'm 1176
okay with it or I'm not. Right now people don't have any actual experience to base their 1177
answers to 2 through 4 on, except for the rule breaking experience. That is skewing how 1178
people here are experiencing that right now. 1179
1180
Commissioner Crommie: Can you provide us with a list of best practices across the 1181
nation? Can we get data on best practices that are emerging in different cities across 1182
California? 1183
1184
Mr. Mottau: Yes. 1185
1186
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 1187
1188
Chair Reckdahl: Your point was that if you allow off-leash, unfenced dog activity, you'll 1189 have more compliance? 1190 1191 Mr. Mottau: If you establish a set of rules. We're going back to anecdotes a little bit. 1192
I've seen this in my neighborhood where we do have a number of parks that have areas 1193
designated at certain times as off-leash dog areas. They are open, unfenced areas. The 1194
difference that we have seen between the dog behavior, the dog conflicts, the dog 1195
problems, even complaints about people not picking up after their dogs, since that rule 1196
allowed those things to be happening but said, "IF you're going to be here, you're going to 1197
be here between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. You're going to be here and you're going to clean up 1198
after your dog and you're going to keep them in this part of the park." All of those things 1199
were followed better than the original rule of don't bring your dog here. They were 1200
running into more problems with the dogs that were in the park. It's a very strange ... 1201
1202
Chair Reckdahl: I'm skeptical about that. My experience, again anecdotal. I lived next 1203
to Hoover Park for a year. The kids would go out every night and play in Hoover Park 1204
and every night they'd come back with dog poo on their shoes. Every night. The people 1205
who live there have the same experience. It's effectively an off-leash dog area, but there's 1206
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
a dog park there. Granted it's not a very good one. Most dog owners are very 1207
responsible. There is a dog population that is not responsible. They either don't care that 1208
the dog is pooping or they're so busy talking to their friends that they don't know it 1209
happened. 1210
1211
Mr. Mottau: I agree that that happens. The observation of having rules in place changed 1212 a lot of opinions in Portland. One of the things that I would add into that dynamic is that 1213
there is a self-policing dynamic that does not happen when everybody is breaking the 1214
same rule. Nobody else has the incentive to make sure that that area does stay cleaned up 1215
if everybody is breaking the same rule. If we all start breaking the rules that we've laid 1216
out, that there's a time and you have to clean up and everything else, then that dog area 1217
may go away, that legal dog area may go away. That was how it was rolled out. It was 1218
rolled out as a pilot project. It stuck after the first year. I wouldn't say it has answered 1219
the problems, but it has improved the situation. We've heard that same story in other 1220
communities. 1221
1222
Chair Reckdahl: Any other questions or comments? If the public wants to speak, they 1223
have to fill out a card please. Howard, why don't you speak first and fill out the card 1224
afterwards. 1225
1226
Howard Hoffman: Okay, thank you. 1227
1228
Chair Reckdahl: In general we don't allow this, but since we did talk about dog parks and 1229
Howard Hoffman is the dog association president, we'll make an exception. 1230
1231 Mr. Hoffman: Thank you, Commissioner. Howard Hoffman, founder of Palo Alto Dog 1232 Owners. I'm one of those people that is illegally off-leash at Hoover Park. I can tell you 1233 why some people stay in the legally fenced area and why some people don't. Most 1234
people do want to follow the rules. Most people don't want to be subject to getting a fine. 1235
Most people would rather that their dogs don't have an opportunity to run off. As a dog 1236
owner who has well-trained dogs, I still would rather have a fence than not have a fence 1237
personally. I would say that's true of most dog owners. The problem is that the dog run 1238
there is pathetic. You have the question posed to the soccer players, what surface better 1239
meets your needs? With dogs, we've got basically three possibilities: decomposed 1240
granite or nicer dirt, grass, and artificial turf. Most dog owners would rather have real 1241
grass. They would settle for a small park with artificial turf, as you said. Dirt is totally 1242
unsuitable. It's good for allowing dog poop and urine to be there and not have to worry 1243
as much. It's much better if we have real grass and people cleaning up. Most of the 1244
people are self-policing. For the privilege of having it made legal and having proper 1245
boundaries and a fence, most people are going to clean up. It goes beyond self-policing. 1246
Dog owners actually police each other. The first time that another dog owner looked at 1247
me like, "Oh, your dog pooped over there." At first, I'm like "Oh." Then I realize this is 1248
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
great. This is the way it should be. I should be paying attention, but if I missed that my 1249
dog made a mess, I want somebody to tell me. I want to clean up after my dogs. Most of 1250
us go beyond that. If we see dog poop on the grass, even if it's cold and it happened 1251
yesterday, I'm going to clean it up. Most of the other dog owners feel the same way. We 1252
don't want to have dog poop there. We don't want people saying that we're a problem. If 1253
we had decent facilities, you'd have compliance gladly. Better to have it fenced however 1254 that's done, than not fenced. Better to have rules. Better to have it that everybody 1255
understands what the rules are. If people do understand what the rules are, not only do 1256
they police themselves, but they police each other. Is that fair enough? 1257
1258
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Okay, one minute. 1259
1260
Ms. Kleinhaus: The City of Mountain View is doing this experiment. They have dog 1261
parks that are a certain time people can go off-leash with the dogs. I've been taking my 1262
dog to Mountain View for a long time now. I don't necessarily want the area to be 1263
fenced. In our neighborhood, everybody goes to Ramos Park in the afternoon to socialize 1264
with each other. Everybody knows the dogs' names. Everybody knows each other. This 1265
is a huge social value to our community. Thank you. 1266
1267
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Rob, do you want to wrap up? Is there anything you want 1268
to add? 1269
1270
Mr. de Geus: This is really good progress. We've done some good work. These guys in 1271
particular have done some good work with this survey and the analysis. Very interesting 1272
data. As it fits in with all of the other data that we're gathering, I'm starting to feel a little 1273 more hopeful than maybe a month or two ago when we were struggling about some of 1274 this data. We're not there yet; I get that. The binder has helped as well. Important 1275 progress. Thank you for reviewing it and for your feedback. 1276
1277
3. Debrief the March 20, 2015 Commission Retreat. 1278
1279
Chair Reckdahl: I won't go through all the details of what we walked through, but I'll 1280
give you the highlights. We did wrap up some topics. The Master Plan Survey ad hoc 1281
has been disbanded since we completed it. There also was a park communications ad hoc 1282
that completed its tasks. Those are the two ad hocs that we closed for this year. We also 1283
had some other PIOs, we had about half a dozen PIOs that were passed. Some of them 1284
are under construction. Some are completed. A PIO is a Park Improvement Ordinance. 1285
We also passed the feeding wildlife ordinance. The field use was an outstanding issue 1286
that is being addressed by the Master Plan. That is taken off our list for now. We kept 1287
the remaining ad hocs. I won't run through the existing ad hocs, but we did add some ad 1288
hocs. We have two ad hocs of one, Commissioner Lauing, Arastradero Preserve, 1289
particularly the parking there. Can we work out a way of improving the parking situation 1290
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
there? Also the crossing at Kellogg and Middlefield, which is near the Junior Zoo and 1291
Museum. We also had two ad hocs of one. Commissioner Markevitch will coordinate 1292
with high schools to have open play time. This would be kids can go on the field and 1293
play. Nothing organized, not competitive, just time for the kids to go out and get their 1294
energy out and socialize. Also the Lefkowitz Tunnel, reopening it. It's been a big 1295
improvement. Elizabeth Ames has work on this to scrunch down the time that the tunnel 1296 is closed. Right now it's been closed for quite a while, and it would be nice to have that 1297
open. Commissioner Markevitch is going to be heading up the coordination with City 1298
staff on that. Finally, Commissioner Ashlund will be the new Project Safety Net liaison. 1299
We want some type of interaction with Project Safety Net. Stacey has done other actions 1300
with Project Safety Net. We have some items that we're following. These aren't ad hocs; 1301
these are just items that we are concerned about. The cost of services study tells us the 1302
cost of what we charge and what we get back. That is going to Council for a study 1303
session April 6th. We're following that. The rental spaces, whether we have to change 1304
rental space, change the pricing to improve the revenue flow for the rental spaces. We 1305
will consider that after the cost of services study session. The Baylands satellite parking, 1306
we're just monitoring Council activity. That's not an active matter right now, unless the 1307
Council acts on that. We also want to investigate EIR training with the City. If the City 1308
is going to hold some internal EIR training, it would be very good. This is 1309
Environmental Impact Report. That would be a good experience for us, so we want to 1310
coordinate with City staff to see if we can get a training offered. Finally, the QPR 1311
gatekeeper training, that is just for anyone in stress, to help identify and assist them. We 1312
said we would not have a coordinated effort, but we encouraged all individuals to get that 1313
training. We also added about a half dozen new items of interest. Just the Master Plan 1314
content and delivery, that's a big item. We're all working on that. We're not having a 1315 separate ad hoc for that obviously. Water conservation is something Commissioner 1316 Knopper brought up. After some discussion, for every park improvement we want to 1317 have water conservation as an aspect of the PIO. We are watching the Baylands 1318
Comprehensive Conservation Plan. That will be done fiscal year 2017. That's still a year 1319
and a half off. Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study will be performed late this year. 1320
We want to follow that. There's been a lot of interest from the public about the Baylands 1321
boardwalk, and we want to see what the feasibility says. Whether we can repair it; 1322
whether it has to be completely replaced. We also talked about the interpretive center 1323
exhibits, both at Arastradero and Foothills Park. This came out of a discussion about the 1324
Baylands Interpretive Center. All three of those interpretive centers, we want to evaluate 1325
the exhibits on that. There currently is a CIP for the Baylands Interpretive Center 1326
exhibits, but not for the other two. Finally, outreach to seniors and teens. We think that 1327
quite often they're overlooked in the planning. None of us are teens. Some of us are 1328
getting close to seniors. We want to make sure that all the demographics in the City 1329
properly give input into the parks. Was there any other comments? Did I miss anything? 1330
1331
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
Commissioner Ashlund: I have a question. Because an ad hoc can be an ad hoc of one, 1332
we talked about that. For example, on Project Safety Net, I signed up for that and the 1333
open playing field space at the high schools. Commissioner Markevitch signed up for 1334
that. One thing I realized after our retreat that didn't come up, was the liaison to the 1335
City/School Liaison Committee. I believe that's its name. We don't currently have any of 1336
us designated to be following that. I'd love to go and I try, but I miss them a lot because 1337 of scheduling conflicts. 1338
1339
Chair Reckdahl: What's the title? 1340
1341
Commissioner Hetterly: School liaison. 1342
1343
Chair Reckdahl: Is that something where we could have two people? If you're interested 1344
in it. 1345
1346
Commissioner Ashlund: I'm interested, but I don't have as much time and availability to 1347
attend it as I'd like. I'd be happy if another person would be willing to be interested. 1348
1349
Vice Chair Markevitch: Is that appropriate? The City/School Committee is usually 1350
School Board Members and City Council Members. Is this somebody who would go to 1351
that meeting and observe it? You don't really have a seat at the table. 1352
1353
Rob de Geus: You don't really have a seat at the table, but you do go to observe. 1354
Oftentimes it is a discussion that's relevant to our department, Community Services and 1355
not infrequently parks and recreation. In fact, the next meeting is April 2nd and it's at the 1356 School District. One of the topics is Project Safety Net. That'll be a discussion. Also 1357 interestingly, the committee has largely been an information sharing committee. The 1358 School District shares with the City about things that they're doing. Maybe Council 1359
Member Filseth can add to this. There's been some Council Members that would like to 1360
see that committee be a little more action oriented, if that's the right word. Problem solve 1361
some issues that both agencies are facing and help work through the solutions a little bit 1362
more than just sharing information. Things like Cubberley, as an example, where there's 1363
obviously interest from both parties. Project Safety Net is another good example. Traffic 1364
and Safe Routes to School is another good example. There's several. There was an 1365
interest from some Council Members that that be more of a working committee than just 1366
sharing of information. That was an interesting development. They're going to be 1367
discussing that on April 2nd. Council Member. 1368
1369
Council Member Filseth: There was some dialog on that at the last City/School meeting. 1370
It remains to be seen where it's going to end up. 1371
1372
Chair Reckdahl: Any other comments or questions? 1373
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
1374
Commissioner Ashlund: It was originally on our list a couple of years ago, when I first 1375
came on the Commission. I wondered if it had intentionally come off our list or if it was 1376
just lack of interest or time. I'm fine with it either way. 1377
1378
Chair Reckdahl: I looked at last year's list; I did not compare it to the year before to see 1379 if anything else had fallen off last year. 1380
1381
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1382 1383
Chair Reckdahl: I'll start off with one. Byxbee Park will be coming next month. 1384
Commissioner Crommie and I spent a lot of time with Daren working on that. I think 1385
they've improved it a lot. There's less trails up on Byxbee, but they're better laid out. If 1386
you're up there, sometimes it gets a little disorienting because there's so many 1387
crisscrossing trails. When you get to an intersection, you don't know exactly where 1388
you're at. It is a bit of a maze. The new layout is much simpler and will still be 1389
sufficiently dense to give people options as opposed to just one loop around the outside. 1390
There's some crisscrossing. It's a better design. One thing that we had talked about is 1391
this node. I mentioned this to you, Rob. Maybe we should bring this up. 1392
1393
Commissioner Crommie: I think it is worthwhile discussing. 1394
1395
Chair Reckdahl: I'm not sure if everyone's been to Byxbee. There's one particular spot in 1396
the new area; the spot closer to the freeway. This is the new stuff that was just opened up 1397
last year. There's a very good point with a good lookout where trails crisscross. At that 1398 node, they wanted to make a very large gathering spot. This would be crushed granite 1399 packed down so it'd be firm to walk on. This would be a meeting spot for people. The 1400 size would be 50 feet in diameter. Our first instinct was, "Wow, that's big." That's half 1401
the size of a basketball court. That would be in the middle of the wilderness. We 1402
thought, "Why do you need that much?" If we look at ranger's groups, that's more than 1403
enough size for any type of ranger group that we would have. Any social activities up 1404
there, we didn't think we'd need as many people. The landscape architect wanted 1405
personal space, 8 feet diameter per person, and they sized it that way. We thought that 1406
was a little excessive. After doing some numbers, we squished that down to 35 feet 1407
diameter. That's still a rather large size. For example, if you had a ranger group and 1408
you're listening to the ranger, you're not going to be any further away than 3 feet from the 1409
person next to you. You still could have over 100 people there, and even more if you 1410
wanted to squish it even further. If you had something like a social event, maybe a 4-foot 1411
diameter and you could still have 60 people around there. We thought that 35 feet was 1412
more than enough. After talking to Rob, Rob was saying, "Well, do we want to shrink it 1413
or not? Do we want to oversize it?" Commissioner Crommie. 1414
1415
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
Commissioner Crommie: I stand by shrinking it down to 35. I walked it also with 1416
Commissioner Hetterly. It's a place that we saw at the crossroads. It just seems out of 1417
scale. When you are gathering, you're gathering at the crossroads of four paths. You're 1418
in the center and you can also go into those paths a little bit. That provides a lot of extra 1419
space. It wasn't like you walk on a meandering trail up to a place and then you have this 1420
big space. It's this crossroads, so it really adds scale to it. That's where it just felt so 1421 extra big. 1422
1423
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly, do you have a comment? 1424
1425
Rob de Geus: This is not really a topic for discussion today. You can give an update, but 1426
this isn't on the agenda. We're going to discuss this at the next meeting. This is a good 1427
teaser. 1428
1429
Chair Reckdahl: A teaser for next week. 1430
1431
Commissioner Crommie: People can go see it. It's a really great walk up there. 1432
1433
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we should do it. 1434
1435
Commissioner Crommie: I recommend it. All Commissioners who are interested. You 1436
could even text Commissioner Reckdahl and I, and we would join you out there, if 1437
anyone's interested. 1438
1439
Chair Reckdahl: In general, if people have comments, email Daren about this. He's 1440 working this. He's working on the PIO for next month. If you do have comments, you 1441 should get them in now, so he can reflect it for the PIO. 1442 1443
Commissioner Hetterly: Is it the PIO coming next month or a discussion? 1444
1445
Mr. de Geus: I think it's discussion actually. I'll double check with him. It's come to the 1446
Commission once before. Given that there is fairly substantive changes that the whole 1447
Commission hasn't seen, I'd be surprised if he's bringing the PIO this time. 1448
1449
Chair Reckdahl: That would make more sense. Any other ad hocs? 1450
1451
Commissioner Knopper: Yes. I have a dog update. On Monday, March 16th, we had a 1452
stakeholders meeting with field users at Daren Anderson's office. Representatives from 1453
Palo Alto Little League, Babe Ruth league and the Mountain View football club or 1454
Mountain View soccer. 1455
1456
Commissioner Hetterly: PSV Union soccer. 1457
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
1458
Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. I can never get the letters. We presented the three 1459
proposed areas that the Commission has discussed, Greer Park, Baylands, and Hoover 1460
Park for the possible off-leash pilot program. We had a very passionate discussion 1461
specifically from Palo Alto Little League. It didn't impact soccer fields at all. The net of 1462
the meeting was that in Hoover Park we were discussing two areas. One area would be 1463 where the actual baseball diamond and the outfield was. Then there's an outer perimeter 1464
with a partial fence that we would complete. Palo Alto Little League and Babe Ruth 1465
deferred that if we were to present to our public meeting, which is the next step, utilizing 1466
the outside perimeter, they discussed with us the difficulty of grooming the dirt versus 1467
grass, for baseball diamonds and how expensive and time-consuming it is. That is not 1468
optimal at all. They would be open to having off-leash dogs in that outside perimeter of 1469
Hoover Park, wouldn't you say? 1470
1471
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. We thought we would change the options for the public 1472
meeting to favor that outside area. 1473
1474
Commissioner Knopper: Right. 1475
1476
Chair Reckdahl: You'd have some fence around the infield? 1477
1478
Commissioner Hetterly: There's the outfield fence that's in the middle of the turf area. 1479
We're talking about doing the shared use dog area outside of that fence, between the 1480
apartment building, the church, and the outfield fence. It would require more fencing. 1481
1482 Commissioner Knopper: It's like a boomerang. Pardon me for interrupting. It's like a 1483 weird triangular shape that's a little more than an acre. 1484 1485
Chair Reckdahl: It would be fenced? 1486
1487
Commissioner Hetterly: Yes. 1488
1489
Commissioner Knopper: Yes, fenced. 1490
1491
Commissioner Crommie: Is it grass or dirt? 1492
1493
Commissioner Knopper: Grass. 1494
1495
Commissioner Hetterly: It's grass. 1496
1497
Vice Chair Markevitch: Give an update. Aren't we going to talk about dogs next month? 1498
1499
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
Commissioner Knopper: That was the update. 1500
1501
Vice Chair Markevitch: (crosstalk) start discussing it. 1502
1503
Commissioner Knopper: No. I was answering. 1504
1505 Commissioner Crommie: Does asking a question fall under discussion or not? 1506
1507
Vice Chair Markevitch: It leads to a discussion. 1508
1509
Commissioner Hetterly: I just wanted to clarify. The ad hoc group has really been only 1510
looking at this shared use pilot program option. We have not been digging into where we 1511
should put a dedicated park, what size it should it be. It may be that this public meeting 1512
on the shared use option is a good opportunity to raise some key questions to get input 1513
from the public. It might be helpful for us to meet or talk with you all with your expertise 1514
from other communities what are the key issues that we should explore further. If you're 1515
open to that, that would be helpful before doing the public outreach meeting. 1516
1517
Commissioner Crommie: Does the ad hoc have a date set for the public outreach? 1518
1519
Commissioner Knopper: No. 1520
1521
Commissioner Crommie: Where do you stand on that? Are you coming back to us 1522
before you do the outreach or are you doing the outreach before? 1523
1524 Commissioner Knopper: We're going to have the public meeting, and then we'll come 1525 back with the results of that. 1526 1527
Commissioner Crommie: Can you please publicize the public meeting to the 1528
Commission, so those of us who might be interested. 1529
1530
Commissioner Knopper: Sure, of course. 1531
1532
Commissioner Crommie: It's always informative to be there while things are being 1533
discussed. 1534
1535
Commissioner Hetterly: If there's a strong feeling on the Commission that you want to 1536
discuss public outreach before we go out, that might be worthwhile, to get your thoughts 1537
about issues that we should explore at that meeting. Maybe it would make sense to put it 1538
on the Agenda in the interim. 1539
1540
Commissioner Crommie: If we have the time, that'd be good. 1541
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
1542
Chair Reckdahl: It doesn't have to be extended. 1543
1544
Commissioner Hetterly: Just a short, 15-minute discussion. 1545
1546
Chair Reckdahl: It would be useful to have a short discussion about that. We've waited 1547 long enough between the last update. It would be good just to chew on that. 1548
1549
Commissioner Crommie: Are you thinking the public outreach meeting might be months 1550
away? It's open-ended right now? 1551
1552
Commissioner Knopper: Hopefully. 1553
1554
Commissioner Hetterly: Hopefully not months. Hopefully in the next couple of months 1555
we'll be able to do that. 1556
1557
Commissioner Crommie: In that case, yeah. It might be nice to come back briefly. 1558
1559
Chair Reckdahl: Should we put that on the agenda for next month? 1560
1561
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 1562
1563
Chair Reckdahl: Any other ad hocs? Otherwise, we'll move on. 1564
1565
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1566 1567 Chair Reckdahl: The one thing I do want to say is the Form 700 is due April 1st. Get it 1568 in if you have not filed it. That is always fun. Rob, did you have any other (crosstalk). 1569
1570
Rob de Geus: You mentioned the cost of services study. Hopefully you have that on 1571
your calendar. There's an event, an all-day event, on May 30th. That's a ways out, but I 1572
thought I'd let you know if you haven't heard about it already. It's called the Summit, and 1573
it's about the Comp Plan for the City. The Commission cares a lot about that. It's an all-1574
day event. You can learn about the current thinking on the Comp Plan and some of the 1575
results from the Our Palo Alto outreach effort that's been happening over the last several 1576
months. You can put that on your calendar. I believe it's a Saturday. Some things that 1577
are happening a little closer than that. We have a youth forum happening this Friday that 1578
the Mitchell Park Community Center teen staff have been working on with the Palo Alto 1579
Youth Council. It's 5:30 to 9:00. It includes a couple of different things. There's a 1580
dialog circle time happening for teens specifically. There are six different topics that the 1581
teens talk about with some facilitators related to those topics. There's a parent workshop 1582
at the same time. Everyone comes back together at the end, so there's a sharing of what 1583
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
the teens discussed with their facilitators. There's an empathy hour after that where 1584
there's going to be some food and some fun activities for the adults and teens that are 1585
there. That's happening this Friday. 1586
1587
Chair Reckdahl: What is the target age? All teens? 1588
1589 Mr. de Geus: High school teens. It's on the heels of some tragic suicides. That's heavy 1590
on the minds and hearts of everyone including the students. That's certainly part of the 1591
topics that'll be discussed on Friday evening. That's at Mitchell Park Community Center 1592
if you're interested in participating. April 18th, hopefully you've got this on your 1593
calendars. Does everyone know what that is? The Magical Bridge Grand Opening. 1594
Right, Peter? Here's the guy that's helped make it happen. Of course, Olenka and many 1595
others in the community that have fundraised to help build that really awesome 1596
playground. That's going to be a lot of fun. Hopefully, that's on your calendar. 1597
1598
Commissioner Crommie: I know that's all day, but can you remind us what time the 1599
actual presentation is? 1600
1601
Peter Jensen: It's at 10:00 a.m. It's scheduled to go 30-45 minutes, the opening 1602
ceremonies. It's starting at 10:00. Daren and I met with the contractors on Scott Park 1603
yesterday. They are starting the renovation work there. I believe Monday is the actual 1604
day they're going to be working out there. It's a couple-month process to do the park. 1605
That's on its way. 1606
1607
Chair Reckdahl: Bocce is almost here. 1608 1609 Mr. de Geus: Daren had something he needed to be at tonight, so he couldn't be here. He 1610 did let me know that Hopkins Park is completed, that CIP. He was happy to say it's done. 1611
1612
Chair Reckdahl: That came up after you left on Friday. He was quite happy. 1613
1614
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 28, 2015 MEETING 1615 1616
Chair Reckdahl: We're going to have the dog park. A discussion about the public 1617
meeting. 1618
1619
Commissioner Hetterly: And Byxbee trails. 1620
1621
Rob de Geus: And Byxbee trails. I had a suggestion here. You may have talked about it 1622
at retreat after I left. We were trying to put together a second retreat or workshop around 1623
the Parks Master Plan and the matrix we looked at a little while back. We think by the 1624
end of April we'll have the matrix ready for a first hard look and have it completed 1625
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
including some of the summary of needs that would be generated from the data that's 1626
been collected. By April 28th, that's the next meeting, we think we would be ready for 1627
that. One thing we were thinking might be an option is rather than having a separate day 1628
for a workshop, to start a little earlier and do it that evening. We could provide some 1629
food and so on if that would be of interest to the Commission to avoid having another 1630
meeting day. Start at 5:30 or 6:00, and have a couple or three hours on the Parks Master 1631 Plan and the matrix. Have a couple of items after that and still be done reasonably early. 1632
If the Commission would rather have another day, certainly we can do that. 1633
1634
Chair Reckdahl: What is the general feel? Would you rather have a longer meeting one 1635
night as opposed to having a separate day? 1636
1637
Vice Chair Markevitch: Mm-hmm. 1638
1639
Chair Reckdahl: Abbie? 1640
1641
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah (inaudible). 1642
1643
Commissioner Crommie: I like it. 1644
1645
Peter Jensen: For the Parks Master Plan portion of it, we were discussing it in another 1646
room, perhaps the one on the corner, so we can sit around a round table. 1647
1648
Chair Reckdahl: It would be good to be at a table. If you have stuff to look at, it's nicer 1649
to gather as opposed to being spread out. Meeting times, what can people make? 6:00, 1650 5:30? What's too early? 1651 1652 Commissioner Crommie: 6:00 is better for me. 5:30 is too early for me. 1653
1654
Chair Reckdahl: Eric, do you have a preference? 1655
1656
Commissioner Crommie: I vote for no earlier than 6:00. 1657
1658
Chair Reckdahl: Let's go with 6:00, and maybe target 6:00 to 8:00 and then have the 1659
Commission meeting start at 8:00. Is that reasonable? 8:30? 1660
1661
Mr. de Geus: It might be good to have the food arrive at 5:30, and then people can come 1662
and eat for that half hour. If you can't get there until 6:00, it's fine. Have your food as we 1663
get started. 1664
1665
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
Chair Reckdahl: 5:30 dinner and we're going to target 6:00 to 8:00? What's the ending 1666
time? Let's target 8:30. It always seems like it's a gas that expands to fill all available 1667
space. 1668
1669
Mr. de Geus: That's what the team thinks as well. It's probably in the end going to be 1670
three hours. There's a lot to go over there. It's an important topic. Let's aim for 8:30. 1671 1672
Chair Reckdahl: We would just come into here when we would start the regular 1673
meetings or we'd have the regular meeting in there? 1674
1675
Catherine Bourquin: It's in the new, it's finished. That's what we were scheduled for to 1676
begin with. At the Chambers this year. 1677
1678
Mr. de Geus: Our regular meeting is scheduled in that room already. 1679
1680
Chair Reckdahl: That's convenient then. The entire meeting will be there. That gives us 1681
more flexibility. We may be there until midnight if that's the case. Any other agenda 1682
items? 1683
1684
Commissioner Ashlund: Trying to clarify the schedule. The next stakeholder meeting 1685
for the Master Plan, do we have a target date for that? 1686
1687
Mr. de Geus: I don't think so. We haven't scheduled it, because we put the brakes on the 1688
next stakeholder meeting to ensure that we were comfortable with the data gathering 1689
portion. That's where we develop the matrix. If everything goes well this next month as 1690 we develop the matrix and then we have our workshop, essentially study session, on the 1691 28th, we'll evaluate it at that time. If things are looking good then, we will try and have 1692 the stakeholder meeting fairly soon after that. Probably late May at the earliest. 1693
1694
Commissioner Ashlund: Are there more sub-stakeholder meetings such as the 1695
community gardens meeting that was today? 1696
1697
Mr. de Geus: There probably will be, particularly as we dive deeper into the survey 1698
results and we start to see certain trends or patterns. It's particularly helpful to have those 1699
conversations. We know we haven't hit all of them. You mentioned one, the younger 1700
generation up to 35. There's still more work that we need to do there in terms of some 1701
smaller focus groups. Every time the consultants are here, we try and fill their time so 1702
they can speak with residents about what we're learning or partner organizations, field 1703
users, that sort of thing. 1704
1705
Commissioner Crommie: If you want to go back to the farmers market, that was great. I 1706
saw so many young people there. It was striking that there were young people with 1707
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
children and singles, that demographic. That's really that under 35 group. They're either 1708
going to be married with their first kids or still single. 1709
1710
Chair Reckdahl: A farmers market is just a random set of people. Does that buy us value 1711
now? 1712
1713 Ryan Mottau: The reason that worked so well early on is a defined short set of questions 1714
that we were able to ask without having to grab a lot of people's time. I think that's right 1715
in the demographic, as Deirdre was saying, that we're looking to add some more 1716
perspective from. Unfortunately, that method of going out and intercepting people is 1717
going to be harder to get a more detailed view which is what we're trying to get to at this 1718
stage in the process. We'll definitely be thinking about some other alternatives. You're 1719
right, that's a great place to catch that demographic, and we did catch that the last time 1720
around. I'm happy to hear any other ideas. We're also following some leads with the 1721
director at the YMCA who has a variety of connections in other parts of the community 1722
and would have some of those same age groups involved there. We're going to see what 1723
we can track down over the next week or two. 1724
1725
Chair Reckdahl: If we're going after teens, do we want to visit high schools at all? 1726
1727
Vice Chair Markevitch: That's not really appropriate. Their instructional day is so full 1728
already that I can't even imagine trying to pull that one off. There's enough stress going 1729
on at the schools especially this time of year with college acceptances and rejections. I 1730
wouldn't do that. 1731
1732 Chair Reckdahl: I'm thinking about if you hung out at Town and Country at lunch, but 1733 that would be such a zoo that you'd probably be overwhelmed. 1734 1735
Vice Chair Markevitch: They have a very short lunch time, and you're only getting one 1736
high school at that point. There's got to be a better way than going to do that. Also 1737
getting onto the campus has a whole other set of problems. I just don't think that's a good 1738
fit. There has to be a different way. 1739
1740
VII. ADJOURNMENT 1741 1742
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 1743
Knopper at 10:10 p.m. Passed 7-0 1744
Draft Minutes 42
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
DATE: APRIL 28, 2015
SUBJECT: PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto has 36 parks and open space preserves covering approximately
4,165 acres of land, which includes Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and the
Baylands Nature Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Open Space,
and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan) was adopted by Council for the 2013
fiscal year. The purpose of this project is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a Parks Master Plan. The
Parks Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future renovations
and capital improvement projects aimed at meeting current and future demands for our
recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs. It will establish a
prioritized schedule of future park renovations and facility improvements.
DISCUSSION
Currently MIG (Master Planning Consultant) is analyzing data collected regarding the
parks, trails, open space and recreation system. The consultant, staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) are reviewing the data and confirming what has been
collected to date that will provide the sufficient information for creating a list of
recommendations. These recommendations will be used in the second phase of the
Master Plan processes, which will prioritize these recommendations.
In an effort to review and link the data gathered to the potential recommendations, a data
matrix has been compiled into the different segments of the Master Plan: parks, trails, open
spaces and recreation to assist with this process of formulating recommendations. The
matrix is intended to provide a quick reference to the data collected and to decipher how
that data is utilized in creating recommendations. The study session will focus on the review of this matrix and allow the Parks and Recreation Commission the opportunity to
provide feedback on the information found within.
Supporting data documents included with this month’s meeting submittal include: the
updated programming analysis summary, the existing condition maps for open space preserves and facilities and the supplements community survey analysis summary. These
items are attached to this report.
NEXT STEPS
PRC review of the Criteria, Priorities list of Recommendations (May PRC Meeting) Community/Stakeholder Priority Workshops (Spring 2015)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as
safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community
facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
ATTACHMENTS
• PRC Work Session Memo.
• PRC Master Plan Works Session Agenda
• Program Analysis Summary
• Supplemental Community Survey Analysis Summary
• Updated Demographic Analysis
• Existing Conditions Maps for Open Space Preserves and Facilities
• Additional Stakeholder Meetings Summary
PREPARED BY
Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
1 | Page
To: Palo Alto PRC, Peter Jensen and Elizabeth Ames
From: Ryan Mottau and Ellie Fiore, MIG
Re: New Materials for April PRC Work Session
Date: April 21, 2015
This memo is to introduce new work products being delivered to the PRC in April 2015
for inclusion in your data sources binder and for discussion at the April work session
with MIG. These new materials provide additional data and detail on the community
survey, demographics, the program analysis and community center and open space
preserves. This information will be incorporated into the matrix and needs summary
which will be the primary discussion item at our April 28th work session.
1.Supplemental Survey Summary (for binder section 14)
Following the presentation of the initial survey summary and the discussion with the
PRC at the March 24th meeting, MIG conducted additional data analysis to identify any
variations in response by certain respondents. Following the direction provided by PRC
members, we analyzed and summarized select responses by dog owners, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, residents of North and South Palo Alto and households with children. Key
findings and data broken out by group are included in the attached summary.
2.Existing Conditions Maps (for binder section 9)
MIG has developed maps to document existing conditions, issues and opportunities for
each park, open space preserve and community center in Palo Alto. Existing conditions
maps for each park were provided in March and this month community centers and
open space preserve maps are available for PRC members. These maps have been
reviewed by City staff for content and accuracy.
3.Program Analysis – Part II (for binder section 5)
To develop a better understanding of recreation program demand and capacity, MIG
analyzed registration and user data from the City to augment the initial high‐level
program analysis delivered to the PRC several months ago. The Recreation Program
Analysis Part II: Data Analysis presents key findings and themes as well as detailed data
about capacity of the range of recreation programs offered by the City as well as key
findings from staff interviews and about private offerings where possible.
Attachment 1
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
2 | Page
The raw data is available to the PRC upon request but not included in this packet due to
length.
4. Demographic Analysis Update (for binder section 7)
This document was updated in April 2015 to reflect the Palo Alto School District’s
2014‐15 Enrollment Report.
An appendix including the enrollment reports and other data sources used in the
analysis is available to the PRC upon request but not included in this packet due to
length.
5. Additional Informational Meetings
As discussed previously with the PRC, MIG continues to hold facilitated meetings with
various project stakeholders including city staff and community groups. A list of all
meetings held through March 2015 is included in the PRC packet. This document will be
updated with key findings from each meeting by the April 28th work session.
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
PRC Work Session
Date 4/28/2015
Time 5:30 PM – 8:30 PM
10 min Welcome
Meeting Purpose/Objectives
-Review and discuss needs summary
-Understand how needs will inform the master plan
-Agree on next steps
20 min Review New Data Sources
Supplemental Survey Analysis
Program Analysis Part II
Demographic Reports
Community Center and Preserves Maps
15 min Process Overview
Community Needs
Actions/Action Areas
Criteria
Recommendations
Prioritized Recommendations
90 min Needs Summary Discussion
30 min Introduction to Plan Framework and Policy
Questions
Attachment 2
19
RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS PART II:
DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
The Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan will address how the City of
Palo Alto is going to plan for, develop, and deliver recreation programs to meet
the needs of an evolving community. The following analysis is primarily based on
the City’s registration data from 2014 to 2015, which offers a snapshot of the
ever-changing recreation programming offered by the City of Palo Alto.
This analysis builds upon the Recreation Program Analysis Part I that was
developed early on in the PTOSR planning process to identify the division of
responsibility for various recreation options offered within the Community
Services Department as well as by private and community providers. The
complete Recreation Program Analysis will be an important part of the Data and
Needs Summary (combining all of the information sources) which will then inform
recommendations for future programming in Palo Alto.
Section Page
Key Themes & Findings ................................................................... 20
Approach ......................................................................................... 21
Analysis and Findings by Program Area .......................................... 23
Adult Programming Components ......................................... 23
Youth and Teen Programming Components ........................ 26
Other Programming Components ........................................ 32
Drop-In Programming ........................................................... 34
Attachment 3
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 20
Key Themes & Findings
The following is a high-level summary of notable findings and themes that
emerged from the program data analysis.
Palo Alto’s largest program areas, based on participation numbers, are:
o Sports, both Adult and Youth (Tables 5, 8, 12 and 13)
o Youth and Teen Aquatics (Table 7)
o Day Camps (Table 9)
Camps, both those offered by the City and by contract providers,
represent a large share of recreation offerings when measured by number
of participants as well as the number of individual classes (see Tables 9,
12).
Adult Sports have the highest level of participation of the adult program
offerings, and most adult sports programs are at or over capacity (see
Table 5).
Middle School Athletic programs are largely over-capacity (see Table 8).
The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported but makes
expanding these programs difficult without sacrificing quality due to
limited gym and field space.
Several programs that are at or over capacity have some classes with
waitlists, while other classes within the program are not full. This is likely
due to the popularity of the times and days when the classes with waitlists
are offered.*
Academic Support Programs offered to youth and teens are typically
operating under capacity (see Table 10).
As the City cancels classes that are under capacity, such as in Adult
Aquatics and Youth and Teen Aquatics (Tables 3 and 9), there may be
the potential to fill the facility space; this is dependent on the flexibility of
the space and the popularity of the time slot.
Youth and Adult Sports programs are not easily expanded, regardless of
popularity, due to facility and instructor/coach constraints (see Tables 5,
7, 8 and 11).
* The registration data tables show the percent of classes full or waitlisted at over 100%
in some cases. The analysis process added together the number of classes that were
indicated as full and the number with waitlists. Some classes are full and others are full
with waitlists
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 21
Programs at capacity with fewer facility constraints offer opportunities for
expansion, including Opens Space and Outdoor Recreation programs
(see Table 13) and Cross Country (see Table 8).
Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo and the
Children’s Theatre that are included in the registration system serve
thousands of additional adults, youth and teens in their own programs.
Many of these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in
the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. Some are
offered in buildings programmed by Recreation Services and coordination
of schedule and demand for different types of programs.
Approach
The analysis below was based on raw data exported from the City’s registration
system (a reference pdf file of the raw data exports summarized here is
available). This system collects data over time that allows Recreation Services to
evaluate individual classes as well as categories of classes. The overall system
was updated in 2014 and the data presented here is the total of the most recent
year of program registrations, from Spring 2014 to Winter 2015.
A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is minimum
participation. This is the number of participants needed to achieve the cost
recovery goals of each class. These goals are set based on the department’s
cost recovery policy and the individual class budget. If a class does not have
enough registrants to meet this minimum, a decision must be made to either
cancel the class or allow it to proceed.
To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand,
the project team reviewed and analyzed data on reservations, program
registrations and waitlists as well as considered observations by staff and
consultants.
The key data values summarized below are:
Number of classes: the total number of classes that were held (not
cancelled)
Number of participants: count of registered participants
Number of classes cancelled: classes offered in the program guide
but later cancelled (primarily due to failing to meet the minimum
registration)
Number of classes under minimum: classes held even though the
number of registrations did not meet the minimum registration level
Number of full classes: classes registered completely full (capacity is
based on room size or instructor limits)
Number of classes with a waitlist: classes registered beyond the
maximum
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 22
For the purposes of this analysis, capacity evaluation criteria are:
Below-capacity: more than 33% of classes not meeting minimums
At capacity: less than 33% not meeting minimums, up to 33% full or
waitlisted
Over capacity: More than 33% full or waitlisted, less than 10% of
classes cancelled.
Based on available data, the planning team developed a set of measures to
evaluate program components:
Average participants/class: number of participants divided by number
of classes offered.
Percentage of classes offered that did not meet minimum registration:
Number of classes divided by number of classes under minimum.
Ratio of cancelled to scheduled classes: the number of cancelled
classes divided by the total cancelled and the number of classes held.
Percent of classes full or waitlisted: the total of the number of full
classes and the number with a waitlist divided by the number of
classes. This number will exceed 100% where many classes are both
full and waitlisted.
In addition to the registration data, this analysis considers the Cubberley
Community Advisory Committee’s Report and Recommendations on the Future
of Cubberley (2013). This report provides insights on field usage related to the
City of Palo Alto’s recreation programming and other users of Cubberley
Community Center’s fields, track, tennis courts, gymnasium and other indoor
facilities.
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 23
Analysis and Findings by Program Area
Below is a summary of the status of each program area followed by registration
data tables. The following components of the recreation program offerings are
registered through the City’s online registration system.
Adult Programming Components
Adult Aquatics
Adult Fitness
Adult Special Interest Classes
Adult Sports
Youth and Teen Programming Components
Day Camps
Middle School Athletics
Youth and Teen Aquatics
Youth and Teen Special Interest Classes
Youth and Teen Sports
Youth and Teen Sports Camps
Other Program Components
Open Space/Outdoor Recreation
Therapeutic Recreation
Arts, performing arts, education programs at Cubberley Community
Center
Adult Programming Components
There was generally low participation in Adult Aquatics (see Table 3).
The City offers more than 30 timeslots for private adult swim lessons.
Over the past year, around 50% of classes or clinics were cancelled
due to lack of instructors (the main instructor for these classes was
unavailable due to medical issues).
Most Adult Fitness classes were under capacity, with one-third of all
classes held with fewer than the minimum number of participants.
Pilates and Capoeira classes were particularly under capacity with
50% and 67% of the classes cancelled, respectively. Dance is the
mostly widely offered class with the largest number of participants of
any of the Adult Fitness classes: 26 classes with 213 participants.
However, almost 50% of dance classes did not meet minimum
registration (see Table 4).
Adult Sports programs are running at capacity, with a total of 2,089
participants. Supplemental interviews with staff and adult sport
representatives indicate that the demand is constrained by a
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 24
combination of field availability and the priority given to teams made
up primarily of Palo Alto residents (see Table 5).
The Cubberley Community Center Advisory Committee Report
reinforces the constraints on field availability, stating that the
Cubberley fields are used intensively on weekday afternoons and
evenings as well as weekends, almost year-round. The Cubberley
report estimates that 7,000 participants, 60%-to-90% of whom are
Palo Alto residents, use the Cubberley fields each year. There were
46 tennis classes held including three classes that were full and four
of classes that had a waitlist. In the tennis category, 22% of classes
were cancelled.
Adult Special Interest classes serve a relatively small number of total
participants (180) in a limited range of specialized programs. Most of
the Adult Special Interest classes were under their minimum
participation, indicating that this category as a whole is well under
capacity. Of the total 180 participants, 64% were registered in
personal finance/retirement planning classes (see Table 6).
Table 3: Adult Aquatics
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
(n
o
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
)
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 13 54 4.2 37 74%4 31%3 1 31%
Private
Lessons 5 3 0.6 29 85%2 40%3 0 60%
Swim
Class /
Clinic
8 51 6.4 8 50%2 25%0 1 13%
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 25
Table 4: Adult Fitness
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 49 375 7.7 8 14%16 33%1 1 4%
Bodycare 8 29 3.6 1 11%1 13%0 0 0%
Capoeira 5 30 6.0 3 38%0 0%0 0 0%
Dance 26 213 8.2 3 10%12 46%0 0 0%
Pilates 1 2 2.0 1 50%1 100%0 0 0%
Tai‐Chi 3 38 12.7 0%0 0%0 0 0%
Yoga 6 63 10.5 0%2 33%1 1 33%
* Registered adult fitness classes are supplemented by BOOST classes which are
offered on a drop-in basis. This registration data does not reflect BOOST participation.
Table 5: Adult Sports
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
*
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 68 1621 23.8 19 22%5 7%6 4 15%
Basketball 8 516 64.5 1 11%0 0%1 0 13%
Lawn
Bowling 2 84 42.0 0%2 100%0 0 0%
Soccer 1 72 72.0 0%1 100%0 0 0%
Softball 11 732 66.5 5 31%0 0%2 0 18%
Tennis 46 217 4.7 13 22%2 4%3 4 15%
* Adult team sports (basketball, soccer and softball) are registered by team and each
team is assumed to have 12 participants, based on the average.
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 26
Table 6: Adult Special Interest Classes
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of Cl
as
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 35 180 5.1 4 10%22 63%0 0 0%
Languages 2 4 2.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 0 0%
Meditation 5 18 3.6 ‐‐0%5 100%0 0 0%
Personal
Finance/Retirement
Planning
17 116 6.8 2 11%12 71%0 0 0%
Qigong Do 1 2 2.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 0 0%
Self Improvement 6 15 2.5 2 25%5 83%0 0 0%
Other 4 25 6.3 0%0 0%0 0 0%
Youth and Teen Programming Components
Day Camps are one of the largest areas of programming offered by the
City of Palo Alto, with more than 2,000 participants across more than 25
different camp programs (see Table 7).
Overall, Day Camps are significantly over capacity with 58% of sessions
either full or waitlisted and just 6% of sessions cancelled. Only three of
the camps were below capacity. Most of the cancelled Day Camps during
summer 2014 were in Camp Palo Alto, with 10 of 18 sessions cancelled
(see Table 7).
All of the Middle School Athletic programs are-over capacity except for
wrestling, and no programs were cancelled (see Table 8). It will be
challenging to maintain the existing policy of “everyone plays,” without
degrading the experience, for example by increasing the team size.
Based on interviews with staff and community stakeholders, most Middle
School Athletics programs are constrained by gym/court space and a
shortage of coaches. Tennis, volleyball, and basketball are all constrained
by the number of players on a court at any one time. Cross country is also
over capacity but not as constrained by facilities, and so there may be
room to grow these programs.
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 27
Swim lessons are the City’s largest Aquatic Programming area, with 573
lessons, 26% of which are full with a waitlist. The total number of reported
participants is 4,384 (see Table 9).
Aquatics programming is constrained by pool time and space, particularly
at desirable times. The cancelled classes reflect a shortage of instructors,
rather than a lack of interest.
There is unmet demand for diving; 70% of diving classes have a wait list
(see Table 9).
Lego and Little Explorers Adventures programs were the most popular
youth and teen special interest classes. More than 50% of classes were
full and five of the classes had waitlists. The Little Explorers and Legos
programs are over capacity while Chess Wizards and Etiquette classes
are both largely under capacity (see Table 10).
The academically-oriented classes including Writing/ Reading/Journalism
are under capacity, with the exception of Public Speaking, which is just
over capacity, and Math, which serves a very small population (four
participants) (see Table 10).
Most of the City’s Youth and Teen Sports offerings are at capacity. Some
of the basketball programming was cancelled due to low registration,
while other classes had a waitlist. This is likely due to limited day and time
offerings because of the constrained court capacity (see Table 11).
Youth and Teen Sports Camps are offered through contracts with outside
providers and serve a total of 924 participants. Most of these camps are
at capacity. Track and field and volleyball are meeting demand; neither of
these camps was under minimum registration and neither had waitlists
(see Table 12).
Soccer camps are the largest share of Sports Camps with 199
participants in 22 camps. However, Soccer Camps are alternatively under
capacity (45% of camps did not meet minimums) or over capacity (14% of
the camps had waitlists). These programs may have different attendance
expectations for the contractors providing them; the primary concern or
consideration for the City is that valuable field space is reserved and then
not used (see Table 12).
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 28
Table 7: Day Camps
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 209 2212 10.6 14 6%23 11%53 69 58%
Academic
Writing/Reading/Journalism 9 59 6.6 1 10%2 22%1 5 67%
Bay Camp 8 109 13.6 ‐‐0%1 13%3 3 75%
Books and Bricks 1 25 25.0 ‐‐0%0 0%1 0 100%
Brick Films 1 25 25.0 ‐‐0%0 0%1 0 100%
Camp Chronos 4 53 13.3 ‐‐0%1 25%1 3 100%
Camp Jive 5 50 10.0 ‐‐0%2 40%0 0 0%
Camp Kinetic 12 179 14.9 ‐‐0%0 0%4 9 108%
Camp Oceana 3 44 14.7 ‐‐0%0 0%0 0 0%
Camp Palo Alto 8 126 15.8 10 56%0 0%1 1 25%
Camp Shoreline 20 197 9.9 0%0 0%3 12 75%
Chess Wizards 10 92 9.2 1 9%4 40%1 0 10%
CIT 21 98 4.7 0%0 0%7 1 38%
Communication Academy
Open House 3 10 3.3 1 25%3 100%0 0 0%
Debate 4 22 5.5 ‐‐0%0 0%2 4 150%
Foothills Day Camp 5 274 54.8 ‐‐0%0 0%3 4 140%
Foothills eXtreme 1 26 26.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 1 100%
Foothills Fun Camp 5 271 54.2 ‐‐0%0 0%2 4 120%
Freshman Leadership 4 24 6.0 ‐‐0%0 0%3 4 175%
Math 4 26 6.5 ‐‐0%0 0%0 2 50%
Natural Wonders 2 21 10.5 1 33%1 50%0 0 0%
Pre/Post Camp 51 174 3.4 ‐‐0%8 16%6 0 12%
Public Speaking 16 76 4.8 ‐‐0%1 6%8 8 100%
Ride the Niles Canyon
Railway and Holiday Party 1 11 11.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 0 0%
Robotics 6 110 18.3 ‐‐ 0% 0 0% 2 4 100%
Summer of Service 4 81 20.3 ‐‐0%0 0%4 3 175%
Teen X‐treme Camp 1 29 29.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 1 100%
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 29
Table 8: Middle School Athletics
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 55 1054 19.2 0%0 0%22 24 84%
Basketball 12 288 24.0 ‐‐0%0 0%4 3 58%
Cross Country 3 127 42.3 ‐‐0%0 0%2 2 133%
Flag Football 9 176 19.6 ‐‐0%0 0%5 5 111%
Golf 3 17 5.7 ‐‐0%0 0%2 2 133%
Tennis 3 5 1.7 ‐‐0%0 0%2 3 167%
Track & Field 3 87 29.0 ‐‐0%0 0%2 2 133%
Training Camp 1 19 19.0 ‐‐0%0 0%0 1 100%
Volleyball 18 297 16.5 ‐‐0%0 0%5 6 61%
Wrestling 3 38 12.7 ‐‐0%0 0%0 0 0%
Table 9: Youth and Teen Aquatics
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 606 4629 7.6 124 17%161 27%151 147 49%
Diving 10 99 9.9 0%0 0%3 7 100%
Lifeguard
Training 14 95 6.8 0%0 0%0 0 0%
Swim
Lessons 573 4384 7.7 124 18%160 28%148 140 50%
Water
Polo 9 51 5.7 0%1 11%0 0 0%
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 30
Table 10: Youth and Teen Special Interest
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 116 809 7.0 28 19%27 23% 36 32 59%
A Day at Little Explorers 4 61 15.3 0%0 0% 2 4 150%
Academic
Writing/Reading/Journalism 4 6 1.5 2 33%2 50% 0 0 0%
Chess Wizards 1 14 14.0 1 50%0 0% 0 0 0%
College 3 11 3.7 0%3 100% 0 0 0%
Etiquette 2 3 1.5 6 75%1 50% 0 0 0%
Ice Skating 4 18 4.5 0%1 25% 1 1 50%
Lego 13 71 5.5 1 7%0 0% 7 5 92%
Little Explorers Adventures 8 120 15.0 0%0 0% 5 5 125%
Maman et moi learn French 2 10 5.0 0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Math 2 4 2.0 0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Public Speaking 2 9 4.5 1 33%0 0% 0 1 50%
Other 1 6 6.0 0%0 0% 1 0 100%
Table 11: Youth and Teen Sports
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 171 1415 8.3 41 19%21 12% 38 27 38%
Basketball 10 97 9.7 6 38%3 30% 0 3 30%
Capoeira 4 35 8.8 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Karate ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐3 100%‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Soccer 76 931 12.3 18 19%12 16% 7 4 14%
Tennis 80 351 4.4 10 11%6 8% 31 20 64%
U Jam ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐1 100%‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 31
Table 12: Youth and Teen Sports Camps
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 86 924 10.7 24 22%15 17% 19 30 57%
Basketball 4 60 15.0 1 20%0 0% 0 0 0%
Flag
Football 3 62 20.7 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Golf 2 30 15.0 0%0 0% 0 2 100%
Gymnastics 16 113 7.1 8 33%0 0% 6 14 125%
Minihawks
Camp 9 131 14.6 2 18%2 22% 0 0 0%
Multisport
Camp 9 110 12.2 5 36%2 22% 2 4 67%
Rock
Climbing 5 35 7.0 5 50%0 0% 2 5 140%
Soccer 22 199 9.1 3 12%10 45% 2 1 14%
Tennis 11 100 9.1 0%1 9% 7 4 100%
Track &
Field 1 21 21.0 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Volleyball 4 63 15.8 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Other Programming Components
Open Space and Outdoor Recreation classes are generally at capacity
with no cancelled classes and only one hiking class that did not meet
minimums. Fishing classes are at capacity and all four classes offered
had a waitlist. Hiking classes are the City’s most frequently offered
classes with 15 classes offered, four of which were at capacity (see Table
13).
Palo Alto’s community gardens have been at capacity with waitlists for the
past several years. However, according to program staff and volunteers,
there was some space that became available this year, in part due to
reducing the size of the plots (and thereby increasing the number).
The Omega Club is a City therapeutic recreation program with a limited
number of events. The program is an active social group for adults with
special needs. The six events captured in the registration system
averaged around 8 participants. While the registration data shows these
classes as full, additional capacity is available based on staff input.
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 32
Palo Alto’s Arts and Science programs were not analyzed as part of the
PTOSR planning process. However, they are important services offered
by the City and in some cases these programs are housed within facilities
programmed by Recreation Services. See Tables 14, 15, and 16 for
registration information for the various age groups served by programs at
the Art Center, Junior Museum and Zoo and the Children’s Theater.
Cubberley Community Center also offers art, music and dance programs
through partners who lease space in the facility. These programs are
outside of Palo Alto’s registration system. The Cubberley Community
Center Advisory Committee published an extensive analysis of the uses
and potential of the facility which includes data about the participation in
these programs. For example, Dance Connection serves approximately
2,000 students while academic, tutoring, science education, language,
and cultural programs offered at Cubberley serve approximately 4,200
people annually.
Table 13: Open Space and Outdoor Recreation
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
*
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 25 225 9.0 ‐‐0%1 4% 6 8 56%
Canoe
Trips 2 15 7.5 ‐‐0%0 0% 1 0 50%
Fishing 4 59 14.8 ‐‐0%0 0% 3 4 175%
Gardens 2 1 0.5 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Harvest
Festival 1 8 8.0 ‐‐0%0 0% 0 0 0%
Hiking 15 127 8.5 ‐‐0%1 7% 1 4 33%
Hunting 1 15 15.0 ‐‐0%0 0% 1 0 100%
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 33
Table 14: Fine Arts/Art Center
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
*
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 229 2279 10.0 49 18%24 10% 73 61 59%
Adult 72 751 10.4 19 21%11 15% 6 4 14%
Preschool 23 226 9.8 5 18%4 17% 7 6 57%
Kids 117 1205 10.3 12 9%3 3% 60 49 93%
Teens 17 97 5.7 13 43%6 35% 0 2 12%
Table 15: Children’s Theatre/Performance Arts
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
*
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Total 232 1136 4.9 69 23% 62 27% 55 34 38%
Adult 4 65 16.3 0% 0 0% 0 0 0%
Preschool 76 447 5.9 48 39% 24 32% 7 10 22%
Kids 123 572 4.7 9 7% 33 27% 29 21 41%
Teens 29 52 1.8 12 29% 5 17% 19 3 76%
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 34
Table 16: Science/ Junior Museum and Zoo
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
*
Av
e
r
a
g
e
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
/
C
l
a
s
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
/
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Un
d
e
r
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
no
t
ca
n
c
e
l
l
e
d
% of
cl
a
s
s
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
no
t
me
e
t
i
n
g
mi
n
i
m
u
m
s
# Fu
l
l
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
# of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
wi
t
h
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
% of
Cl
a
s
s
e
s
Fu
l
l
or
Wa
i
t
l
i
s
t
e
d
Grand Total 93 771 8.3 15 14% 22 24% 29 33 67%
Youth and
Teens 71 477 6.7 15 17% 20 28% 20 16 51%
Science Camp 8 90 11.3 ‐‐ 0% 1 13% 4 5 113%
Zoo Camp 9 137 15.2 ‐‐ 0% 0 0% 5 8 144%
Jurassic
Camp 5 67 13.4 ‐‐ 0% 1 20% 0 4 80%
Drop-In Programming
In addition to registered classes, Palo Alto offers two main pay-per-use, drop-in
activities. Both swimming and BOOST! fitness programs are sold in 10-use
packages that allow participants to choose the sessions and schedule that work
for them (within the scheduled times for these activities). These drop-in programs
were analyzed by use patterns, rather than scheduling and registration. The
following tables summarize the use of 10 swim/class packages over the course
of the last year (April 2014 – March 2015).
Adult drop-in swimming makes up over 60% of the total uses (see Table
17). Participation ramps up in spring and reaches a peak in July that is
nearly double the off-season use.
Senior drop-in swimming follows a similar pattern as Adults, while Youth
drop-ins are primarily a summer use (June-August corresponding to the
school vacation).
BOOST! Programming is most popular with seniors (see Table 18) who
make us 86% of all pass use. The peak in use is in the new year (January
through March) falling off in the late summer and fall.
Program Analysis Part II: Data Analysis 35
Table 17: Aquatics 10-Swim Packages
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
Ma
r
c
h
Ap
r
i
l
Ma
y
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
4
‐15
To
t
a
l
Grand
Total 1676 1496 1828 1994 2153 2755 3611 2742 2148 1908 1504 1472 25287
Adult
(18‐59)
1048 968 1239 1280 1421 1536 1984 1540 1373 1195 931 904 15419
Senior
(60+)
609 520 566 708 696 696 892 843 683 698 559 549 8019
Youth
(3‐17)
19 8 23 6 36 523 735 359 92 15 14 19 1849
Table 18: BOOST! 10-Class Packages
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
Ma
r
c
h
Ap
r
i
l
Ma
y
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
u
s
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
20
1
4
‐15
To
t
a
l
Grand
Total 735 729 743 686 621 681 601 371 379 564 601 446 7157
Adult
(18‐59) 97 61 107 93 88 89 97 87 53 91 80 49 992
Senior
(60+) 638 668 636 593 533 592 504 283 326 473 521 397 6164
Student
1 1
1
SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY FINDINGS
Introduction
Following the presentation and discussion of community survey findings at the
March 24th Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, MIG conducted
additional analysis to respond to Commission questions about possible
variations in responses according to:
Presence of children in household;
Dog ownership;
Race or ethnicity; and
Geography within the city.
The following summarizes the key findings of this supplemental analysis. The
summary calls out key findings where there were significant variations between
groups or where the demographic/user groups have a particular interest in the
topic (i.e. households with children and recreation needs; dog owners and dog
parks). This analysis uses the same graph numbers as the initial Community
Survey Analysis.
Key Findings
The most significant differences between the preferences of
households with children and households without children are related
to the future programming of Baylands and field use policy (see
Graphs 17 and 14).
User groups preferences for programming at Baylands align with
their other interests:
o Households with children indicated support for fields,
gymnasiums, pools and skate parks.
o Dog owners support a dog park at Baylands.
o Asian Pacific Islanders indicated slightly more support for
gymnasiums and pools, which is aligned with this groups’
strong support for additional aquatic programming.
o There was no significant variation between North and South
Palo Altans’ preferences for Baylands.
Attachment 4
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 2
When asked how well the Parks and Recreation system is meeting
their needs there were no significant differences between the user
groups (see Graphs 18a and 18b).
There is agreement between dog owners and non-dog owners on the
need to improve dog parks. However, there is a significant difference
between these two groups’ preferences (see Graphs 7a, 8a and 17b).
North and South Palo Altans give priority to the improvement of
facilities in their part of the city (see Graph 16).
Respondents who identified as Asian/Pacific Islander were more
likely to place higher importance or priority on additional or enhanced
recreation programming across locations and programs (see Graphs
7c, 9 and 12a).
Presence of Children in Household
Because household composition, and particularly the presence of children, is a
primary influence on peoples’ park and recreation use, experience and
preferences, the data was analyzed to identify the specific differences between
households with and without children under 18.
Prioritizing Facility Use
Respondents with and without children responded similarly regarding
approaches to prioritizing facilities. Not surprisingly, the most significant
difference was between respondents with and without children. Of those
respondents with children 44% supported prioritizing youth activities over adult
activities while only 22% of respondents without children supported prioritizing
youth activities.
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 3
Graph 13a: Household With/Without Children- Given the limited meeting
rooms, camp sites and other facilities available for rental or reservation in
Palo Alto, indicate whether you support the following strategies for
prioritizing use of these facilities.
Prioritizing Field Use
The most notable difference between the responses of those with and without
children related to field priorities is regarding allowing access by competitive
teams throughout the region. Respondents with children more often indicted
they do not support this policy, although neither group indicated strong support
for this policy.
143
44
36
37
399
182
223
94
208
175
115
80
403
221
640
291
132
79
279
157
312
88
386
173
153
75
51
34
158
83
192
95
184
85
196
96
71
54
43
32
81
50
76
48
66
46
73
45
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
on
a fi
r
s
t
‐
co
m
e
fi
r
s
t
‐
se
r
v
e
ba
s
i
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Eq
u
a
l
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
;
co
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
ev
e
n
t
s
;
an
d
lo
c
a
l
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
no
n
‐
pr
o
f
i
t
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
ns
bu
t
no
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
d
fo
r
yo
u
t
h
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ov
e
r
ad
u
l
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
Mo
r
e
pi
c
n
i
c
ar
e
a
s
an
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Don't Support
Support
Not Sure
No Answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 4
Graph 14a: Household With/Without Children- Palo Alto’s sports fields are a
limited resource, used by a range of users, with priority given to youth
organizations. Indicate whether you support, don’t support or are not sure
about the statements below.
Prioritizing improvements and additions to recreation programs
Families with children demonstrated greater support for all categories of
recreation programs and features compared to households without children,
with the minor exception of fitness classes, which received a slightly greater
share of “Extremely Important” and “Very Important” responses among those
without children.
Responses for fitness classes and fitness equipment/weight rooms showed little
difference between respondents with and without children. The greatest
difference in support was for gym-based sports and activities.
43
45
104
23
71
30
407
176
116
101
589
231
434
262
444
229
103
45
466
167
83
66
161
64
173
82
180
117
130
77
55
52
71
45
82
53
80
56
58
49
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
al
l
fi
e
l
d
s
fo
r
lo
c
a
l
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
ba
s
e
d
or
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
sp
o
r
t
s
le
a
g
u
e
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
SO
M
E
un
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
fi
e
l
d
ti
m
e
fo
r
ot
h
e
r
us
e
s
Cr
e
a
t
e
wa
y
s
fo
r
ne
w
sp
o
r
t
s
an
d
in
f
o
r
m
a
l
gr
o
u
p
s
to
re
s
e
r
v
e
fi
e
l
d
ti
m
e
Al
l
o
w
mo
r
e
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
te
a
m
s
fr
o
m
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
re
g
i
o
n
Op
e
n
fo
r
lo
n
g
e
r
ho
u
r
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
li
g
h
t
i
n
g
Don't Support
Support
Not Sure
No Answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 5
Graph 16a: With/Without Children- Which major improvements, facilities
and additions to parks should the City prioritize?
Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center
Greater distinctions can be seen between households with and without children
when asked about appropriate future recreational uses near the Baylands
Athletic Center. Respondents with children in their households showed greater
support for additional sports fields, gymnasiums, pools and skate parks. Those
without children under 18 were more likely to see dog parks, community
gardens, or orchards and natural areas as being appropriate.
52
58
91
54
68
46
150
96
81
50
171
86
26
14
60
39
97
45
99
58
150
92
89
48
132
67
5
4
200
113
222
109
236
120
262
123
242
133
218
118
25
16
213
93
177
97
192
85
97
32
192
94
125
55
4
3
208
66
133
63
135
55
59
20
122
40
74
39
56
35
37
25
50
26
40
30
52
31
44
29
50
29
654
322
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Gy
m
‐ba
s
e
d
sp
o
r
t
s
an
d
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(b
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
;
vo
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
et
c
.
)
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
cl
a
s
s
e
s
(y
o
g
a
;
cr
o
s
s
f
i
t
;
et
c
.
)
So
c
i
a
l
ev
e
n
t
s
/
s
p
a
c
e
s
Ma
r
t
i
a
l
ar
t
s
Cl
u
b
s
an
d
cl
a
s
s
e
s
(r
o
b
o
t
i
c
s
;
bo
o
k
cl
u
b
s
;
et
c
.
)
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/
w
e
ig
h
t
ro
o
m
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Not Important
2
3
4
5‐Extremely Important
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 6
Graph 17a: Households With/Without Children: What facilities or spaces
would be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near Baylands
Athletic Center?
Meeting user needs
There were a few slight differences in responses between those with and
without children in the household. Those with children expressed slightly greater
needs related to age, culture, language and physical needs.
59
59
160
57
170
132
166
123
163
91
105
30
69
15
17
3
31
40
108
44
104
69
110
59
125
69
86
32
49
17
0
87
66
112
66
168
71
136
72
159
95
166
80
128
40
9
5
138
65
114
50
104
35
108
49
119
44
156
91
145
53
384
102
208
128
128
26
171
36
111
30
176
108
315
234
28
71
62
68
49
96
61
79
55
93
65
81
53
64
35
693
356
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
sp
o
r
t
s
fi
e
l
d
s
Do
g
pa
r
k
Gy
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
Po
o
l
Sk
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
or
or
c
h
a
r
d
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ar
e
a
fo
r
hi
k
i
n
g
an
d
bi
r
d
wa
t
c
h
i
n
g
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Not Appropriate
2
3
4
5‐Extremely Appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 7
Graph 18a: Household With/Without Children- How well do you feel that the
Palo Alto Parks and Recreation System meets your needs in the following
areas?
Dog Ownership
Dogs are a key issue for parks users in Palo Alto. To learn more about how dog
ownership may have influenced survey responses, analysis was done to identify
distinctions in responses between dog owners and non-owners. Significant
differences between dog owners and non-dog owners were found in several
results.
When asked if dog parks are appropriate to achieve the goal of enhancing
health and well-being of community members, there was a significant difference
in response by ownership. Non-owners were much more likely to say it is not
important and also more likely to be neutral on the topic see Graph 7a). The
same outcomes were observed when respondents were asked if dog parks
would be an appropriate use for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the
Baylands Athletic Center (see graph 17b).
24
8
19
4
16
8
23
8
27
10
19
6
26
10
40
18
40
20
19
9
39
24
54
24
46
23
28
22
49
26
2
173
75
87
40
224
111
229
116
148
89
123
62
257
104
10
11
273
130
98
46
229
80
183
63
236
85
208
96
136
54
168
98
442
225
154
94
170
101
202
120
297
142
138
72
7
92
63
105
70
108
77
111
82
111
67
95
66
164
128
699
355
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Children
No Children
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
La
n
g
u
a
g
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Ag
e
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
pa
r
k
s
an
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
cl
o
s
e
to
wh
e
r
e
yo
u
sp
e
n
d
yo
u
r
ti
m
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
/
V
o
l
un
t
e
e
r
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Needs not met
2‐Needs Partially Met
3‐Needs Almost Met
4‐Needs Met
5‐ALL needs met
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 8
When asked specifically about how the City should accommodate the dog
owning community in Palo Alto parks, strong differences were seen on each
option provided, particularly with regard to the option of designating times for
dogs. Dog owners were very supportive of all ideas to expand recreation with
dogs. Additional dedicated off-leash dog areas are supported by dog owners
(66% indicated they are appropriate or very appropriate) while only 30% of non-
dog owners indicated additional off-leash dog areas are appropriate or very
appropriate (see Graph 8a).
As noted in the initial summary memo, both dog owners and non-dog owners
agree there is a need to improve existing dog parks however they do not agree
on what those improvements should look like (see Graph 8a).
Graph 7a: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - We heard from Palo Alto
community members that enhancing health and well-being is one of the
most important functions of parks. Of the facilities listed below, which are
appropriate for Palo Alto to improve or add to its system to achieve this
function? This graph represents responses to the “Dog Park” facility.
33
156
24
148
67
196
86
84
205
63
6
15
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
1‐not appropriate
2
3
4
5‐extremely appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 9
Graph 8a: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - How should the City
accommodate the dog owning community in Palo Alto parks?
Graph 17b: Dog Owners/Non-Dog owners - Would dog parks be
appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic
Center (designated for future recreational use)?
23
69
82
336
88
276
41
182
223
151
22
59
20
82
20
94
27
83
32
65
49
167
35
104
49
111
67
153
41
154
91
143
66
53
66
71
72
107
12
39
232
186
211
51
190
75
204
92
35
147
4
38
7
36
8
35
10
45
78
106
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
Im
p
r
o
v
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
do
g
pa
r
k
s
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
ti
m
e
s
wh
e
n
do
g
s
ca
n
be
of
f
‐le
a
s
h
in
ce
r
t
a
i
n
pa
r
k
s
in
a
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
/
no
n
‐fe
n
c
e
d
ar
e
a
Sh
a
r
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
fe
n
c
e
d
‐in
sp
a
c
e
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
(f
e
n
c
e
d
)
of
f
‐
le
a
s
h
ar
e
a
s
wi
t
h
i
n
pa
r
k
s
No
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
do
g
pa
r
k
s
in
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
1‐Not appropriate
2
3
4
5‐Very appropriate
No answer
41
161
37
105
49
118
66
86
206
114
22
78
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Dog Owner
Not a Dog Owner
1‐not appropriate
2
3
4
5‐extremely appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 10
Race or Ethnicity
Because the largest non-white ethnic group in Palo Alto is Asian/Pacific Islander
and because this group was under-represented in the survey results compared
to their presence in the community, additional analysis was conducted to see if
there was any distinction in responses between Asian/Pacific Islander
respondents and other groups (including whites and all other ethnic groups).
The graphs below represent questions for which there was a notable difference
in responses between Asian/Pacific Islander and non-Asian/Pacific Islander
responses. For most survey questions there was no significant difference in
responses.
Table 2: Race/Ethnicity
Answer
Survey
Count
Survey
Percentage
ACS
2009-13
White/Caucasian 886 76%65%
Asian/Pacific Islander 180 15%26%
Hispanic/Latino 24 2%8%*
American Indian or Alaska Native 6 1%0.1%
African American 5 0.4%3%
Other (please specify) 39 3%2%
Total Respondents 1164
Enhancement and additions to recreation programs
Respondents who identified as Asian/Pacific Islander were more likely to rank all
the options for enhancing or adding recreation programs and features as
“Important” or “Very Important” than the non-Asian respondents. Asian/Pacific
Islander showed significantly stronger support for enhanced/additional gym-
based supports and activities.
Graph 9: Asian pacific Islanders/Non-Asian Pacific Islanders - How
important is the enhancement/ addition of the following recreation
programs and features in Palo Alto?
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 11
Additions and Improvements to Enhance Health and Well-Being
Respondents who identified as Asian/Pacific Islanders were more likely to rank
all of the options for improvements and additions to the existing system as
“Important” or “Very Important” than the non-Asian respondents, with exception
of dog parks quiet areas in parks. Relative to the number of respondents in each
category, about 10% more Asian/Pacific Islanders than non-Asian/Pacific
Islanders indicated that multi-generational play is important for enhancing health
and well being.
Graph 7c: Asian pacific Islanders/Non-Asian Pacific Islanders - How
appropriate are these additions/improvements to existing park and
recreation system in Palo Alto to achieve the goal of enhancing health and
well-being of community members?
10
110
21
145
18
114
28
246
17
131
32
257
5
40
11
99
19
142
19
157
24
242
10
137
30
199
3
9
35
313
47
331
46
356
67
385
52
375
49
336
4
41
58
306
47
274
50
277
29
129
54
286
35
180
0
7
62
274
40
196
41
190
21
79
40
162
26
113
12
91
4
62
6
76
6
70
11
83
7
73
8
79
156
976
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Gy
m
‐ba
s
e
d
sp
o
r
t
s
an
d
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
(b
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
; vo
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
;
ba
d
m
i
n
t
o
n
et
c
.
)
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
cl
a
s
s
e
s
(y
o
g
a
;
cr
o
s
s
f
i
t
;
et
c
.
)
So
c
i
a
l
ev
e
n
t
s
/
s
p
a
ce
s
Ma
r
t
i
a
l
ar
t
s
Cl
u
b
s
an
d
cl
a
s
s
e
s
(r
o
b
o
t
i
c
s
;
bo
o
k
cl
u
b
s
;
et
c
.
)
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
/w
e
i
g
h
t
ro
o
m
Ot
h
e
r
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 12
8
86
2
21
8
28
5
39
22
172
28
201
8
54
42
205
5
27
11
121
5
40
3
37
8
73
29
242
24
240
11
112
37
184
2
7
30
285
17
110
21
181
39
213
55
377
50
335
45
282
43
278
1
17
40
312
45
316
58
370
44
301
34
184
39
197
48
334
24
181
0
8
87
311
105
643
84
509
78
497
32
145
32
148
61
333
27
285
11
88
4
49
6
34
6
39
6
41
8
44
7
43
7
49
7
31
161
1017
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Mu
l
t
i
‐
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
al
pl
a
y
ar
e
a
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Lo
o
p
pa
t
h
s
an
d
tr
a
i
l
s
Qu
i
e
t
ar
e
a
s
in
pa
r
k
s
fo
r
re
l
a
x
a
t
i
o
n
Mo
r
e
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
cl
a
s
s
e
s
Ou
t
d
o
o
r
ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Na
t
u
r
e
or
i
e
n
t
a
t
e
d
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
Do
g
Pa
r
k
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Not appropirate
2
3
4
5‐Very appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 13
Graph 12a: Asian pacific Islanders/Non-Asian Pacific Islanders - How
important are the following enhancements to Palo Alto's aquatic options?
Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center
Asian/Pacific Islander respondents demonstrated slightly more support for a
gymnasium, pool or community gardens at the Baylands site and showed less
interest in additional sports fields, dog parks and skate parks.
27
140
38
258
18
95
15
97
23
153
30
193
25
160
11
107
22
191
7
61
13
82
19
159
13
85
21
112
44
349
60
361
41
278
43
281
60
348
35
230
36
263
35
207
22
97
44
285
45
270
30
174
32
209
41
233
48
195
18
91
54
292
50
279
31
149
52
289
41
222
15
166
20
166
16
153
14
155
17
181
18
158
16
174
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
le
s
s
o
n
s
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
Mo
r
e
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
es
fo
r
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
nt
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ri
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
po
o
l
s
an
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
so
c
i
a
l
sp
a
c
e
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
po
o
l
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pu
b
l
i
c
po
o
l
Wa
t
e
r
pl
a
y
at
mo
r
e
pa
r
k
s
Not important
Somewhat
important
Moderately
Important
Very important
Extremely
important
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 14
Graph 17c: Asian pacific Islanders/Non-Asian Pacific Islanders - What
facilities or spaces would be appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of
land near the Baylands Athletic Center (designated for future recreational
use)?
Geography
Because Palo Altans often distinguish between “North” and “South” Palo Alto
and because the geographic distribution of facilities, programs and amenities is
relevant for the Master Plan, we conducted additional analysis to identify
discernible differences in responses between residents of neighborhoods north
and south of the Oregon Expressway.
Prioritizing Facilities/Park Spaces for Major Improvements
Both North and South Palo Altans indicated that investing in and enhancing
neighborhood Parks is a high priority. However, there was a notable difference
24
118
50
217
38
302
41
289
32
254
18
135
13
84
5
20
14
71
32
152
25
173
21
169
38
194
18
118
10
66
0
0
25
153
35
178
40
239
36
208
41
254
35
246
28
168
3
14
29
203
18
164
30
139
26
157
26
163
43
247
41
198
0
4
70
486
27
336
29
154
42
207
25
141
48
284
75
549
13
77
18
133
18
117
18
157
14
134
18
158
18
134
13
99
159
1049
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Asian
Total
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
sp
o
r
t
s
fi
e
l
d
s
Do
g
pa
r
k
Gy
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
Po
o
l
Sk
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
or
or
c
h
a
r
d
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ar
e
a
fo
r
hi
k
i
n
g
an
d
bi
r
d
wa
t
c
h
i
n
g
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Not appropriate
2
3
4
5‐Very appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 15
between the two groups concerning Rinconada Pool (in the North) and
Cubberley Community Center (in the South). Not surprisingly, respondents gave
priority to their neighborhood facility. South Palo Altans gave higher priority to
improving Cubberley, while North Palo Altans gave higher priority to improving
Rinconada.
When asked to rate the importance of a variety of activities held at the
Cubberley Community Center (in South Palo Alto), residents from
neighborhoods in South Palo Alto placed slightly more importance on most of
the programs at Cubberley. Similarly, 40% of respondents from neighborhoods
in South Palo Alto identified outdoor sports as ‘Extremely Important,’ compared
to only 34% of respondents from neighborhoods in North Palo Alto.
Graph 16: North/South Palo Altans - Which major improvements, facilities
and additions to parks (all of which will require significant funding and staff
time) should the City prioritize? Rank the types of projects below in order
1-6, with 1 being highest priority and 6 being lowest priority.
Meeting user needs
Respondents were asked how well the parks and recreation system is serves
various needs. The responses between North and South Palo Altans are similar
across the needs. There is a very slight discrepancy between North and South
Palo Altans concerning their proximity to parks and recreation services: 70% of
North Palo Altans indicated their needs are mostly or all met and 68% of South
Palo Altans indicated their needs are mostly or all met.
Graph 18b: North/South Palo Altans - How well do you feel that the Palo
Alto Parks ad Recreation System (all of the parks, facilities, trials,
preserves, etc.) meets your needs in the following areas?
192
192
61
26
44
46
26
44
46
130
45
29
98
119
75
63
49
69
60
64
92
109
12
15
52
74
70
85
83
89
65
86
89
73
5
8
35
33
67
76
90
111
78
92
62
59
9
9
5
19
68
115
70
70
105
107
56
52
6
8
1
2
14
24
16
7
20
11
11
4
37
48
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
In
v
e
s
t
in
en
h
a
n
c
i
ng
an
d
im
p
r
o
v
i
ng
ne
i
g
h
b
o
rh
o
o
d
pa
r
k
s
ac
r
o
s
s
th
e
ci
t
y
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
on
/
r
e
n
o
va
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Ri
n
c
o
n
a
da
Po
o
l
Im
p
r
o
v
e
me
n
t
s
to
th
e
Lu
c
i
e
Ev
a
n
s
Ba
y
l
a
n
d
s
In
t
e
r
p
r
e
ta
t
i
v
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
an
d
bo
a
r
d
w
al
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
me
n
t
s
an
d
re
n
o
v
a
t
i
on
to
th
e
7.
7
ac
r
e
s
ad
d
e
d
to
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
Pa
r
k
Re
n
o
v
a
t
io
n
s
to
th
e
Cu
b
b
e
r
l
ey
Co
m
m
u
ni
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ot
h
e
r
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Rank 6
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 16
Aquatic Programming Enhancements
Survey respondents were asked about enhancements to aquatic options. For a
question specifically about the importance of improvements to Rinconada Pools
and supporting facilities (in North Palo Alto), residents of South Palo Alto
neighborhoods were more likely to identify this as ‘Moderately Important’ while
residents of North Palo Alto neighborhoods were more likely to identify this as
‘Extremely Important.’
14
16
11
8
9
12
10
16
21
13
9
12
18
15
25
23
23
32
8
13
25
29
36
32
29
29
13
20
29
34
2
2
95
112
44
57
123
153
127
150
73
112
61
82
145
152
10
7
167
168
58
62
119
134
96
116
133
145
126
135
72
90
0
3
47
49
54
63
58
66
60
68
58
61
48
53
99
115
403
458
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
Ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
La
n
g
u
a
g
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Ag
e
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
pa
r
k
s
an
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
/
V
o
l
un
t
e
e
r
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Needs not met
2
3
4
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 17
Graph 12b: North/South Palo Altans - How important are the following
enhancements to Palo Alto's aquatic options?
Aquatic Programming Enhancements
Respondents who identified as Asian/Pacific Islander were more likely to
describe enhancements to aquatic options as ‘Extremely Important’ when
compared to respondents of other races. This was especially true in relation to
the need for additional lessons.
49
66
107
103
29
41
32
43
61
61
79
74
64
65
45
46
73
86
23
22
28
35
56
74
33
37
43
51
144
138
140
158
108
119
93
137
138
154
80
100
97
114
72
103
31
49
108
136
102
125
64
83
90
88
92
106
79
89
39
43
129
125
140
105
64
62
107
149
90
102
57
60
56
63
49
59
51
57
63
68
57
54
60
64
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
Ad
d
i
t
o
n
a
l
Le
s
s
o
n
s
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
co
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
Mo
r
e
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
es
fo
r
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
nt
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ri
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
po
o
l
s
an
d
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
so
c
i
a
l
sp
a
c
e
ar
o
u
n
d
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
po
o
l
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pu
b
l
i
c
po
o
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
cl
o
s
e
to
wh
e
r
e
yo
u
sp
e
n
d
yo
u
r
ti
m
e
Wa
t
e
r
pl
a
y
at
mo
r
e
pa
r
k
s
1‐Not important
2
3
4
5‐Extremely important
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 18
Programming 10.5 acres near the Baylands Athletic Center
There were no significant differences between North and South Palo Altans’
preferences for programming at Baylands. There was slightly more support for
hiking and bird watching among South Palo Altans.
Graph 17d: North/South Palo Altans- What facilities or spaces would be
appropriate for the additional 10.5 acres of land near the Baylands Athletic
Center (designated for future recreational use)?
Serving a Variety of Populations
The survey asked respondents to share their ideas for activities or programs that
would better serve a variety of populations in the community, including a range
of age groups, lower income residents, people with disabilities, or specific
ethnic or linguistic groups. South Palo Altans were more likely to share ideas for
better serving low income people and people with disabilities while North Palo
Altans were more likely to provide ideas to better serve Middle School and High
School age youth.
36
46
79
84
113
126
118
113
98
103
66
50
34
32
7
8
19
32
64
64
63
76
66
75
73
87
48
55
30
30
0
0
56
74
60
88
90
104
73
93
94
113
87
118
75
71
5
7
76
92
63
70
57
65
62
72
70
73
88
114
72
101
0
3
211
212
145
150
68
72
86
97
56
70
103
117
201
229
31
35
48
46
35
46
55
59
41
52
55
56
54
48
34
39
403
449
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
al
sp
o
r
t
s
fi
e
l
d
s
Do
g
pa
r
k
Gy
m
n
a
s
i
um
Po
o
l
Sk
a
t
e
p
a
r
k
Co
m
m
u
n
it
y
ga
r
d
e
n
s
or
or
c
h
a
r
d
s
Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ar
e
a
fo
r
hi
k
i
n
g
an
d
bi
r
d
wa
t
c
h
i
n
g
Ot
h
e
r
1‐Not Appropriate
2
3
4
5‐Very Appropriate
No answer
Supplemental Community Survey Findings 19
Graph 25: Indicate populations that could be better served by programs
and activities.
15%
7%
14%13%
15%
20%21%
8%
18%
17%
20%
9%
21%
14%
20%
24%24%
13%
18%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%Under‐served Populations
North Palo Alto South Palo Alto
1
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Introduction
Palo Alto’s population trends will inform the development of policies, programs
and goals in the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (PTOSR
Plan), ensuring that the Plan addresses community needs now and into the
future. This document provides information about Palo Alto’s demographic
profile, key findings, and trends likely to influence community outreach and the
master planning process.
This analysis was updated in April 2015 to reflect the Palo Alto School District’s
2014-15 Enrollment Report. The most recent report is consistent overall with the
School District’s 2013-14 enrollment projections. However, the 2014-15 report
shows slightly lower elementary school enrollment than the previous report
projected.
Population
Palo Alto’s Residential Population
Palo Alto’s resident population has been growing steadily since the 1970s. The
city’s steady growth is expected to continue. Projections show an increase of
about 20,000 residents over the next 20 years (see Table 1). The 1.1% growth
rate predicted by the ABAG is slightly slower than the average growth rate Palo
Alto has experienced in the last five years (1.3% annually) (see Appendix III).
Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD), 2013-14 and 2014-15 Enrollment
Reports show Palo Alto’s near-term growth concentrated in the west with a
more immediate downward trend in enrollment in the city’s northern and
southern schools, especially in the elementary schools. Approximately 550 new
residential units are projected to be occupied over the next 10 years (see
Appendices I and II for specific developments). The largest developments are
expected to be the Stanford Mayfield multi-family developments on California
Avenue and El Camino Real, and two other multi-family developments on El
Camino Real near Stanford University. These four projects account for 351 of
the 550 new residential units projected by the School District (see Appendix I).
Attachment 5
2
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Figure 1: Population Growth in Palo Alto and surrounding communities 1980-2013
Table 1: City of Palo Alto current and projected population, California Department of
Finance and Association of Bay Area Governments
Population 2013 66,368
Population projection 2035 84,000
Percent Change 27%
Average Annual Change 1.1%
Source: California Department of Finance
Table 2: City of Palo Alto current and projected population, California Department of Finance and
Association of Bay Area Governments
1990 2000 2010 2013 % Change
2000-2013
Cupertino 40,263 50,546 58,302 59,620 18%
Gilroy 31,487 41,464 48,821 51,544 24%
Los Altos 26,303 27,693 28,976 29,792 8%
Los Gatos 27,357 28,592 29,413 30,247 6%
Mountain View 67,460 70,708 74,066 76,260 8%
Palo Alto 55,225 58,598 64,403 66,368 13%
San Jose 782,248 894,943 945,942 984,299 10%
Santa Clara 93,613 102,361 116,468 120,284 18%
Sunnyvale 117,229 131,760 140,081 145,973 11%
Total County 1,497,557 1,682,585 1,781,642 1,842,254 9%
Source: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, 2010 and California Department of Finance 2013
Most of California’s growth has been in its major metropolitan areas, the San
Francisco Bay Area included. According to the California Outdoor Recreation
Plan, San Francisco County was the most urbanized county in the state in 2008
and Santa Clara County was the 8th most urbanized county. The growth
3
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
occurring around Palo Alto will impact its parks systems, as people from
surrounding areas seek open space and outdoor recreation opportunities.
Palo Alto’s Daytime Population
While Palo Alto’s resident population has been steadily increasing, Palo Alto’s
total day population (which is a reflection of employment) has decreased from
140,000 in 2008 to 123,000 in 2013, according to Palo Alto’s 2013
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Despite the decrease, the current
daytime population still represents almost double Palo Alto’s residential
population. The roughly 60,000 commuters who come to Palo Alto during the
day to work may also use Palo Alto’s parks and recreational opportunities.
Additionally, commuters who take public transit, walk, and bike may be users of
Palo Alto’s trail system.
Table 3: Top employers in Palo Alto, 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Employer Employees in Palo
Alto
Percentage of
Total City
Employment
Stanford 10,223 8%
Stanford University Medical Center 5,813 5%
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital 3,549 3%
VA Palo Alto Health Care System 3,500 3%
Hewlett Packard 2,001 2%
Demographics
Age Groups
Palo Alto’s residential population is expected to both increase and grow older.
The current distribution of age groups (Table 4, below) shows both the large
group of residents under 18 (23.3%) and the significant population of residents
over retirement age (16.9% 65 and older). Table 5 depicts population increases
by age breakdowns since 1970, showing trends over time. According to
PAUSD’s 2014-15 Enrollment Report, in the next five years elementary school
enrollment will decline steadily while there’s modest growth in middle school
enrollment and more significant growth in high school enrollment. Following
2020, the Report projects a steady downward trend in enrollment at all grade
levels through 2024 (see II).
Table 4: City of Palo Alto Key Age Groups
Age Percentage
Population 64,234
Persons under 5 years, percent 5.1%
Persons under 18 years, percent 23.3%
Persons 65 years and over, percent 16.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey
4
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Table 5: Population Increase by Age in Palo Alto, 1970-2010
Age 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Change (2000-2010)
Group Number Number Number Number Number Number Percentage
Pre-School (under 5) 3,205 2,168 2,764 2,970 3,506 536 18.05%
School Age (5-17) 8,998 6,999 9,436 11,573 2,137 22.65%
Child Bearing (18-44) 24,004 24,863 21,872 20,300 -1,572 -7.19%
Middle Age (45-64) 12,647 12,527 15,180 18,018 2,838 18.70%
Senior (65 and over) 5,789 7,408 8,747 9,140 11,006 1,866 20.42%
Median Age 31.6 35.2 38.2 40.2 41.9 1.7 4.23%
TOTAL PERSONS 55,966 55,225 55,900 58,598 64,403 5,805 9.91%
Source: US Census 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010
Palo Alto’s aging population, illustrated by the relatively flat public school
enrollment numbers, is not a new trend. The median age of Palo Alto
residents in the past 40 years has increased from 32 years old in 1970 to 42
years old in 2010. More than two-thirds of Palo Alto households do not
include school-age children (see Appendix IV). The City’s aging population is
indicative of Palo Alto’s long-term residents who remain in their homes over
many years. (See more details in the household characteristics section of this
document).
Residents with Disabilities
Palo Alto residents with disabilities may have unique needs for and interests in
Palo Alto’s parks and recreation. The American Community Survey numbers
show the majority of Palo Alto residents with disabilities are 65 years old and
older (see Table 6). Palo Alto residents are demonstrating their awareness of
and commitment to accessibility with the Magical Bridge Playground project, an
inclusive playground for children of all abilities and a significant addition to the
City’s parks and recreation system. PAUSD has an unusually high number of
special needs students, partially due to Palo Alto’s high-quality public-school
accommodations for a variety of impairments in disabilities. As of September
2014, there were almost 1,100 students enrolled at all levels identified as special
needs.
Youth
While the average age in Palo Alto is increasing, there is still a significant youth
population (almost 25%). The city is home to two high schools, three middle
5
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
schools, twelve elementary schools and several private schools. After a
devastating series of teen suicides in 2009 and 2010, there is a heightened
awareness of the impact that youth programming, community-building activities
and services can have on young people’s safety and health. The city has made
youth mental health a priority with its flagship initiative, Project Safety Net. Palo
Alto’s parks and recreation will need to continue to seek new opportunities to
provide safe, relaxing and enjoyable spaces and activities for Palo Alto’s youth.
(Find more about the health impacts of nature in the Parks and Recreation
Trends section of this document.)
Race and Ethnicity
Palo Alto is a linguistically, ethnically and racially diverse community, due in part
to its proximity to Stanford University, Silicon Valley and other excellent
educational and employment opportunities that attract people from around the
world. Palo Alto’s population includes a significant number of residents who are
foreign-born (31%) and thirty-eight percent (38%) of residents speak a language
other than English at home.
Source: US Census 2000 and 2010
In 2010, 64% of Palo Alto residents identified as White, 27% as Asian, 6% as
Hispanic or Latino and, 2% as Black or African American (see Table 2). A
comparison of 2000 and 2010 census data shows a growing Asian population in
Palo Alto with a 10% increase in the city’s Asian residents over the past decade.
The share of the city’s population identifying as White alone decreased from
76% in 2000 to 64% in 2010 (see Graph 2). The school district data reveals that
Palo Alto’s minority population is young, with a higher rate of Hispanic / Latino
and Asians in the public school system than are in Palo Alto’s general
population (11% Hispanic and Latino and 39% Asian) (see Appendices I and IV).
Figure 2: Palo Alto Race and Ethnicity
6
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Household Characteristics
Palo Alto has a significant community of long-term residents, with 37% living in
the city for more than 20 years. Another 32% have lived in Palo Alto between six
and 20 years. More than half of Palo Alto residents live in detached single family
homes. The following table shows characteristics of the total population of Palo
Alto compared to Santa Clara County.
Table 6: City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County race, country of origin, education, and
disability status, U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey
and 2010 U.S. Census
Palo Alto Santa Clara County
Population 66,368 1,842,254
Foreign-born persons, percent, 2008-2012 31% 39.3%
Language other than English spoken at home 38.0% 50.8%
Some college, no degree 9.2% 17.5%
Associate’s degree 4.2% 7.3%
Bachelor's degree 28.8% 25.8%
Graduate or professional degree 50.6% 20.2%
Disability Status
Under 18 years 2% 2.2%
65 years and over 26.5% 33.7%
Household characteristics
Persons per household 2.44 2.9
Housing units, 2010 28,216 631,920
Homeownership rate 57.5% 57.6%
Housing units in multi-unit structures 37.6% 32%
Income
Median household income $164,857 $90,747
Persons below poverty level 4.9% 9.7%
Education and Income
City residents are highly educated, as Graph 3 indicates. In comparison, in the
County of Santa Clara, 46% of residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher and
20% of residents has a graduate or professional degree, and statewide 31% of
Californians hold a bachelor’s degree. Palo Alto is an affluent community with a
median household income of $164,857, almost twice as much as the median
income in Santa Clara County— $90,747— and more than double California’s
median income of $61,400. Palo Alto is a city of small families with an average
household size of 2.4.
7
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Source: US Census 2010
Source: US Census 2010
Palo Alto’s highly educated population will impact the PTOSR Plan’s
programming recommendations. This population may have high expectations
for involvement and quality in the system. Palo’s Alto’s educated population
may be seeking especially sophisticated recreation and cultural programming.
According to the California Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008 (CORP), studies have
shown that those with higher incomes have common interests: nature, saving
time, willing to pay to avoid waiting. They also value interpretation that adds
value to outdoor recreation experiences.
Less is known about the needs of those with low incomes. It is suspected that
outdoor recreation needs of low-income people are different, mostly due to the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Some college, no
degree
Associate’s Degrees Bachelor's degree Graduate or
professional degree
Palo Alto Santa Clara County
Figure 4: Median Household Income in Palo Alto Compared to Santa Clara County
Figure 3: Educational Attainment in Palo Alto Compared to Santa Clara County
8
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
lack of discretionary income, time and transportation options for outdoor
recreation. The CORP discusses California’s increasing income inequality as a
significant issue for the state’s parks and recreation planning. Recreation is a
crucial quality of life issue and people with lower income rely more heavily on
public recreation facilities. Because Palo Alto’s median household income is
exceptionally high, even middle income residents may have significantly
different needs than their wealthier neighbors, in terms of recreation
programming costs and type of programming.
Transportation Behavior
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Palo Alto residents commute alone in a car. Palo Alto
enjoys an exceptionally high rate of bicycle use, with 11% of residents
commuting by bike. The City’s 2013 Transportation Survey revealed that 93% of
residents have at least one bicycle within their household, and 53% have four or
more bicycles in their household. The Transportation Survey also reported that
while solo driving is still the main travel mode for residents who commute to
work outside of Palo Alto, bicycling and walking were preferred modes when not
driving. Fifty percent (50%) of residents who participated in the survey live within
one mile of a Caltrain station. Forty-four percent (44%) of residents noted
working outside of the City. Twenty-five percent (25%) of those people work in
Mountain View and San Jose and more work in other places that also have
Caltrain stops. Most Palo Alto residents drive to their local shopping trips,
however almost 20% walk or bicycle, according to the Transportation Survey.
The Transportation Survey also collected responses from people who live
outside of Palo Alto and commute into town for work. More than 50% of these
people drive alone, about 20% take Caltrain and roughly 10% ride their
bicycles. Survey respondents commented on what facilities in Palo Alto would
help commuters. While many of the responses included improvements or
expansion to transit service, several comments suggested improvements to the
trail and on-street bicycle network would help with their commutes. One
comment in particular captured the desire for a better connected network within
Palo Alto, “Convert Palo Alto creeks into bicycle highways to connect to school,
work, etc.” Some more generally stated the need for better bike routes and
more bike lanes (see Appendix V).
9
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Source: Safe Routes to School
The Transportation Survey identified bicycles as the travel mode of choice for
Palo Alto’s school-aged family members. Bike counts at schools have been
steadily climbing since 2002. According to Safe Routes to School bicycle
counts, the number of students riding their bikes to school has increased from
166 (10%) in 2002 to 671 (36%) in 2010 at Gunn High School and from 200
(12%) in 2002 to 741 (40%) in 2010 at Palo Alto High School. The City adopted
a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2012, which recognizes the currently
high levels of bicycle travel and establishes aggressive goals for the future,
including doubling the rate of bicycle commute trips to both school and work.
TREND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The role of parks and recreation in American cities and towns is evolving as
trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and urban form change.
These trends, especially as they relate to Palo Alto’s population, will inform the
PTOSR Plan. This analysis will help ensure that that the PTOSR Plan addresses
the community’s evolving needs. (Note: Additional trends that affect facility
planning will be addressed in more detail in a subsequent work product.)
Income Inequality
As California’s population increases, the number of people at the lower end of
the income scales is increasing at a disproportionately higher rate. This
statewide trend may be especially pronounced in Palo Alto, one of the
wealthiest communities in California. Palo Alto’s exceptionally high income
levels mean there may be more disparity in the city than in other places, and
that those with income levels that would be considered high elsewhere in Santa
Clara County are lower income in Palo Alto. The City should use caution when
Figure 5: School Bicycle Counts, 2002-2010
10
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
relying on statewide or regional data to determine income-based trends or
demand, and ensure that its outreach and programming are tied to local
economic conditions.
Aging
One of the strongest trends throughout the United States, and Palo Alto is no
exception, is the aging of our population. This trend requires that recreation
providers consider and develop facilities and programs that will serve older
adults who possess diverse interests and are in multiple life stages. The older
adult population includes a variety of needs: seniors interested in developing
new skills and learning new activities; those seeking to stay active and
physically fit; those with some health issues and access concerns; seniors
desiring passive and more contemplative activities; seniors looking for
intergenerational interactions; and those who want more quiet environments.
Because Palo Alto’s population of older adults is larger than typical, and
because many long-term residents are likely to stay in their homes in Palo Alto
as they age, it will be especially important to recognize the diverse sub-groups
of older adults and provide a spectrum of recreation opportunities. Since older
adults today stay healthier and live longer, the population of seniors is actually
comprised of multiple generations with different lifestyles, preferences and
behaviors.
Moreover, many older adults do not consider themselves “seniors” and will not
participate in programs run by or taking place at a senior center. Many adults
over 65 – the traditional retirement age – continue to work part time outside the
home. These and other factors should be taken into consideration when
considering recreation program needs of older Palo Alto adults.
Health
Our nation is facing a health and wellness crisis on many levels. With high levels
of obesity and diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, our citizens are
becoming more sedentary and at the same time are struggling with ever-
increasing health care costs. The health care sector itself has begun to look at
prevention as a way to increase health and reduce costs. More study is being
done on the built environment and its impact on activity levels, and low cost
opportunities to get exercise are receiving attention and funding. Programs that
can demonstrate health and wellness benefits, especially those that can quantify
the benefit, have a competitive advantage in garnering outside funding.
Both physical and mental health are relevant to the PTOSR Plan, and the City
has shown leadership in these areas by addressing mental as well as physical
health through projects including Project Safety Net and Safe Routes to School.
Palo Alto also adopted a progressive smoking ban in 2013 banning smoking in
11
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
the City’s parks, open spaces and on the municipal golf course to help protect
public health.
While Palo Alto residents overall enjoy a generally higher level of health than
residents of many other California cities, opportunities exist to further health
through this planning process. The City should evaluate opportunities to
improve safety, nutrition, physical activity, and mental health for all Palo Alto
residents.
Connecting Kids with Nature
Across the country there has been a movement to connect kids with nature and
the outdoors. This movement is in response to data about the decreased time
kids are spending in the outdoors compared to previous generations. According
to the California Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP), by 2008 children between the
age of 8 and 18 years were spending an average of nearly 6.5 hours per day
with electronic media. That average is likely higher now. A growing body of
research confirms that spending time in nature benefits children. Children who
directly experience the natural world are intellectually, emotionally, socially,
spiritually and physically healthier.
There is a need to create the opportunity to enjoy and experience nature and the
outdoors, as well as provide safe streets and accessible schools. Palo Alto has
made safe streets a priority with its Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Safe
Routes to School Program. It is important that Palo Alto’s parks are an integral
part of this system. Each age group presents particular demands that need to
be weighed in the programming of the parks and open space system.
Teenagers and young adults are perhaps the most challenging group. In Palo
Alto, supporting the physical and mental health of teenagers is an ongoing
priority. Parks and Recreation programs can be a central component in the goal
improving physical and mental health for children, including teenagers. A
National Wildlife Federation report cites the positive influences of parks on
children include:
Children’s stress levels fall within minutes of seeing green spaces.
Play protects children’s emotional development whereas loss of free time and a hurried
lifestyle can contrite to anxiety and depression.
Palo Alto is home to, or a partner in, many sports organizations and leagues.
Increasingly these groups provide year-round opportunities to play sports such
as baseball and soccer that were traditionally only played during certain
seasons.
There is a need to understand how Palo Alto’s youth, and especially the city’s
teenagers are using open spaces and parks and plan for parks that are
12
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
appropriate parks for child development – including physical, social and
cognitive development.
The Outdoor Lifestyle
According to the Outdoor Industry Association, in 2013, a record number of
Americans — 142.6 million — participated in at least one outdoor activity and
collectively, went on 12.1 billion outdoor outings. These activities promote
wellness, social interaction, and a connection to the outdoors. The need for
flexibility in recreation programs, as adults find less and less time to participate
in recreation, as well as the need to provide opportunities for stress release are
two critical factors that need to be considered in the provision of outdoor
recreation.
Baby Boomer generation (people aged 50-68) and the millennial generation
(ages 27 and younger) are the largest segments driving this new outdoor lifestyle
trend.
Today, the active outdoor lifestyle has gone mainstream, and is characterized by
an emphasis on wellness and quality time with family and friends. To meet this
new and changing demand, people are looking for ways to be outdoors in an
urban area. Due to time demands of family and jobs, convenience and
accessibility are critical. The opportunity and challenge before parks and
recreation professionals is to provide meaningful outdoor activity in urbanized
environments. Recreation Oriented Development is the new term for the aligning
of parks, recreation and open space to drive new investment in both urban and
suburban communities and focus development in established
communities. Palo Alto already provides exceptional access to the outdoors,
with one-third of its land area dedicated to open space and 45 miles of hiking
trails.
Technology
Technology is offering parks and recreation providers new opportunities as well as new
challenges. Technology can simultaneously provide a mass communication tool while
improving affordability, accessibility, and efficiency of community facilities and services.
Opportunities for tech-aided recreation are growing while a conflicting trend for techno-free
parks and environments also is emerging. Technology is adopted and embraced differently by
different population groups. For example, Baby Boomers tend to be more educated and more
technology dependent, and therefore, desire more high tech and “amenity” rich experiences.
Finding the right balance and appropriate use for technology in parks, recreation facilities and
programs will be an evolving effort.
13
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Universal Design
Universal design is an approach to creating built environments that exceed ADA standards and
are inherently accessible to all people, including older adults and people with (and without)
disabilities. Playgrounds and recreation systems based on universal design encourage access,
independence, safety and comfort for all persons. This universal design approach should be
considered for parks and recreation elements beyond play spaces to infrastructure throughout
the system that can meet the needs of Palo Alto’s disability community.
CONCLUSIONS AND KEY POLICY QUESTIONS
Given the trends discussed above, MIG highlights a series of policy conclusions and questions
to be considered during the PTOSR planning process. These issues will be integrated into
discussions and/or exercises with Palo Alto residents, the Parks and Recreation Commission
and City staff as the project advances.
Policy Conclusions
Higher Design and Maintenance Standards: Population growth within the constraints of
Palo Alto’s built-out city limits means that each acre of park land and each facility will be
absorbing more use. The PTOSR Plan will call for durable finishes, fixtures and facilities as well
as intensified maintenance to preserve the quality of experience Palo Alto residents expect
Park Program and Design for Flexible and Multiple Uses: Given the current and projected
population profile for Palo Alto, each park must serve multiple population sub-groups and
several uses within a limited space. The program and design for each property needs to
support these goals. The concepts for each site prepared as part of the PTOSR Plan will
prioritize this concept.
Walkable and Bikeable Park System: Palo Alto’s path and trail network should provide
adequate safe routes for residents biking and walking to reach City parks and facilities. Safety
improvements will encourage more residents to choose non-motorized modes of travel to
parks. Additionally, there may be opportunities to better connect after-school sports and other
recreational activities with bike routes as well as opportunities to align safe routes to school
and parks with routes to Caltrain stations and other commuter hubs so that families can
coordinate their trips without needing to rely on cars.
Daytime Population: It will be important to understand how the employment population is
using Palo Alto’s parks and recreation facilities and what the associated impacts are. For
example, are they jogging in the parks at lunch; playing in a recreation league after work; or
taking classes in the evening? The City’s non-resident daytime population may prove to be a
significant percentage of Palo Alto parks users.
14
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Growing Regional Population: In addition to population growth within Palo Alto’s municipal
borders, the region is growing significantly more rapidly than Palo Alto. Palo Alto will want to
consider its parks and recreation system in the context of the larger region, and consider its
role in providing amenities and services to non-residents and visitors.
Unique Household Characteristics: Several demographic patterns in Palo Alto should be
considered in the development of the PTOSR plan. Almost 40% of residents live in apartment
or condominium buildings and may have different parks and recreation needs than those in
single family detached homes. Palo Alto’s small families may look for more social opportunities
outside of their homes, especially for children without siblings or empty nesters. The majority of
Palo Alto’s population is wealthy and highly-educated, but it is not a homogenous community.
The voices and needs of some residents may dominate those of the city’s less affluent and
low-income residents. As the City continues to develop programming for its high income
population it will need to consider the accessibility of that programming for various income
groups and the types of programming that are appropriate for residents of different education
and income levels.
Policy Questions
Should fees, charges and use policies provide “resident first” preferences?
How does the City want to serve Palo Alto’s non-resident populations, including regional
neighbors and daytime employees?
Should level of service standards for parks vary by neighborhood depending on density
and land use?
How should fees and charges policies be set to provide premium experiences for wealthier
park users, while ensuring access for lower income residents?
What is the desired balance between tax payer and participant cost sharing?
What maintenance commitment will be needed for the city to maintain high-quality facilities
given increasing growth, demand and more uses in a fixed amount of space?
What is the appropriate role for the parks and recreation system in building a healthy
community?
What level of accessibility and accommodation should parks and recreation facilities
provide to the disabled community?
ARASTRA DERO CREEK T RAIL
ME
ADOWLARK
T
R
AIL
W O O D L A N D
S TA R TRAIL OHLONETRAIL
MEAD O WL ARKTRAIL
M EADOWLARKTRAIL
B
O
W
LLOOPTRAIL
BOWLLOOP
Bo wlLoopTrail
ARASTRADERO
CR
E
EK
TRAIL
SOBEYPOND
ARASTRADEROLAKE
MEADOWLARKTRAIL
REDTAILLOOPTRAIL
R EDTAIL LO O P TRAIL
M
EADO
W
LARK TRAIL
P ORTOLAPASTURE
S
TRAIL
JUAN BAUTISTADE
A N ZA TRAIL
WILD RYE TRAIL
PAS EO DE L ROBLETRAIL
ACORN
TRAIL
W
O
ODRATTRAIL
B AY L A U R ELT R AIL
MEA
DOWLA R KTRAIL
BONUSHILL TR A IL
AL
P
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
JOHNMARTHENSLA
N
E
VISTAPOINT
Gate B
JUANBAUTISTADEANZATRAIL
GATEA
JUA N B A U TIS T A
DEANZ ATRAIL
Gate C
Gate D
parking
No publicparking
No public parkingalong road
ARASTRADER
O
R
O
A
D
INTERPRETIVECENTER
No publicparking
MAYFLY CREEK
ARAS
TRADER
O CREEK
A | Meadowlark Trail
B | Wet meadow area
C | Golf course view
D | Bench at trail junction
N
Location: 1530 Arastradero RdOwner: City of Palo Alto Size: 622 acres Year: 1970s
HISTORY In the 1970s, Palo Alto purchased the Arastradero property (433 acres and three buildings) from Arastra Ltd. after the city amended its Comprehensive Plan to include most of the foothills in the Open Space Controlled Development. In 1984 the space was dedicated as park land, with “...emphasis on the natural and open space amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothills ecology.”
Arastradero Preserve was renamed Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve in 2004 to honor former city council member Enid Pearson who was instrumental in the passage of a measure in 1965 that prohibits Palo Alto from selling any park land without voters’ approval.
EXISTING CONDITIONS•The preserve is a mixture of rollingsavanna grassland and broadleafevergreen forest.•Elevation varies from 275 feet inthe northeast to 775 feet in thesouthwest.•Wildlife includes deer, bobcats,coyotes, and many varieties of birds.•View of the bay.•10.25 miles of trails for hiking,bicycling and horseback riding.Most of the trails (6.6 miles) areopen year-round. Some trails (3.6miles) are designated as "seasonal"and are closed at the trailheads afterheavy rain.
PEARSON-ARASTRADERO PRESERVE
Attachment 6
• Arastradero Lake is a twenty minute hike from the parking lot and is open all year to fishing.• All California Fish and Game rules apply. Boats, flotation devices, and swimming are not permitted.
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES• Parking
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS• Great public-private partnership with Acterra to restore habitat, install native plants, remove invasive species and help increase biodiversity on the preserve• Multi-use trails allow several user groups to use the site• Parking lot size and signage intentionally limits use of the reserve to trail users only• Parking lot size creates visitor conflicts and fights over space• Overflow lot not open to individual trail users• Reserve users have been observed parking in residential areas when lot is full• Low-impact designation means the preserve does not have a picnic area or many furnishings• Sensitive surrounding ecology can be damaged by undesignated uses• Undesignated use of parking lot by road bicyclists• Conflicts among multiple types of park users/groups• Multiple points of entry make signage and contact with visitors challenging
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• One trail for off-leash dogs• Close trails for horses and cyclists during the winter• Parking limits access
EAST
TERM
I
N
A
L
B
L
VD
RENZELTRAIL
A
dobeCreekTrail
MataderoCreek
GENG
R
D
EAST
BAYSHOR
E
ROAD
R
O
A
D
A
N
T
O
N
I
O
SA
N
BAYSHORE ROAD
SAILINGSTATION
PALO ALTO AIRPORT
SHORELINE PARK(MOUNTAINVIEW)
FABER PLACE
EMBARCADERO WAY
BIKE BRIDGETO OREGON EXPRESS WAYVIA ST. FRANCIS DRIVE
ADOBE CREEKUNDERCROSSING (SEASONAL)
ADOBE
CREEK
CHARLESTO
N
S
L
O
U
GH
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
V
I
E
W
S
L
O
U
G
H
A
do
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
T
rail
A
D
O
B
E
CREEK
LOOPTR
AIL
SANFRANCISQUITOCREEKTRAIL
EMBARCADEROROAD
DUCKPONDLOOP
MA
R
S
H
FR
O
N
T
TR
A
I
L
S A NFRANCISQUITOCREEK T R AIL
SAND POINT
POND A POND B
MAYFIELD SL
OU
GH
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
HOOKS POINT
FUTURE TRAILS
HOOKS ISLAND
FLOOD CONTROLBASIN
ANIMALSERVICESCENTER
EMILY RENZELWETLANDS
BYXBEEPARKHILLS
REGIONALWATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSETO EAST PALO ALTO
FA
B
E
R
L
A
U
M
E
I
S
T
E
R
T
R
A
C
T
BAYLANDS ATHLETICCENTER
DUCKPOND
LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER
HARIET MUNDYMARSH
RANGERSTATION
A | The Harbor Basin, with chevrons
B | The Byxbee Park Pole Field
C | The start of the Baylands trail
D | Adobe Creek, with Dumbarton Bridge
N
Location: 2500 Embarcadero RoadOwner: City of Palo Alto Size: 1,940 acres Year: 1921-1958
HISTORY The Byxbee Park Hills area of Baylands was named for John Fletcher Byxbee Jr., Palo Alto City Engineer from 1906 to 1941. Byxbee envisioned the development of the Baylands as a park and recreation center and in January 1921, the Board of Public Works recommended the initial purchase of 40 acres of marshland. Nine years later, Byxbee submitted a plan that included a municipal airport, a salt-water swimming pool, a yacht harbor -- yachting was his main recreation -- and clubhouse, a basin for seaplanes, and areas for playgrounds, picnic grounds, golf course, and a game reserve. The cost was estimated at 2.2 million dollars.
In 1968, the city Council named the park the John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area. However, today the term "Baylands Nature Preserve" is used more readily in the city's publications. The area covers several facilities and occupies 1,940 acres. The land was acquired between 1921 and 1958 through a series of acquisitions and one condemnation - 23 transactions in all.
At present, the Baylands complex consists of the former Yacht Harbor area, the Palo Alto Airport, the Municipal Golf Course, the Duck Pond and public picnic area, the Baylands Athletic Center, the Sailing Station, the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, the Harriet Mundy Marsh and tidal basin.
BAYLANDSNATURE PRESERVE
The Baylands has been a focus for activism on behalf of the natural environment and several features bear the names of key players in preserving and enhancing this unique space:• Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center (rededicated 1978)• Harriet Mundy Marsh (1982)• Emily Renzel Wetlands Restoration (1992)
EXISTING CONDITIONS• Bounded by Mountain View and East Palo Alto, the 1,940-acre Baylands Preserve is one of the largest tracts of undisturbed marshland remaining in the San Francisco Bay. • Fifteen miles of multi-use trails provide access to a unique mixture of tidal and fresh water habitats.• Many consider this area to be one of the best bird watching areas on the west coast. The preserve has a substantial resident population of birds as well as being a major migratory stopover on the Pacific Flyway.• Include walking, running or biking on 15 miles of trails; bird watching; wind surfing and boating (non-motorized craft such as canoes, kayaks or small, hand-launched boats and sailboards).• The city also offers a variety of nature walks and programs on ecology and natural history.
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES• The Duck Pond is a popular family attraction. Besides the resident population of several species of ducks, it is a way station for many migratory birds. The pond was originally built as a swimming pool, but because of siltation problems, it was soon converted to a bird refuge with funds from the estate of Lucie Stern. On the far side of the pond there are two tables with two benches nestled among the trees and shrubs for picnickers. • The Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center is built on pilings at the edge of the salt marsh. A plank walk leads a quarter-mile across the marsh to open water and a panoramic view of San Francisco Bay. The Center offers various programs and activities such as nature walks, animal and fossil workshops for children, an ecology laboratory, and displays of tidelands flora and fauna.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS• Significant bird habitat and flyway• Some activities limited by airport flight path (kite flying)• Sensitive equipment• High impact from lea level rise• Save the Bay Native Plant Nursery provides the preserve with thousands of native plants for habitat restoration with many volunteers to help do the work• Boardwalk is currently closed while a maintenance feasibility study is under way
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Difficult to access on bike or on foot• Restrooms• Recreation with dogs
OLD TR
A
C
E
L
N
KIN
G
S
L
E
Y
A
V
E
A | Large eucalyptus tree
B | Equestrian use
C | Runners on trail
D | Landscape minimally maintained
N
Location: At the end of Old Adobe Rd off of Arastradero RdOwner: City of Palo Alto Size: 21 acres Year: N/A
HISTORY This reserve of grassland and oaks is named for Dr. Esther Clark, one of the founding members of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. A graduate of Stanford and Stanford Medical School, she was also the founder of the Children's Health Council.
Dr. Clark sold the land for Clark Preserve to the city of Palo Alto on the condition that it be preserved as an open space. For details on park history, see the Palo Alto Historical Association chapter on Esther Clark Park.
EXISTING CONDITIONS• The Esther Clark Nature Preserve is a small, undeveloped nature reserve of grassland and oaks.• It has no other amenities.
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES• N/A
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS• Habitat restoration projects• Opportunity to form a 'Friends of' group• Need for a simple trail system that links adjoining paths• Need for amenties such as benches along trails• Limited staffing makes regular patrols difficult
ESTHER CLARK PARK
• Need for dedicated funding and staffing for preserves• No parking provided
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Drinking water• Poorly publicized
PEDESTRIANS ONLY
ACCESS TO LOS TRANCOS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
PEDESTRIANS ONLY
BAY-TO-RIDGE TRAIL
PEARSON-ARASTRADEROPRESERVE
BAY-TO-RIDGE TRAILACCESS TO
LAS TRAMPAS VALLEY
WI
L
D
H
O
RSE
VALL
E
YLOSTRANCOSTRAIL
LOSTR A NCO S TRAIL
LOSTRANCO
S
TRAIL
LOSTRA NCOSTR AIL
LOS
T
RANCOS TRAIL
L
O
S
T
R
ANCOSTRAIL
FERNLOOP
C OSTANOANTR AIL
SUNR I S E TRAIL
C O YO TE TRAIL
CHAMISE TRAIL
COYOTE TRAIL PAN ORAM A TRAIL
W OO D RATTRAIL
TOYONTR AIL
TOYONTRAIL
STEEPHOLLOW TRAIL
BORONDALAKE
LOSTR
A
N
C
O
S
CREEK
PAGE
MILL
R
O
A
D
P
AGEMILLROAD
7.7 ACREADDITION
GROUP PICNIC AREA(AVAILABLE BYRESERVATION ONLY)
INTERPRETIVECENTER
ORCHARDGLEN
ARBOLEJOOVERLOOK
VISTAHILL
MADERAPOINT
BOBCATPOINT
PANORAM ATRAIL
ENTRANCEGATE
TOWLECAMPGROUND
ONEWAYTRAFFIC
.
PON
YTRA
C
K
S
F
I
R
E R
O
A
D
TRAPPERS FI
R
E ROAD
SHOTGUN FIRE ROAD
PONYTRACKS FIRE ROAD
VALLE Y VIEW FIRE ROAD
MADR ONE FIR
E ROAD
TR
A
PP
E
R
S
F
I
R
E
R
O
A
D
CHARLI
E
B
R
OWN
FIRE ROAD
BUCKEYE
C
R
E
E
K
A | Trappers Fire Road
B | The Foothills Park visitor center
C | Fern Loop
D | Boronda Lake
N
FOOTHILLS PARK
Location: 3300 Page Mill RoadOwner: City of Palo Alto Size: 1,400 acres Year: 1965
HISTORY The land for Foothills Park was sold to the City of Palo Alto by Dr. Russel Lee, founder of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, and his wife Dorothy in 1958, on the condition that it be preserved as open space. The park was formally opened and dedicated in 1965. The Interpretive Center in the park is housed in a building originally built by the Lees as a horse stable. For more information, see the Palo Alto Historical Association's chapter on Foothills Park in their city history.
EXISTING CONDITIONS• Bounded by Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Los Trancos Open Space Preserve, the 1,400-acre Foothills Park is a nature lover's paradise. Miles of trails provide access through rugged chaparral, woodlands, fields, streams, and a lake, and provide spectacular views of the Bay Area. Wildlife abounds, and it is common to see deer and coyotes.• Foothills Park is open to Palo Alto residents and their accompanied guests only. Proof of residency is required. Guests must be accompanied by a Palo Alto resident. Limit of 15 guests per resident in two additional cars. • Groups of 25 or more adults and children (both residents and non-residents included) must make a reservation in advance, or get a permit in advance from the supervising ranger. There must be one Palo Alto resident for each 15 non-resident guests.
• Groups of 24 or fewer (residents plus non-residents, children included) do not require a reservation. • Hiking Trails: There are fifteen miles of hiking trails, which offer a variety of hiking experiences. The longest hike is the Los Trancos Trail, which is 7.5 miles. The Toyon Self-Guided Nature Trail enables you to learn about nature at your own pace. • Lake, Fishing, and Boating: Fishing is permitted in Boronda Lake. All anglers age 16 and over must have a California Sport Fishing License. Fish species in the lake include bass, catfish, and sunfish. While swimming is prohibited you may enjoy the lake with your non-motorized and hand-launched boat. Canoes are also available for rent on the weekends and holidays from May 1st to October 31st, weather and staffing permitting.• Picnic Areas: Five picnic areas are first-come, first-served, and there is one picnic area that is by reservation only. Tables, barbecues, and water are available. Groups at the non-reservable picnic areas may not exceed 24 people (adults and children, residents and non-residents included). Groups of 25 or more people must have a reservation. The Oak Grove group picnic area is the only picnic area that is reservable, and can be used by groups of 1-150.
ESSENTIAL PARK ACTIVITIES Play for Children Throw a Ball Exercise and Fitness Gathering Relax and Enjoy Outdoors
ADDITIONAL PARK FEATURES• Parking• Towle Camp is a seasonal campground available to residents and their accompanied guests for tent camping from May 1 to October 31. Eight campsites, each with a charcoal barbecue, water, picnic table, tent pad and food box. Six of the campsites can accommodate up to eight people, and the remaining two campsites can accommodate up to sixteen people. • The Nature Interpretive Center has exhibits and maps and is the starting point for many nature walks. There is a meeting room available for rent. • Nature Programs: Ranger-led activities are available throughout the year in Foothills Park. See the Activities and Programs page for more information.
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS• 7.7 acres recently added to site• Facilities on site allow for many visitor opportunities• Limited staffing makes regular patrols difficult given total mileage of trails• Public is responsible for reporting trail troubles• Small, primitive campground limits the number of visitors and its location allows for summer use only• Limited staffing makes it difficult to enforce residency restrictions
SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Trails are narrow• Access for bicycles• Allow dogs on one loop• Open park to non-residents
CUBBERLEYCOMMUNITYCENTERPAU
S
D
CITY
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
NE
L
S
O
N
D
R
MID
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
NELSO
N
D
R
KEA
T
S
C
T
softball field
soccer fields(2)
parking
softball field
softball field
softball field soccer field(1)
tenniscourts(6)
A
C
D
B
A | Outdoor covered walkways
B | Asphalt parking lot
C | Entrance to sports field area
D | Softball field
N
CUBBERLEY COMMUNITYCENTER
Location: 4000 Middlefield RoadOwner: Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and City of Palo AltoSize: 35 acres Year: 1989
HISTORYOriginally opened as a high school in 1956, Cubberley High School was closed due to decreasing enrollment in 1979. The vacant school has been used as a community center that has grown inuse and importance over the years. The City of Palo Alto owns 8 acres of the site, and the school district owns the remaining 27 acres (see red border). A lease agreement between the City and PAUSD expired at the end of 2014. The City and the school district have agreed on key terms of a new lease agreement.
EXISTING CONDITIONS•Structures are old and deteriorating•As of 2013, there is a need torefurbish the physical plant•Layout of current structures is a veryinefficient use of the property•Large concentration of sports fieldsand tennis courts are scheduled andmaintained by the City•Facility contains the only gymnasiumregularly available for City of Palo Altoprograms. Facility is also importantto other public institutions, includingFoothill College
SOME OF THE ASSOCIATED USER AND PARTNER GROUPS INCLUDE:•ACME : an organization teaching theChinese culture and language
•Acterra: an environmentalstewardship and restorationorganization with sites in Santa Claraand San Mateo Counties
•Audubon Society: an environmentalconservation and restoration group
Attachment 6
N
• Bay Area Amphibian & Reptile Society: an education and conservation group
• Bay Area Arabic School: an organization teaching Arabic language and Islamic religion
• California Law Revision Commission: a branch office of the state commission responsible for reviewing California statutory and decisional law
• Canopy: an environmental nonprofit organization dedicated to planting and protecting trees in parks, schools and along streets of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and neighboring communities
• Cardiac Therapy Foundation: non-profit organization for those with cardiovascular disease and those at risk of developing it
• Children’s Pre-School Center: a child-care organization
• Commonwealth Club: a statewide public affairs forum
• Dance Connection: an organization offering dance classes
• Dance Visions: an organization offering dance classes
• Dutch School: an organization that teaches Dutch language and culture education
• Earth Day Film Festival: the city of Palo Alto’s annual film festival
• Foothill College: the Palo Alto extension campus of a Los Altos Hills community college
• Friends of the Palo Alto Library: an organization supporting the Palo Alto Public Library
• Friends of the Palo Alto Parks: an organization supporting parks in Palo Alto
• Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School: a school for Jewish students
• Good Neighbor Montessori: an educational organization
• Grossman Academy Japanese Language School: a school for Japanese students
• Hua Kuang Chinese Reading Room: a library that offers Chinese cultural programs
• Kumon Math and Reading: after-school tutoring program
• Museo Italo Americano: a museum offering language classes
• Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra: a youth orchestra for regional string musicians
• Palo Alto Menlo Park Mothers Club: a parenting organization
• PAUSD Adult School: an adult school offering gardening classes
• Peninsula Piano School: an organization that provides group lessons for piano students
• Save the Bay: an environmental restoration organization that focuses on the health of San Francisco Bay’s ecosystems
• SCC Registrar of Voters: the county-level voting and election office
• Waldorf School of the Peninsula: a private school
• Zohar Dance: an organization teaching dance classes
PROGRAMMING & FACILITIESClassroom/Lecture Space• A2 Classroom• A3 Classroom• A6 Classroom• A7 Classroom• D1 Classroom• FH Classroom• H1 Classroom• H6 Classroom• G4 Activity Room• M4 Activity Room
Dance• G6 Dance Studio• L6 Dance Studio
Court Sports• Gym A• Gym B
Performing Arts• M2 Music Room• M3 Dressing Room• Theatre• Auditorium• Pavilion
SITE SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Update play equipment• Provide water fountains• Picnic areas• Needs more family and kid friendly spaces• Restrooms for field users• Needs major reinvestment
MITCHELL PARKCOMMUNITYCENTER ACHIEVE KIDS
MITCHELL PARK
MIDDLEFIELDLITTLE LEAGUE BALL PARK
MITCHELL PARKLIBRARY
M
I
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
'Arpeggio 5' sculpture
parking
A
C
D
B
A | Entrance to El Palo Alto room
B | El Palo Alto room (auditorium)
C | Adobe room
D | Teen center and game room
N
MITCHELL PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
Location: 3700 Middlefield RoadOwner: City of Palo AltoYear: 2014
EXISTING CONDITIONS• Mitchell Park Library and Community Center were rebuilt in 2014• Updated parking lot on facility's north side• Surrounding the site are several other children and family oriented facilities, including Mitchell Park, Achieve Kids, Middlefield Little League Ball Park, Covenant Children's Center, and Fairview Elementary School. The close proximity of these facilities supports the community center's level of use and enhances its potential for diverse offerings.
PROGRAMMING & FACILITIESClassroom• Matadero Room• Adobe South Room• Adobe North Room
Large Lecture Space• El Palo Alto Room
Children's Education• Oak Room
Gathering• Teen Center and Game Room
*Additional space in adjacent library
N
LUCIE STERNCENTER
More information about building layout found on following page
To Rinconada Park
PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
R
D
HA
R
R
I
E
T
S
T
shared parking
dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
A
C
D B
A | View of Community Theater
B | Seating for a wedding event
C | Stern Ballroom
D | Fireside Room
N
LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER
Location: 1305 Middlefield RoadOwner: City of Palo AltoYear: 1934
HISTORYDesigned by Birge Clark and built in 1934, this attractive Spanish Mediterranean-style complex is home to the City of Palo Alto’s Community Service Administration, RecreationDivision, the Community Theatre and the Children’s Theatre. The land was provided by the City of Palo Alto and the materials were donated by Palo Alto benefactor Lucie Stern. The labor was provided by the Works Progress Administration. The complex cost an estimated $125,000 to build.
EXISTING CONDITIONS• The City has maintained this historic structure's integrity with modern improvements conforming to the Department of the Interior Guidelines • Rooms available for rent for meetings, weddings, receptions, and parties• Rental facilities include an outdoor patio, the Stern Ballroom, Community Room, Fireside Room and Kitchen• Complex includes two theaters, a children's library and administration offices for Recreation Services
PROGRAMMING & FACILITIESRentable Facilities• Stern Ballroom: Large room is used for parties and receptions. Space measures 70'x40' and can accommodate up to 300 guests (200 for dining).• Community Room: Carpeted room is used for meetings and smaller events. Space measures 45'x25' and can accommodate up to 125 guests (75 for dining).
Stern Ballroom
OutdoorPatio
CommunityRoom FiresideRoom
N
• Fireside Room: Carpeted room is used for meetings and smaller events. Space measures 25'x26' and can accommodate up to 50 guests (35 for dining).• Kitchen: Located between the Community Room and the Fireside Room, the kitchen is equipped with stove/oven, fridge, sink, microwave, dishwasher and counter space. • Outdoor Patio: The outdoor patio features brick hardscape and a large lawn area. The enclosed patio is accessible through both the Community and Fireside Rooms. Space measures 70'x90' and can accommodate up to 250 guests (150 for dining).
Theater Facilities• Children's Theater: Provides hands-on learning experiences for children ages 3 through high school. Programming includes on-site classes, camps, production experiences, Theatrical Outreach Productions, and Dance in Schools classes in the PAUSD elementary schools. • Community Theater: Performance space of the community theater ensemble the Palo Alto Players. City provides the Community Theater and workshop for the group's performances, rehearsals and shop space.
Library Facilities• Children's Library: Historically renovated and expanded in 2007, this 6,043 SF space includes an outdoor Secret Garden. Programming includes book loans, story time and outdoor programs.
SITE SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Crowded• Parking limited• Need facility upgrades (gym, multipurpose rooms)
VENTURA COMMUNITY CENTER
Location: 3990 Ventura CourtOwner: City of Palo AltoYear: N/A
EXISTING CONDITIONS• Functions as the administrative offices of Palo Alto Community Child Care, a non-profit organization providing care and education for Palo Alto's children.• Other parts of the facility are leased for two child care programs.• Outdoor area was upgraded in 2013 and includes a new playground, benches, accessible swings, an irrigated field, fenced community garden and new asphalt basketball courts.
PROGRAMMINGChild Care • Sojourner Truth Infant-Toddler Program: Provides quality care and education for children from age 2 months to 3 years. The facility provides both indoor and outdoor experiences. A hot lunch and snack program is available daily.• Sojourner Truth Preschool Program: Provides quality care and education for children from ages 4-5 years. The facility provides both indoor and outdoor experiences. A hot lunch and snack program is available daily.
SITE SPECIFIC PUBLIC INPUT• Needs shaded seating• Loop track• Possible small dog area
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE
SOJOURNER TRUTH CHILD DEVELOPMENTCENTER
COUNTRY DAY LITTLE SCHOOL
parking
VEN
T
U
R
A
C
T
2N
D
S
T
basketballcourts
youth soccer fields
play area
communitygarden
fenced play areas
A
C
D
B
A | Entrance at Ventura Ct
B | Fenced play area along Ventura Ct
C | Play area
D | Facility sign
N
N
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
1 | Page
To: Palo Alto PRC, Peter Jensen and Elizabeth Ames
From: Ryan Mottau and Ellie Fiore, MIG
Re: Additional Stakeholder Meeting Log
Date: April 21, 2015
Additional Stakeholder and Staff Consultation
The project team has been reaching out to community stakeholders throughout the
planning process to enhance our understanding of general and specific park and
recreation issues in Palo Alto. As a part of the regular PRC updates, the project team will
provide a list of the additional meetings (outside of those with independent summaries)
held with Palo Alto staff and external stakeholders with a brief explanation of the topics
discussed. This list is intended to bring you up to the current date and future updates
will include meetings that follow this update.
Date Contact Organization/
Group
Topics Key Points
10/3/14 Karen Kienzle Art Center Existing program
areas,
Opportunities
10/1/14 John Aikin Junior Museum
and Zoo
Existing program
areas,
Opportunities
10/3/14 Judge Luckey Children’s Theatre Existing program
areas,
Opportunities
10/10/14 Jenny Jordan Children’s Library Existing program
areas,
Opportunities
12/2/14 Elise DeMarzo Public Art Program Public Art Master
Plan
2/9/15 Adam Howard
Erwin Gonzales
John Aikin
Palo Alto
Recreation
Program Staff
Programming
opportunities,
challenges
Attachment 7
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
2 | Page
Judge Luckey
Karen Kienzle
Lacee Kortsen
Chase
Harmann
Sharon Eva
2/24/15 John Aikin Junior Museum
and Zoo
Programming
opportunities
follow‐up
2/24/15 Palo Alto Dog
Owners
Stakeholder
interview: issues
and ideas
2/24/15 Avenidas Senior services
perspective on
trends and needs
3/23/15 Boost instructors
and participants
About the program
3/23/15 Peter Jensen
Lacee Kortsen
Adam Howard
Staff Team Stakeholders and
issue prep
3/23/15 Palo Alto Youth
Council
Youth perspectives
Ideas for the future
3/24/15 Staff
Middle School
Athletic
Directors
Parents
Middle School
Athletics
Constraints on
programming
Ideas for expanded
service
3/24/15 Cubberley
Tenants and
Field Users
Cubberley Tenants
and Field Users
3/24/15 Community
Garden staff and
volunteers
Demand, scale and
programming
issues of gardens
3/24/15 Aquatics staff and
participants
Challenges and
opportunities
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: APRIL 28, 2015
SUBJECT: PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR PILOT BATTING CAGES
WITHIN THE FORMER PASCO SITE AT THE BAYLANDS ATHLETIC CENTER
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that
Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance (Attachment A), authorizing the addition of two
batting cages, and converting one standard parking stall to a handicapped accessible parking stall
(Attachment B) BACKGROUND
The former PASCO site is approximately one acre of parkland located adjacent to the Baylands
Athletic Center. In 1958, the City had a contract with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for garbage collection. The City leased about an acre of land on Geng Road to PASCO for its service yard. In 1965, when the City dedicated its parks, the one-acre PASCO site was
excluded from the dedication. In 1983, PASCO expanded its lease area to approximately two
acres. The additional area was dedicated parkland and was not presented to the electorate for a
vote as required, as a portion of the PASCO site was partially located on parkland. The Council’s approval that allowed non-park use of this area required that the land revert to parkland upon the termination of the PASCO contract or closure of the landfill. The City’s current contractor for
recycling and garbage collection is Greenwaste of Palo Alto and it holds the lease for the non-
parkland site adjacent to Geng Road. The one-acre parcel of parkland has been vacant and
unused for numerous years. Staff explored the options for putting soccer fields on the site, but determined that due to the size and configuration of the parcel that it was not possible to fit playing fields on the site.
On September 20, 2004, the staff report to the Council recommended that Council adopt a Park
Improvement Ordinance for Capital Improvement Project for the Baylands Athletic Center that would include adding a batting cage to the site. The staff report states:
Most baseball and softball facilities of the same size and caliber as the Baylands Athletic
Center have a dedicated space where batting practice can take place within a confined
space in case the regular field is either occupied or otherwise unusable. The batting practice cage proposed for the Baylands would be a rectangular enclosure made of
galvanized chain link mesh supported by galvanized steel poles. Its dimensions would be
84 feet long, 26 feet wide and 12 feet high with a mesh roof and a mesh divider
lengthwise down the center to create two separate practice areas accessible by lockable
gates.
On October 4, 2004, Council unanimously adopted the Park Improvement Ordinance, which
includes an 84’x26’x12’ batting cage located along the first baseline. For some unknown reason
(perhaps cost overruns on other aspects of the project) the batting cage was never built.
In May 2014, Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball League (Babe Ruth) approached staff with the
concept of adding batting cages to the Baylands Athletic Center. Staff informed Babe Ruth that
the Parks Master Plan would be completed in November 2015 and would provide guidance on
priorities and best locations for amenities like batting cages. A pilot batting cage project located
on the former PASCO site would provide a much-needed batting facility for the Baylands Park Athletic Center. It would also provide helpful information about how many batting cages are
needed, how much use they would receive, guidance on preferred design with regards to
durability and security, and guidance on how a more substantial long-term batting cage facility
could be integrated into the Parks Master Plan.
The existing site is fenced and secured, and has gates and a pathway to allow access. Bordering
the site is an office park to the south (8’ high chain-link fence with slats), the Greenwaste facility
to the east (6’ high chain-link fence), and Baylands Athletic Center field to the north (10’ high
chain-link fence with slats).
PG&E Easements at the Site
There are three PG&E easements which are recorded to this parcel. There are two power line
easements and a gas line easement. All of the easements prohibit building any structures within
the easement. The layout of the batting cages is configured to avoid encroachment within the easements. Staff met with PG&E, which confirmed that it approved of the plans due to lack of encroachment.
Project Description
Two batting cages would be constructed on a synthetic turf surface on the former PASCO site.
One existing parking stall in the Baylands Athletic Center Parking Lot (located closest to the
existing entry gate to the former PASCO site) would be converted to a handicapped accessible
parking stall. Entry to the site will be through an existing locked gate to the north. There is an
existing base rock pathway that connects the parking stall to the existing gate.
Each batting cage will measure approximately 18’W x 16’H x 80’L. Two alternative styles of
batting cages are being considered:
1. Open frame: A free-standing, rigid metal frame utilizing 2 16-gauge galvanized steel poles.Metal stakes with in-ground sleeves capturing the vertical poles of the structure may be driven
into the ground to secure the cage structure.
2. Enclosed cage: An enclosed chain-link fence cage with a frame of 1 1/2 to 3 Schedule 40
galvanized steel fence poles wrapped with galvanized steel chain-link fencing. Netting made of
black #42 gauge knotted polypropylene will be hung around the inside perimeter using
carabiner-rope assemblies. Synthetic turf of knitted nylon secured by turf nails will form the ground surface of the cages.
Additional cost and durability analysis will help determine which of the two styles are selected
for the site.
No electrical or water connections are necessary for this project. This will be an unlit facility.
There are no trees or vegetation that needs to be removed as part of this project.
Because this is a pilot project, it is designed so that the entire area can be easily returned to its
original condition with minimal disassembly and removal effort. The current design is a simple, sturdy cage that stands on its own without any foundation or footings. The artificial turf will be
applied directly onto the existing base rock surface at the site, and then assemble the cage on top
of it. This simple design not only keeps costs low, it also makes it straightforward to disassemble
the cage and move it elsewhere if desired.
City Recreation staff will document the use of the facility to help track how often it is used and
by whom.
Maintenance of the Site:
Apart from the periodic clearing of leaves, the cages are expected to require little maintenance.
The City will perform this leaf clearing as part of their maintenance of the existing Baylands
baseball field.
If the pilot is continued, the long-term maintenance of the facility would be funded by the Babe Ruth.
Management of the Batting Cages
Babe Ruth will fund the construction of the batting cages. For the first two to three months of the
pilot project, only Palo Alto Babe Ruth and the City of Palo Alto Parks will have lock access to
the site. This limited will allow us to work out the details around access, safety, theft, vandalism,
over-utilization by one group, and any other unforeseen issues. As soon as those issues are
resolved and the batting cages are up and running the batting cages will become part of the City's Baylands Athletic Center facility. The City will control the cages and be able to use/rent them
just as the City does with the with the Baylands Athletic Center fields.
Parks Master Plan
Once the Parks Master Plan’s analysis of the additional 10 acres of future recreational space
between the golf course and the Baylands Athletic Center is completed as is the overall analysis,
the City will have additional guidance on the best use of the PASCO site. At that time we can
reevaluate if the pilot batting cages should remain at this site or be removed/relocated.
If the batting cage pilot is successful (success will be defined as the facility is safe, vandalism
kept to a minimum, and access is equally distributed), it will be continued until the Parks Master
Plan has a recommendation for the site.
Design Review
An application for minor Site and Design was submitted to the Planning Division and was
approved on March 2, 2015.
Environmental Review
The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act and the CEQA Guidelines section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures.
DISCUSSION
On February 24, 2015, the Commission reviewed the pilot batting cage project. The Commission
generally supported the project and thought it was a good use for former PASCO site. One
Commissioner suggested a public meeting to ensure that there is an opportunity for a public discussion.
On March 23, 2015, there was a public meeting held at the Baylands Athletic Center to discuss
the project. Six members of the public, two Commissioners, and four staff attended the meeting.
The public participants all supported the batting cage project. There was a request to include a gate at the west end of the former PASCO site to allow more efficient access to the batting cages from the softball field. There is an existing pedestrian gate that will provide this access.
RESOURCE IMPACT No staffing increases are proposed as a result of this project. The cost of the batting cages will be
funded by Babe Ruth. City Recreation staff will manage the use/rent of the batting cages. City
Parks staff will provide periodic maintenance to blow the site free of leaves. The maintenance is
expected to be minimal.
TIMELINE
April/ May: Park Improvement Ordinance to Council June/July: Second Council reading
July/August: Install batting cages
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance
Attachment B: Project Plans (including site photos)
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager,Community Services Department
NOT YET APPROVED
ORDINANCE NO. _____
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT FOR TWO BATTING CAGES LOCATED AT THE FORMER PASCO SITE
AT THE BAYLANDS ATHETLIC CENTER
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction, reconstruction or
development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for
park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a
plan therefor.
(b) The former PASCO site at the Baylands is dedicated to park purposes.
(c) The City intends to authorize construction of certain park improvements within the
former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center, as shown at Exhibit “A”. The improvements include, without limitation, the following:
(1) Construction two batting cages.
(2) Converting one standard parking stall to a handicapped parking stall.
(d) The improvements do not require removing any vegetation or trees.
(e) The improvements described above and as more specifically described at Exhibit
"A" are consistent with park and conservation purposes.
(f) The Council desires to approve the projects described above and as more specifically
described at Exhibit "A”.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the Plan for construction of improvements
within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center and hereby adopts the Plans, attached hereto at Exhibit "A" as part of the official plan for the construction of improvements
within the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the construction of the new batting cage facilities at
the former PASCO site at the Baylands Athletic Center is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines section 15303.
1
150423 jb 00710593
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
150423 jb 00710593
Exhibit A
-Install two batting cages on a synthetic turf surface. Each batting cage will measure approximately 18’W
x 16’H x 80’L. There are no foundations or footings for the cages. The artificial turf will be applied
directly onto the existing base rock surface at the site, and then assemble the cage on top of it.
-Convert one existing parking stall in the Baylands Athletic Center Parking Lot (located closest to the
existing entry gate to the former PASCO site) to a handicapped accessible parking stall.
-Entry to the site will be through an existing locked gate to the north. There is an existing base rock
pathway that connects the parking stall to the existing gate.
Attachment B