Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-10-27 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting October 27, 2015 AGENDA City Hall Community Meeting Room 250 Hamilton 7pm *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 September 29, 2015 Special Parks and Recreation Commission meeting – Chair Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT 2. Review of the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Feasibility Study – Hung Nguyen, Engineer Public Works – Discussion ( 30 min ) ATTACHMENT 3. Discussion on the share use Dog Park Pilot Program – Daren Anderson/Ad hoc committee – Discussion – ( 30 min ) ATTACHMENT 4. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - Peter Jensen – Discussion – (30 min) ATTACHMENT 5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion (15min) V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 8, 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 September 29, 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, Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: Pat Markevitch 15 Others Present: 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Lacee 17 Kortsen, Walter Passmore 18 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19 20 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21 22 Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have any agenda changes, requests, deletions? 23 24 Commissioner Ashlund: I have a request. Can we extend the community garden ad hoc 25 report to 30 minutes instead of 20? 26 27 Chair Reckdahl: Is everyone okay with that? Okay, 30 minutes it is. That is, Item 4 is 28 now 30 minutes long. We're not obliged to use all 30 minutes obviously. 29 30 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 31 32 Chair Reckdahl: We have one speaker card. David is up. 33 34 David Carnahan: Good evening, Chair Reckdahl and Commissioners. I'm here to speak 35 to you about recruitment for your body, the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City 36 has extended the recruiting period for Commissioners for the Parks and Recreation 37 Commission. The extended deadline is October 16 at 5:00 p.m. We're hoping that 38 Draft Minutes 1 DRAFT yourselves, staff and members of the public here and members of the public watching 39 from home consider either applying or passing the word onto members of the community 40 that you think would make great Parks and Recreation Commissioners. We're now 41 looking to fill three terms that will run from November 1, 2015 through December 15, 42 2018. Applications are available in the back of the Council Chambers and online at 43 cityofpaloalto.org/clerk. Thank you very much. 44 45 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 46 47 IV. BUSINESS: 48 49 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the August 18, 2015 Parks and Recreation 50 Commission meeting. 51 52 Approval of the draft August 18, 2015 Minutes as presented was moved by 53 Commissioner Lauing and seconded by Commissioner Hetterly. Passed 6-0 54 55 2. Informational Report on Sustaining Trees During the Drought within the 56 City and Parks. 57 58 Chair Reckdahl: We have Walter Passmore, Urban Forester of Palo Alto. 59 60 Walter Passmore: Good evening, Commissioners. This is going to be a fairly informal 61 report on the status of our urban forest in regards to drought. I do want to let you know 62 about some of the actions that we're taking and how we're proceeding with some short-63 term responses to the drought. As we all know, impacts are increasing as the drought 64 intensifies or lengthens. You can see in the upper right of this slide, there are some dead 65 pines at El Camino Park. This is just one example of the increasing number of removals 66 that we've seen as drought being a significant stressor. Usually it's not the only cause of 67 tree mortality or decline. More and more, it's becoming very significant when we see 68 problems with trees. Our tree removals have actually increased to more than 400 street 69 and park trees during the past fiscal year. That's as compared to less than 250 during 70 eight of the past ten. The other high year was the previous year, 2014, where we had a 71 little over 300 tree removals. You can see during the short term our trend has been an 72 increasing number of removals. To put this in perspective, the population of trees is 73 29,000 street trees approximately and about 6,000 park trees in the developed parks. We 74 are not currently inventorying or assessing the drought impacts on our open space trees. 75 We imagine the drought is likewise affecting those trees, and it's not insignificant. In 76 perspective, the removals are for the first time exceeding 1 percent of the population. 77 While it's not cause for immediate alarm, it surely does prompt some action and some 78 attention to this issue. We feel like if this continues over the long term, we're going to 79 have to have a much more significant response to drought. 80 Draft Minutes 2 DRAFT 81 Chair Reckdahl; Thank you, Walter. On the bottom right, can you speak to that graph? 82 The bar graph, what is that showing? 83 84 Mr. Passmore: Among other things, it has the number of tree removals. It also has limb 85 pickups, construction inspections and then leveraged funding. The limb pickups ... 86 87 Chair Reckdahl: What we're looking at right now is—we're most interested in the orange 88 bar, is that correct? 89 90 Mr. Passmore: The yellow bar, correct. 91 92 Chair Reckdahl: Okay, my monitor is colored. That yellow or orange bar is showing the 93 increase. Are there any other bars up there that we should also be looking at or is this 94 used from another context and we're really just interested in that one bar? 95 96 Mr. Passmore: No. This is from our annual accomplishment report, so really the most 97 pertinent statistic is just the tree removals on that graph. 98 99 Chair Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. I'll let you finish up, and then we'll have a follow-up 100 question on that. 101 102 Mr. Passmore: In the short term, we are taking some actions. We have been meeting 103 with an interdepartmental drought response team to coordinate outreach and community 104 efforts. We've been collaborating with partner groups, and they expect that to increase. 105 We've increased education and outreach focus during City-sponsored events such as our 106 workshops. We do workshops on zero waste, on mulch and compost, on recycling. We 107 take opportunities at those workshops to talk about impacts of the drought on trees. 108 We've generated some press releases. We're doing social media posts, and we've worked 109 closely with our utility marketing team to do some focused outreach to utility customers. 110 Hopefully all of you have seen one or more of these outreach pieces through some of 111 those venues. Following up on outreach and education, we're also going to do a rapid 112 assessment of all of our City street and park trees to identify which ones are both in need 113 of water and could have the greatest benefit from some supplemental watering. We are 114 going to be increasing delivery of non-potable water so that some of these trees will get 115 one or two waterings prior to natural rainfall resuming, we hope, in November. Sooner 116 would be even better. We're delivering that water via a contract for services and also by 117 extending hours for the City water truck by using multiple drivers. We'll extend hours 118 from 40 hours a week to about 60 to 70 hours a week on the City water truck to keep that 119 in operation. We're also renting two additional water trucks and staffing those with 120 operators. We're going from one truck to four trucks on the road to provide some 121 supplemental water. That being said, that effort is only going to allow us to water once a 122 Draft Minutes 3 DRAFT month for about 7,000 trees which is only 20 percent of the population. Obviously the 123 rapid assessment and all of this action has to be paired with equal response from 124 homeowners, property owners, from our partners in the community to really be effective. 125 We're going to be increasing our outreach efforts in that regard, and our partners are 126 doing the same. We have a picture on the screen of a magnolia tree on Alma which is 127 nearly dead. This would not be one of the trees that would be receiving water, because 128 we would not expect that to respond to something as simple as dumping a little bit of 129 water on it. On this page is a number of resources. I'm going to talk first about the 130 picture which is one of the redwood trees at Magic Forest in Rinconada Park. That was a 131 tree that we did some water injections and some other fairly basic treatments after a 132 prompt from citizens that reported they noticed some symptoms on the tree that it looked 133 unhealthy. We did an inspection, followed up with the water injection and the 134 treatments. Now, if you look closely you can see a lot of little green shoots coming out 135 on that tree, and it's actually responding very well. It's returning to health. That's the 136 type of tree that we would be identifying for watering, not necessarily this species but a 137 tree in that type of condition where we can catch it early—it's showing some of the initial 138 symptoms of drought stress—and have a good response from the water that we apply. 139 Just quickly about the resources. We've produced an informational brochure, and we've 140 also worked with Canopy to produce several additions to their website, so some good 141 resources there. Statewide we've been working closely with California ReLeaf which is a 142 statewide organization that coordinates activities of nonprofits, over 100 nonprofits 143 statewide, that deal with urban forestry issues. They have a Save Our Water and Our 144 Trees brochure that they produced in conjunction with the State Water Board. We've 145 generated a press release; there's the link for it there. The Save Our Water and Trees 146 brochure—this is specific to Palo Alto—is linked. We're continuously updating the 147 City's water page with drought updates. Those are some resources. I'll be glad to answer 148 any questions and talk about what do we do after this initial push to save a few trees, 149 what does it mean for the future. You might have some predictions that would help us to 150 respond in a better way. 151 152 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Before we start asking, we do have public comment. We 153 have a speaker, David Moss. Please go to the podium there. You have three minutes. 154 155 David Moss: Thank you. By the way, I'm one of those people who applied for one of 156 those three positions for the Parks and Rec Commission. One thing about the trees we're 157 losing. Quite a few birch trees in the Greenmeadow area are suffering. They seem to 158 have a particular affinity to shallow water. What I was going to mention is that when we 159 plant new trees, we should plant them with the idea that they too could have some kind of 160 a drip system with a deep watering system instead of the way we water today where it's 161 mostly on lawns and goes down from there. If we could change the way we plant new 162 trees, that would be a great idea. Also, when we talk about the construction of basements 163 and how much water we have to pull out of the ground to keep the basement dry while 164 Draft Minutes 4 DRAFT it's being constructed, there has to be a way to recycle that water and put it back in the 165 ground elsewhere rather than pouring it into the storm drain. That's all I had. 166 167 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Comments and questions from the Commission? 168 Commissioner Knopper. 169 170 Commissioner Knopper: Hi. That's very depressing, what you said. A couple of things. 171 I'm on a couple of neighborhood email groups that have like 1,000 people on them. 172 Everybody has been told to conserve water. Brown is the new green kind of thing. I 173 think that telling residents that trees are different than grass and the impact is much 174 greater, it would be helpful maybe if you guys provided us, at least for me, like that one 175 sheet or if there's a particular resource that I'm looking at that I could go to and pull it so I 176 can send out to my email groups, "Hey, you need to water these trees. This is what you 177 should look for with regard to the stress of the tree. If you're seeing this, this is what you 178 need to do. This is how many times you should water." I don't think people might know 179 that you should water a tree differently than like a regular lawn, bush, etc. Any extra 180 information that you could provide. I know I would like to post it on like my Facebook 181 page, that kind of thing. If you could just let me know specifically, direct me to that, it 182 would be great. 183 184 Mr. Passmore: Right. On the resource page, probably the Saving Our Trees and Our 185 Water brochure that's specific to Palo Alto would be a great start. It has a lot of the 186 information that you're talking about. The press release, a little bit more general, but it 187 has guides to different resources in it as well. 188 189 Commissioner Knopper: Okay, thank you. 190 191 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 192 193 Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a couple of questions. On the tree removals, is there 194 anything illuminating about the proportion of street trees versus park trees in terms of are 195 we losing more of one versus the other or is it pretty much across the board? 196 197 Mr. Passmore: No, it's fairly general. We're not seeing any trend on either side of the 198 equation. 199 200 Commissioner Hetterly: Okay. My next question is about the rapid assessment. It 201 sounds like you're going to start doing that soon, which is a "swing by and check out as 202 many trees as you can" and make an assessment. Is there a plan for ongoing 203 reassessments over time? Obviously if a tree is okay now, it may well be showing signs 204 of stress next month. How do you plan to go forward to keep that monitoring beyond 205 Draft Minutes 5 DRAFT citizen complaints? I think the current way to save a tree is for a citizen to call in and 206 say, "My tree is dying. What do we do?" 207 208 Mr. Passmore. We obviously have limited staff resources. We're conducting about 2,000 209 inspections a year with the staff resources that we have, but that's a pretty small 210 proportion of the population, again when you're talking about 35,000-plus trees. In order 211 to focus our efforts, I wouldn't be surprised if we do another rapid assessment protocol in 212 the spring to see how many of these trees actually responded to our supplemental 213 watering. We're also making a plea to citizens to report trees that have drought 214 symptoms on them. We have included information in our press release about what to 215 look for. 216 217 Commissioner Hetterly: Would you encourage residents to water street trees that they 218 see in stress or would you prefer that they contact you and have you water them? I think 219 that's a (crosstalk). 220 221 Mr. Passmore: No, we definitely need help from property owners. Even with all the 222 supplemental actions we're taking, we're only going to water 20 percent of the street trees 223 max and park trees. We would love for people to step up and say, "I'm going to help this 224 tree through the drought." Hopefully the rains will help it from there. 225 226 Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's great. I have seen a lot of action on the various 227 lists in the last few weeks about concern about trees and the importance of watering them 228 and don't lose track when you're conserving water of what you need to do with the trees. 229 I do think that it would be helpful to include in any ongoing public outreach about that, 230 the importance of watering now, don't wait until the El Nino that may or may not come. 231 Just because we're close to winter doesn't mean they can make it that far. It's really 232 important that they water now. Thank you very much for coming tonight. 233 234 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Lauing. 235 236 Commissioner Lauing: Moving down the list, thanks for the report. Obviously you are 237 budgeting a certain amount of non-potable water for trees, and you're only getting to 20 238 percent. That raises the obvious question of do we need a Council memorandum to 239 double the amount of potable water we should buy so we can save 40 percent of the trees. 240 Do you understand basically my question? Is it a budget item, basically is what I'm 241 asking. 242 243 Mr. Passmore: No. I think the challenge is distribution of water, because we're under 244 State mandates to conserve water and to conserve potable water. Really we don't have 245 the infrastructure in place to effectively distribute non-potable water. We don't have the 246 pipelines, the distribution lines, the irrigation systems hooked up to non-potable sources. 247 Draft Minutes 6 DRAFT Therefore, distributing by truck is a very inefficient method of getting water to trees. 248 That's our limit. It's just how many trucks can we put on the road to deliver water as 249 opposed to how do we efficiently use the non-potable sources that we have. 250 251 Commissioner Lauing: Okay. My follow-up question was actually for Daren as he 252 stepped to the microphone. Even pacing this and trying to cut back, I think it's 30 253 percent, so another obvious question, which I think I know the obvious answer, is we 254 can't really cut back more there to put more water on the trees. It's just a math equation. 255 Do you want to address that? 256 257 Daren Anderson: Yes, thank you. It's a great question. Yeah, 34 percent was our target 258 that we had to reach in potable water reduction. We realized from the get-go that we 259 were going to have an impact on trees if we made that uniform cut in turf areas where 260 there are trees. We made changes in those spots to irrigate once a month, thinking that 261 would sustain most of the trees. In some areas, it wasn't. Even though it may throw us 262 off our target of 34, we've increased irrigation in those areas to sustain those trees. In 263 some cases, it's one time a week. It very well may throw us off our ultimate goal of 34 264 percent reduction in potable. We do believe in sustaining the trees, knowing that it's an 265 asset that takes so very long to grow and sustain. It's so different from the ... 266 267 Commissioner Lauing: I'm stymied by those answers, so I think I'm done. 268 269 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Ashlund. 270 271 Commissioner Ashlund: Along the same line of questions. I was wondering the same 272 thing about the infrastructure Citywide for capturing gray water. I wasn't really thinking 273 in terms of rainfall as well. As far as that infrastructure being in place Citywide not just 274 for trees but for other plants as well, do you know if that's already being included in the 275 Comp Plan moving forward or is it even farther along than that? 276 277 Mr. Passmore: I think it's both, part of the Comp Plan and part of the 278 Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. Water is a key issue for our future and how are we 279 going to use our potable water. The future is probably one where we're using much less, 280 maybe no potable water, for landscape uses and conserving for our indoor uses, to solely 281 use potable for drinking purposes and sanitary purposes. 282 283 Commissioner Ashlund: You're saying possibly conserving to the level of not even 284 directing the water to save the trees? 285 286 Mr. Passmore: I'm saying that we're actively trying to identify non-potable sources for 287 landscape irrigation, whether that's recycled water, the water that's being taken out of the 288 ground for various purposes, gray water, rain water harvesting. There's a number of 289 Draft Minutes 7 DRAFT different options that are being considered. I think you're going to see those explored 290 further in the Comp Plan and the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. 291 292 Commissioner Ashlund: Great, thank you. The other question, as far as impact that 293 individual residents can have, we all know the shorter showers, eat less meat kind of 294 suggestion, but as far as the impact that the residents can make, how significant can that 295 be versus the larger scale water use? Statewide agriculture is by far the biggest. When 296 we come down to the level of the Palo Alto level and residents conserving water, okay, 297 I'm not watering my rose bushes, but am I going to make an impact on the redwoods, for 298 example. Is that too broad a question or does that relate to the individual? 299 300 Mr. Passmore: I think if everyone does their part, then we reach our goals as a whole. 301 Obviously one individual as compared to the population of California is fairly 302 insignificant. 303 304 Commissioner Ashlund: Will there be any sort of Citywide set goals for residents to 305 achieve? The park system has reached their water reduction goals. What about any sort 306 of collective goals resident-wise that we'll be tracking? 307 308 Mr. Passmore: The Utility tracks the Citywide reduction goal. I think we're about on 309 target to meet the State-set goals for water conservation. 310 311 Commissioner Ashlund: The State-set goals for residents and cities, is it all combined or 312 is it separated out, so we know? 313 314 Mr. Passmore: It's all combined. 315 316 Commissioner Ashlund: It would be interesting to see it separated out, I think, so 317 residents would have tangible goals. The City of Palo Alto highly competitive might be 318 worth looking into. Thanks. 319 320 Rob de Geus: Commissioner Ashlund, I just wanted to add that the Utilities Department 321 is doing a lot of work on this and supporting residents in different ways they can help 322 with the goals. I encourage you to go to their website. They have all sorts of tips and 323 advice for residents in how they can help. If you haven't been there before, I encourage 324 you to do that. 325 326 Commissioner Ashlund: Great, thanks. 327 328 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 329 330 Draft Minutes 8 DRAFT Commissioner Crommie: Hi. Walter Passmore, can I ask that you publish your 331 systematic checks on the trees so we know which ones you're watering Citywide? Can 332 you make that information public so it's transparent and helpful to other residents? 333 Where would we find you posting that? 334 335 Mr. Passmore: Yes, we can post that to the City website, to the urban forestry page, and 336 then follow up with our outreach outlets to let people know where to find that. The rapid 337 assessment, like I said, is probably going to be just that. We're not going to be 338 identifying individual trees. Instead we're probably going to be looking at a block-by-339 block where our distribution would be the most efficient. We'll probably publish by 340 block and track it that way. 341 342 Commissioner Crommie: How soon can we see that? 343 344 Mr. Passmore: I'm hoping by next week. 345 346 Commissioner Crommie: Do you already have a site on your page where this 347 information is posted so it will be an update or is this going to be a new visual? 348 349 Mr. Passmore: No, this is a new graphic that we're going to put up. 350 351 Commissioner Crommie: We can look and see the whole City? We'll be able to see 352 documentation of the whole City, what you're doing? 353 354 Mr. Passmore: Yes. 355 356 Commissioner Crommie: In about a week? 357 358 Mr. Passmore: That's what I'm hoping for. 359 360 Commissioner Crommie: I think that's really important. Let me see my other. That's my 361 most important question. 362 363 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie, I have a question. You want that information 364 so people know what trees not to water and what trees to water? 365 366 Commissioner Crommie: People can see where the work is being done and not freak out 367 that their neighborhood isn't getting any attention. So we can see the equity across the 368 City, that attention is being given to all parts of the City, and that on a block-by-block 369 basis, if we know where there's a cluster of trees and they're not getting any attention, that 370 can alert individuals. 371 372 Draft Minutes 9 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 373 374 Commissioner Crommie: How much of the increase in tree death is due to deferred 375 removal of trees? I assume with some of your limited resources you probably have not 376 kept up with the removal of dead trees. Any tree that was almost dead would have been 377 kicked over the edge in this drought. How much is that spike kind of due to deferred 378 attention? When things are good, we don't tend to want to do that. 379 380 Mr. Passmore: I would say very, very little is because of deferred maintenance. If we go 381 back to this graph, you can see the red line for limb pickups actually spiked back in 2010, 382 and it's been declining ever since. Limb pickups is one indicator of how much 383 maintenance may be deferred, because when we defer maintenance we tend to have more 384 broken limbs, more falling limbs. While that can be due to drought as well, you've seen a 385 decline in limb pickups, so I don't think it's a maintenance issue. It's primarily due to 386 drought. 387 388 Commissioner Crommie: How aware are you of the hotspots of neighborhood 389 communication in the City? I'll give an example. Midtown sends out lots of notices. I 390 happen to be on their list; I don't live in Midtown, but I just signed up for it. I think that 391 Commissioner Knopper has mentioned her part of town is very active. Can you do a 392 survey and figure out what parts of the City are not getting this message? We have many 393 dead zones in our City in terms of neighborhood communication. Those are probably the 394 neighborhoods in need of leafleting. We don't have active neighborhood associations 395 across the City at all. I think we need to kind of look at a per-neighborhood assessment. 396 I think it would behoove our staff to do some research on which neighborhoods have 397 active communication for all kinds of reasons. Maybe you go to a PAN meeting to figure 398 it out or the Palo Alto Neighborhood Association, you can ask the leaders of that to tell 399 you. I mean there should be some good ways to figure this out. I know my 400 neighborhood has almost zero communication going on. I haven't seen anything on tree 401 drought just as feedback. Where are you distributing the brochures, for example? 402 403 Mr. Passmore: The brochures have been distributed through our local workshops. If 404 people attend the workshop, they would receive a copy. Electronically, a lot of the 405 information has been distributed, but there's not been like a door-to-door type of 406 distribution effort. We are thinking of doing some more personalized action like you're 407 suggesting, possibly identifying all the trees that we're watering with some kind of a 408 ribbon or leaflet. I don't know, this is kind of a work in progress where we're trying to do 409 something now because we don't want to over-plan and under-act. 410 411 Commissioner Crommie: The last thing I just want to say, an example of an extreme 412 failure in tree health is in Monroe Park. Now that I have Daren Anderson, Peter Jensen 413 and Walter Passmore sitting here, I'd like to tell you that Monroe Park is in crisis. When 414 Draft Minutes 10 DRAFT I moved in that neighborhood 14 years ago, we had eight huge, beautiful, mature trees in 415 our parks. 100 percent of them died; 100 percent of them were removed. They were 416 replaced like a couple of years ago, the biggest ones of the replacements are now dead. 417 One of those has been removed; another one is dead and needs to be removed. We have 418 no shade coverage of the turf in Monroe Park. We have a shortage of trees in South Palo 419 Alto. We have a shortage of parks in our neighborhood. It's in crisis. All the redwood 420 trees at the back of the park are in extreme distress. It wouldn't surprise if within five 421 years all of them are dead. I just want someone in the City to really pay some attention to 422 that park that's in crisis essentially. There might be other people in the City who want to 423 give feedback. Lastly I will say when I personally called your office to ask about four 424 pines on my property that are owned by the City that are near death, I didn't receive any 425 callback. I made those calls two months ago. I made a series of calls; no follow-up 426 whatsoever. I don't even know what to do as a citizen about the four dying pine trees that 427 are on Miller Avenue right by the Wilkie Way pedestrian bridge. They've been dying for 428 a long time, and this might send them over the edge. I'm just ending with that personal 429 plea. Thank you. 430 431 Chair Reckdahl: This is troubling just because it takes a long time to grow a tree. If it's 432 brown turf, you can replace that. Even shrubs, you can replace that. A 40-foot tree you 433 just can't replace. It is troubling that we have issues. The trees that we lost, what 434 percentage of those are non-native and which percentage are native? 435 436 Mr. Passmore: Currently, our native population is less than 10 percent of the total. 437 438 Chair Reckdahl: Can you say are they doing better or worse or are they roughly the 439 same? 440 441 Mr. Passmore: I don't really know without looking at some specific numbers. 442 443 Chair Reckdahl: My question is, are these trees that are dying because of the drought due 444 to being chosen inadequately? Inappropriate trees at inappropriate locations. Now, will 445 this give us a chance to redo it and put something appropriate in that spot or was this an 446 appropriate tree at an appropriate spot and it's just purely lack of water that killed it? 447 448 Mr. Passmore: My general observation is that the trees that were appropriately sited and 449 native and adapted to local conditions like valley oak, we're not seeing much mortality. 450 We are seeing a lot of mortality in non-native pines, magnolias, camphors. Those are 451 species that probably weren't appropriate for local conditions without a lot of 452 supplemental water. I think ... 453 454 Chair Reckdahl: Are those trees still being planted by the City or are those trees no 455 longer planted by the City? 456 Draft Minutes 11 DRAFT 457 Mr. Passmore: No, none of those are planted anymore. 458 459 Chair Reckdahl: You mentioned also in the long run we want to get away from using 460 potable water for irrigation of any sort. This issue with the total dissolved solids in the 461 recycled water is a real issue for trees. Would we increase the use of non-potable water 462 in irrigation by reducing the TDS or would we do that by changing the tree selection to 463 something that can tolerate high TDS? 464 465 Mr. Passmore: I think we're talking about very long-term solutions. Obviously we're not 466 going to convert immediately to recycled water. Conversion would be conditional on the 467 trees being able to use that water effectively and to not have salinity buildup in our soils. 468 There's a number of ways to make sure that we're using that wisely. The other water 469 sources that I mentioned also need to be explored in much more detail. This is not a 470 change that's going to occur in the next year or two years. We're probably going to 471 continue having discussions about how do we budget our water use so that we protect our 472 urban forest, how do we try to minimize the number of trees that are dying and need to be 473 replaced. At the same time, we try to meet some very optimistic conservation goals. 474 475 Chair Reckdahl: What is our primary goal going on? Are we trying to go to more of a 476 native selection of trees so we don't have to water at all? Are we going to trees that can 477 tolerate high salt content? 478 479 Mr. Passmore: Native and drought-tolerant. We think it's the obligation of the non-480 potable suppliers to bring down salinity levels to an acceptable amount so that we can use 481 it broadly. There's a lot of plans in place to do just that. 482 483 Chair Reckdahl: By plans, do you mean concrete plans or do you mean potential plans? 484 485 Mr. Passmore: As part of the distribution for the recycled water, Council tasked staff to 486 pursue sources for extending the pipeline, but also to reduce the salinity through a variety 487 of techniques. For example, one technique being considered is reverse osmosis. It could 488 be a fairly expensive technique, but potential is there to reduce the TDS down below the 489 level of our groundwater currently. 490 491 Chair Reckdahl: You also mentioned using the non-potable water right now. We don't 492 have a delivery system; we don't have pipes and we have to do everything by truck. Can 493 we get volunteers to drive trucks on weekends, for example? If Canopy wanted to 494 deliver, is that something that would even be allowed or is that not possible? 495 496 Mr. Passmore: It's possible. You're just talking about a very inefficient system. 497 498 Draft Minutes 12 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: I'm not talking about going forward; I'm talking about right now during 499 the drought. This would not be a regular, every Saturday they'd be watering for the 500 (inaudible). 501 502 Mr. Passmore: It's possible. There has been a very limited amount of use for the 503 groundwater stations where they're discharging for the basement construction. 504 505 Chair Reckdahl: Have you had any discussions with Canopy? Would they be interested 506 in staffing trucks on the weekend? 507 508 Mr. Passmore: Right now, Canopy does not have that potential to increase their capacity 509 to do that type of thing. 510 511 Chair Reckdahl: If volunteers were available, would you be receptive or is that 512 something that you're not interested in? 513 514 Mr. Passmore: I think there's a lot of challenges, but we're definitely receptive to 515 exploring any solutions at this point. 516 517 Chair Reckdahl: Finally, Daren, how are the open space trees doing? Have you done any 518 inventory on that? 519 520 Mr. Anderson: No, we don't have an inventory. We have ranger assessment from trails 521 by and large. There's a lot of sudden oak death that we've noticed and tree failures, much 522 in keeping with what Walter is describing. It's certainly affecting it. There is a much 523 higher degree of native trees. Lots of oaks are hanging in there, that aren't dying of SOD, 524 sudden oak death. Part of the work that Walter has done in the Urban Forest Master Plan 525 calls for developing plans to address SOD. That is long-term canopy coverage to make 526 sure if it's not signature historic oak, that it's something comparable, so that long term we 527 still have that beautiful canopy that our open space is famous for. 528 529 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Any more questions? Okay. Thank you, Walter. 530 531 3. Discussion on New Online Procedure for Summer Camp Registration. 532 533 Chair Reckdahl: Next up, we have Lacee Kortsen. She's going to be talking about the 534 new online procedure for summer camp registration. Lacee, come on up. 535 536 Rob de Geus: As Lacee comes up, I think you've all met Lacee now. Lacee Kortsen is a 537 Senior Community Services Manager. She oversees the Mitchell Park Community 538 Center, so she manages that center and many of our teen programs in the department, the 539 middle school athletic program and a number of other things, adult sports and those types 540 Draft Minutes 13 DRAFT of things. She's here to talk about the summer camp registration process and the hope of 541 moving to a more efficient online system. 542 543 Lacee Kortsen: Hello, Commissioners. Thank you for having me here tonight. I'm 544 going to be presenting a proposal that a group of employees in CSD have been working 545 on to redesign our current summer camp registration process. Who here is familiar with 546 the draw? It's been around for a while. Everybody. Fantastic. I won't go into too much 547 detail. The draw is our current registration process for summer camp. Essentially it's the 548 first chance a Palo Alto resident has to sign up for a summer camp. They have to submit 549 an envelope with their registration form completely filled out by a certain date. After that 550 date, staff collect all the envelopes, kind of mix them up and randomize them, and then 551 redistribute them to staff on the date of the draw, and we register. It's a manual process. 552 We close down our community centers that entire day and all of our resources are 553 focused on getting all those draw registrations processed. It was very effective, and it's 554 helped to resolve a lot of issues we had in the past with long lines for summer camp. It's 555 worked for several years. Now, with some of the technology upgrades that we've had 556 recently along with just the desire to more effectively serve our customers, we think it 557 might be due for an upgrade to the draw process. With that, the committee was convened 558 and we did—let's do this one. There we go. A committee was convened. The first step 559 in this process was we wanted to do some research. We wanted to make sure that our 560 assumptions were accurate and based in reality. We sent out a survey to customers. 561 Before I get into what the survey results are, I just want to give you some data about our 562 summer camp registration. It is the heaviest period of enrollment for us. We have close 563 to one third of total registrations and $1.2 million in revenue just in summer camps. 564 Outside of the registrations that are submitted for the draw, 77 percent of them were done 565 online. If you didn't get that first chance and submit an envelope to the draw, everyone 566 else, 77 percent of them, preferred online registration. When you look at the entire year 567 of registration, 76 percent of all those registrations were done online. We also recently, 568 in February 2013, upgraded our registration system to ACTIVE Net from Class. 569 ACTIVE Net is just a much more robust online system. We have several modules that 570 customers can use online beyond just registering for classes. They can do facility rentals, 571 look up facility availability. They can purchase memberships; they can refill those 572 memberships. There's several things that our customers now have access to that they 573 didn't before. That's just some background data on our business. The survey. Like I 574 said, we sent out a survey to over 2,200 customers. These are all customers that have 575 registered with us in the past two years, since we made that upgrade to ACTIVE Net. We 576 got 210—we recently got two more responses—responses. Some of the highlights from 577 that survey is that overwhelmingly 96 percent responded that if they were given an option 578 to register online or in person for a summer camp, they would prefer to register online. 579 In addition, we asked them to rank priorities that they had personally in a summer camp 580 registration process. Number one, again overwhelmingly, was having an online versus 581 in-person option. The ones that came up after that were convenience of process, and then 582 Draft Minutes 14 DRAFT immediate notification if they got into a class or if they were put on a wait list. The draw 583 currently does not address those top three things. It was just another reason for us to 584 continue our research to validate our assumptions. Next you'll see we asked them if they 585 had registered with us online. 88 percent of them said they had. We asked them to tell us 586 about their experience, and 75 percent said it was a good experience. That was very good 587 for us to hear because a very important piece of successfully transitioning to having an 588 online option is that our online system is user friendly and it's efficient and effective. 589 This kind of validated that. The next thing we wanted to know was just more about when 590 we should open up the summer camp registration process. I'm not sure if you're familiar, 591 but it seems like municipalities and other nonprofit organizations are opening up their 592 summer camp registration earlier and earlier. We just wanted to make sure that that's 593 truly what the customer wanted. What we found out is that March is overwhelmingly the 594 most popular month for customers to be able to register for a summer camp. It's just 595 early enough, it's not too early. Also, if we did have an online option, they preferred to 596 have it on a weekday. If it was just going to be in person, they want it to be on a 597 weekend. That kind of makes sense just for people that are working and unable to come 598 in person during the week. The second survey that we sent out was to local 599 municipalities, so neighboring cities, Menlo Park, Campbell, all the way up to San 600 Francisco. We got 12 responses. Of those 12 responses, 10 of them said that they do 601 open up registration online and in person for the day of summer camp. The two that 602 didn't, one of them doesn't have an online option period. Their current system does not 603 support online registration. The other one actually opened up online registration at 604 midnight and then in-person registration at 8:00 a.m. the same day. Some other data 605 points that we got from them. If they feel their customers prefer the online registration, 606 80 percent agreed with that. It was split between when they open up registration, 607 February or March. The majority opened it on a Monday. Looking at all those different 608 data points that we discovered in our research, both of our own data and then the data that 609 we got from our customers and from neighboring cities, we felt like it was time for us to 610 move from the draw to offering an online option for our customers. We do note that 611 that's going to be a significant change from how we've done it in the past, and we don't 612 want to underestimate how that change will affect our customers. Some people get 613 intense anxiety over a process that's changing, especially when you have a camp that you 614 are dying to get your child into. Considering all those things, we kind of put the proposal 615 into three different buckets. The first one is education campaigns. We want to obviously 616 educate our staff to make sure that they know the system inside and out, can answer any 617 questions, understand what they customer goes through. Then educate the customer and 618 kind of over-communicate the change. Some of the things that we'll be doing is training 619 our activity supervisors on how to properly put classes into ACTIVE Net to provide for a 620 better search function. If they know that they're going to provide age exceptions, to make 621 sure they account for that in the entry. Also, ACTIVE Net will allow parents to actually 622 put their friends on their account even if they're not in the same household, so that they 623 can register for a class or a camp together. We'll teach our staff how to do that. 624 Draft Minutes 15 DRAFT Obviously our customer service staff, we want them to be on point, know everything 625 inside and out about this process, so that they can be super helpful for anyone that may 626 have questions. Next, you can see the very comprehensive outreach campaign to our 627 customers. We're going to do that in many different formats. People prefer to get 628 information in different ways, so we'll obviously do the email blasts and have a website 629 available with all the information. In addition, we'll send out packets in the mail, snail 630 mail. We'll also provide for workshops where people can sign up for appointments to 631 come and sit down with a camp concierge who will kind of show them how to set up a 632 wish list, which is the best way to do online registration with us through ACTIVE Net. 633 People, if they want that one-on-one attention, step-by-step, we want to provide that for 634 them. In addition, we'll have online tutorials, FAQs and registration checklists to kind of 635 just get them set up and ready. The City of Chicago's park district actually uses ACTIVE 636 Net as well, and they process several million registrations within minutes when they open 637 their summer camp registration. To account for that kind of load, they've also been doing 638 these education campaigns and have kind of done a lot of the work for us. This is just an 639 example of the FAQs they have, but they also have video webinars, screenshots, 640 checklists that customers can go through. We'll be kind of working with them to tag team 641 and create our education campaigns. 642 643 Chair Reckdahl: When you say ACTIVE Net, do you mean that you're using their 644 software on your computers or that you're using their software on their computers? 645 646 Ms. Kortsen: ACTIVE Net is a private company. They provide the software, and we're 647 just customers. The City of Chicago is a customer as well as Palo Alto and several other 648 cities in the area. 649 650 Chair Reckdahl: This is actually running on their computers. They're providing both 651 (crosstalk). 652 653 Ms. Kortsen: It’s cloud-based. 654 655 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 656 657 Ms. Kortsen: The third bucket is just "day of" logistics, how are we going to manage in-658 person, online. We have three kind of main goals that day. We want to anticipate our 659 customers' needs. We want to avoid long lines as much as possible. We want to provide 660 equal access for all of our customers. We've decided to have two in-person registration 661 sites, one in North Palo Alto, one in South Palo Alto, and consolidate our staffing 662 resources to those two locations. For those customers that may not trust their internet 663 connection or they don't have internet or a computer, we will have temporary computer 664 labs set up for that day where they can come in and log into their own account and go 665 through their wish list, which again is the best way to get into a class with ACTIVE Net, 666 Draft Minutes 16 DRAFT and some other things that you see on there, other ideas we had for how we're going to 667 anticipate our customers' needs. This is kind of the timeline for implementation. The 668 first part is going to happen soon hopefully. It's a testing period for ACTIVE Net 669 functionality. There's a couple of features that were recently released that we want to 670 make sure do what they say they're going to do. It's kind of critical pieces in our plan. If 671 ACTIVE Net functionality does not live up to what it says it is capable of, then we 672 wouldn't proceed. That's going to happen in October, followed by staff education, 673 collateral for our outreach campaigns and camp concierge appointments, registration fair, 674 and then the registration day. I mean, it's not a small undertaking when you're 675 considering a change like this. We're not underestimating the amount of staff time that 676 it's going to take. This is just kind of an estimate of the different people that will be 677 involved and how involved they will be. While it is a big undertaking, we feel like it is 678 due. Staff want it, and customers want it. It's just now a matter of making sure that we 679 handle this the right way, do our due diligence and make sure that we over-communicate 680 to our customers. Any questions? 681 682 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 683 684 Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you, Lacee. That was a great presentation. I think that 685 your proposal is really well researched and thoughtfully developed. I do have some 686 questions and a concern. My first question is—they're mostly about the registering with 687 friends issue. You're saying that ACTIVE Net does have the capacity to allow you to 688 register for classes with friends by linking them to your account somehow. Does that tie 689 you then to that one friend for all your classes or can you sign up for this class with this 690 friend and that class with that friend? 691 692 Ms. Kortsen: It does not tie you to that person forever. 693 694 Commissioner Hetterly: The other question about that is how did you handle the 695 registration with friends under the old draw system? 696 697 Ms. Kortsen: They would put the registration forms in the same envelope. 698 699 Commissioner Hetterly: Okay, that's right. If either of them gets a spot, they both get the 700 spot. You allot two spots for that ... 701 702 Ms. Kortsen: Hopefully. 703 704 Commissioner Hetterly: ... one you would draw. 705 706 Ms. Kortsen: Right. 707 708 Draft Minutes 17 DRAFT Commissioner Hetterly: My next question is about the automation. I think it makes a ton 709 of sense to do the majority of your registrations online even for the summer camps. I'm a 710 little concerned about switching from the lottery aspect of the draw to a first-come-first 711 serve approach. I know a lot of parents who set their alarm for 5:00 a.m. and sit on their 712 computer to get into their middle school sports class or whatever else it is that's a first-713 come-first serve. I also know a lot of parents who are really bitter about that, because for 714 whatever reason their circumstances don't allow them to be sitting there at their computer 715 at that exact time when things open. It does create an inequity in access to those first 716 spots. I wonder if you guys thought at all about doing online registrations but having 717 your 5:00 p.m. deadline for, register by 5:00 p.m. to be in the lottery or the automated 718 draw. Then you do an automated placement of who goes where, similar to what you did 719 with the draw but without the manual effort. 720 721 Ms. Kortsen: Right. ACTIVE Net unfortunately doesn't provide that type of 722 functionality for a lottery, for a lottery system. That's automated; it would have to be a 723 manual, staff-run process. 724 725 Commissioner Hetterly: That's a bummer. I am really concerned about that. I think 726 you're going to get a lot of push-back from a lot of people about that feeling like an unfair 727 process. I'm not sure where you go from there. If there's something you can do to build 728 on what ACTIVE Net can do or if the only way to accomplish that randomness of 729 placement is by doing it manually. 730 731 Ms. Kortsen: There's a couple of things. The inequity of parents not being able to be 732 online at the time that registration opens, I think you're referring to our middle school 733 athletics registration system right now. In that, we open it at 8:30 on a weekday, so it is a 734 difficult time for a dual-working household or a single-working household to manage. 735 That's why when we went to this process we thought about that and we wanted to push it 736 up to 7:00 a.m. hoping that that would allow for people to be able to jump online if they 737 want to or come down in person and not have it affect them getting to work on time. 738 There's that piece. The other piece of it is it's going to be a mass amount of people 739 getting on at the same time and registering for a limited number of spots. It's kind of the 740 same way we do all of our other registration periods. It's online or in person. If they're 741 super anxious, they can always come down and stand in line. What we found with MSA 742 is that you have a better chance actually of getting in a class if you do it online yourself. 743 It's just kind of instantaneous. At the same time, it's going to be immediate response. 744 You'll know right away if you're in or on the wait list, so you can immediately go look for 745 your second choice and register. It's instantaneous, and so I feel like a lot of the anxiety 746 that we get from customers currently with the draw is not knowing if they're in that camp 747 or not and if they're going to have to change their plans. By the time they realize they're 748 on the wait list, the second camp that they would have registered for is already full. 749 There's pluses and minuses to either way you look at it. 750 Draft Minutes 18 DRAFT 751 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 752 753 Commissioner Crommie: I just wanted to echo what Commissioner Hetterly said. I have 754 the exact same concern about going to a mad rush system. I guess there's two of us on 755 the Commission that are really concerned about that. My kids are older now; they're 19 756 and 15, so I'm not doing this. We were a heavy camp user. We did this every year. The 757 first year I moved to Palo Alto in 2001, I stood on the sidewalk all night to get into the 758 camps, because my neighbor took me under his arm and said, "You have young children. 759 You don't know anyone. Come stand on the sidewalk with me, and we'll stay here all 760 night and get into camps." That was my experience. I thought it was a huge upgrade to 761 go to the draw. I loved the draw. I do realize there are some issues like you said. When 762 you don't get in, you can't quickly maneuver with the draw, the point you just made. I 763 just think it's really sad to have this mad rush. I don't know what else to say about it. I 764 agree with Commissioner Hetterly that we need a software that can put people in a 765 reservoir for a couple of hours and then disperse it some way that is more equitable. I 766 would second that. You'll hear from your constituency if people don't like it. You're 767 hearing from two people now about just a heads up that some people might be 768 disappointed. The second thing I wanted to mention was the idea of the friends linking 769 themselves together. Do you put a limit on that? I know some classes only have 12 770 spots. Are you going to allow six friends to link themselves and take up half of that 771 class? 772 773 Ms. Kortsen: That's something that we haven't looked into at all. That's a good point that 774 you bring up. 775 776 Commissioner Crommie: Summer time really is a time for kids to branch out. I think it's 777 really a sad situation if cliques of friends are just wanting to recapitulate that in a camp 778 setting. I personally think it should be a limit of one friend and that's it. It shouldn't even 779 have to exist really, especially for the classes—again you'll have to remind me. I just 780 remember when my kid was young, it was the art classes that typically had a limit of 12. 781 Some of the really popular science classes at the Junior Museum did not have many; 782 maybe they're up to 15 students. You would probably know this. It is a really small 783 number, especially for a very well organized parent to network and fill that up. Let me 784 just make sure. The last point I'd make is I love your idea of helping people practice this. 785 I assume from your timeline that you allowed—tell me if this is right. Somewhere, like a 786 week ahead, can a parent go get a tutorial on how to use the website? 787 788 Ms. Kortsen: Several weeks. We'll that start two months before we actually have the 789 first day of summer camp registration open. It'll start with the summer camp registration 790 fair, and then we'll continue to take in-person appointments right up until the day that we 791 open registration. 792 Draft Minutes 19 DRAFT 793 Commissioner Crommie: Great, thank you. 794 795 Ms. Kortsen: You're welcome. Something too is we felt that concern too. That's why 796 we've been so hesitant with changing the draw. Our research and talking to our 797 customers has not reflected that concern. That was actually interesting to us. We wanted 798 to get a very wide range of feedback. 10 percent of all the surveys that we sent out is not 799 that high of a number, but overwhelmingly 95 percent said they would prefer an online 800 process, so we're just taking that into consider. 801 802 Chair Reckdahl: Was the question online versus not online or was the question random 803 lottery versus first-come-first serve? 804 805 Ms. Kortsen: It was a question of online versus in person. 806 807 Chair Reckdahl: I think that's kind of apples and oranges. The Commissioners aren't 808 concerned about the online issue as much as the fact that you have to be sitting at the 809 computer at 6:01 a.m. or whatever the cutoff time is; and if you're a half hour late, you 810 may miss the class; and that now you have that pressure. That's not the only way to do 811 something online. People may have misunderstood the question. If you say online 812 versus in person, people order stuff off Amazon all the time, I can order a class off Palo 813 Alto no problem. They don't realize the time pressure that may come with that. Do you 814 have questions? 815 816 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. My first question was do you plan to do any user testing 817 both of the people who will be new to this process for the first time as well as repeat 818 customers who have registered their kids for Palo Alto camps in the past? 819 820 Ms. Kortsen: Can you define user testing a little bit? Like user testing of the new 821 system, have them go through it and make sure it's ... 822 823 Commissioner Ashlund: Their feedback on the system as opposed to the training. The 824 user research is where you sit the user down and you put eight or ten users one-by-one or 825 whatever and you say, "Let's see how it goes." You sit there and record their problems. 826 It's standard practice on software design, so I was just wondering if we were able to do 827 something like that in the City before we get to the training point. I don't think you're 828 going to do away with the training point. If you could do that step first and just see 829 where the glitches are, sometimes it's the wording. Sometimes it's not just the software 830 bugs that you wish you could change, but it's actually a lot of times the wording that you 831 do have control over. 832 833 Draft Minutes 20 DRAFT Ms. Kortsen: When we first upgraded to ACTIVE Net, we did do that. We did user 834 testing, both of customers and then of our staff. Because the staff wasn't familiar with the 835 customer side of things, we wanted to watch them go through it. If staff can't understand 836 it, we know that our customers can't understand it. Yes, we will continue to do that. 837 We've done it repeatedly with like MSA. When we moved MSA to an online and in-838 person registration process, it was the same thing. Absolutely, we'd want to see where 839 those bumps are. 840 841 Commissioner Ashlund: Thanks. The randomization factor, I've signed my kids up the 842 past couple of years for several camps that have used the system called Bunk1. It might 843 just be for sleepover camps as opposed to day camps. It does not have the randomization 844 built in. You do have to be online at a specific 12:00 noon on the certain day. Even this 845 most recent year, the system locked out. You could have been on there from day one and 846 they're like, "Oh, we're sorry." They're beholden to this Bunk1 software company. They 847 clearly don't have a lot of other choices, because at least three of the camps that my kids 848 have done have used that. The camp offices just apologize profusely for what Bunk1 849 does and doesn't do. If you're not already requesting ACTIVE Net—is that what they're 850 called? The customers' voices are important to the companies. I would request the 851 randomization feature. That feeling of dedicating your whole day and still getting locked 852 out of the system. It's not even set up to do randomization. It's first-come-first-serve, and 853 that's clearly a disadvantage to a lot of people. I'm not surprised we didn't see it in the 854 survey. I went through the survey myself, and it wasn't something that I really felt was 855 asked. I really felt the whole online versus offline hard copy, of course we want a line, 856 but I didn't feel that I was being asked the question do you want this to be first-come-857 first-serve versus random. I just think if you haven't already asked the software 858 company, put in your future request. It's worth it to put in that request. If they don't hear 859 it from big clients, they're really not likely to offer it. If they are hearing it from a lot of 860 the cities, they might consider that in the future. 861 862 Ms. Kortsen: Thank you. 863 864 Chair Reckdahl: I do have the same concern about the first-come-first-serve, but I do like 865 the feature of immediate response. You know what camp you're in and, if you don't get 866 in that camp, you immediately can go to another camp. Two hours later, you know what 867 camps you have for the summer. With the draw, you would always have this uncertainty, 868 will I get into this camp. I do see the plus side of having the first-come-first-serve. I 869 would want to make sure that that's what the community wants and have an explicit 870 survey to say which do you prefer. Go ahead. 871 872 Mr. de Geus: Go ahead. I just had a thought. 873 874 Draft Minutes 21 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: Last year for the draw, what percentage of the course filled up after the 875 initial draw? Were most of them filled or just some of them filled? 876 877 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, the same ones. I would say less than 50 percent. 878 879 Chair Reckdahl: Fifteen? 880 881 Mr. de Geus: Fifty. 882 883 Chair Reckdahl: Five-zero? 884 885 Mr. de Geus: Less than 50 percent. 886 887 Commissioner Crommie: There's a lot of sports camps that won't fill up, so you really 888 need to ask the question like are 100 percent of your science camps filling up, what 889 percentage of your art camps are filling up. I think that's a better way to ask that. 890 891 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. What Commissioner Crommie is saying, there is some high impact 892 camps that are just very, very popular like zoo camp and there's only a handful of them, 893 and some of the art camps where you can only have 12 or 15 maximum kids. They are 894 very, very popular, and they fill up quickly. Even on the draw when we're doing this sort 895 of manual process, within a couple of hours of registering, they're filled up. 896 897 Chair Reckdahl: We don't have the capability of adding more of those popular camps? 898 899 Mr. de Geus: We try every year. We add funding; we add staffing. Some of them, 900 there's just a limit of space. Like zoo camp, we have one zoo. You can't add more zoo 901 camps. There's only so much space and time. 902 903 Chair Reckdahl: Could they make a bigger zoo? Just kidding. 904 905 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we're working on that actually. I was going to say this is an 906 interesting challenge and problem. I think there's some history with it, because I ran the 907 Cubberley event when it was first-come-first-serve twice. I said, "There's got to be a 908 better way than this. This is crazy." Lacee's heard this story. We did a survey and asked 909 that question. First-come or random process, what do you think? We put out that survey, 910 and we got 500-plus responses, and it was like 49 percent said first-come-first-serve and 911 like 51 percent said some type of random process. We had some focus groups with 912 people on both sides and sort of tried to work through what is the solution here. The 913 conclusion was the draw, that's what was developed after that, a process that they felt 914 would be more fair and equitable. It was pretty clear because people that were disabled 915 or old or other things, that we can't sleep out all night on the concrete. We had 1,000 916 Draft Minutes 22 DRAFT people in line by 5:00 in the morning. That was some years ago. Now, we're at a point 917 where we have faster and better technology, and most people have access to technology, 918 and we can provide access to those that don't. We do think it's time to think about doing 919 this, and it's the most typical way that cities do it. I think 90 percent or something of 920 cities do. 921 922 Commissioner Ashlund: First-come-first-serve? 923 924 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. An online system, first-come-first serve. 925 926 Chair Reckdahl: I think the best situation is that we have enough classes that it takes 927 hours to fill up and not minutes. 928 929 Mr. de Geus: Right. 930 931 Chair Reckdahl: If it takes hours to fill up and you snooze, then that's more 932 understanding. If it's like three minutes and all of sudden that class is full, that's really 933 high pressure. 934 935 Mr. de Geus: It's going to be even less than that. It'll be seconds. The way the system 936 works, it allows you to set up what camps you would like in your wish list, so you set up 937 your whole summer that way, then you just hit "sign me up for my wish list," and then 938 zip. Everybody's doing that, and so within seconds the highly impacted camps are going 939 to be filled up. The customer then will receive that notice, though, that you're on a wait 940 list or whatever. You can immediately then start searching and looking for something 941 else to put your child into. That's good and bad, I think. I mean it's good because we're 942 hearing from customers they like the self-service. The more self-service, they can have 943 control over things. That's a good thing. The immediate response is really good. There 944 is the other reality, and that is increased anxiety. One, that you see immediately that you 945 didn't get your child into that one camp that they really wanted. You have to then deal 946 with that and quickly look for another spot that's also filling up really quickly. Now, the 947 customer is trying to do that, or the parent or Palo Alto resident is trying to do that 948 rapidly, and that's going to create some anxiety, particularly the first couple of times 949 where it's new. I think that shifts some of the stress of this process of summer camp 950 registration to the parent, which I think is going to be difficult. The more we can 951 communicate and educate the residents about how to use the system and be familiar with 952 navigating the system and working through it, I think, will help a lot. This is a tough one 953 for me. I can see sort of both sides of it. I appreciate the work Lacee's done and the staff, 954 their thinking. We are hearing a lot from our residents that are signing up for classes that 955 online is preferred. The last thing I would say about the survey. The people that 956 responded to the survey are familiar with our system. I think 88 percent or something 957 had signed up before, and they know that it's a first-come-first-serve system. I'm not sure 958 Draft Minutes 23 DRAFT that the people who responded to the survey that they didn't realize that that would be a 959 first-come-first-serve process if it's online. My sense is the majority probably would 960 have understood that. 961 962 Chair Reckdahl: Maybe I'm not typical, but if someone asked me online versus paper, I 963 would just think what am I using to sign up and not the registration style. 964 965 Mr. de Geus: Online randomized registration is pretty rare. You don't see it a lot. 966 967 Commissioner Ashlund: It just wasn't clear. 968 969 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 970 971 Commissioner Ashlund: It wasn't clear from the survey. 972 973 Mr. de Geus: Right. We could have made it clearer. 974 975 Commissioner Hetterly: Can I just ask a ... 976 977 Commissioner Ashlund: No worries. It just wasn't clear at all from the survey. Our 978 established user base with the draw is used to the randomization. I do think we're going 979 to hit the biggest bump in that. 980 981 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly: 982 983 Commissioner Hetterly: I have a quick question. I don't know if you've already 984 answered it. If you're a family with multiple kids, can you sign them all up at exactly the 985 same time or do you have to do them sequentially? 986 987 Commissioner Crommie: It stores the information. 988 989 Ms. Kortsen: You can do it all at the same time. 990 991 Commissioner Hetterly: Your family account registers everybody all at once? 992 993 Ms. Kortsen: Yeah, as long they're in the wish list. 994 995 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Crommie. 996 997 Commissioner Crommie: First of all, I didn't understand the wish list system. I've done a 998 lot of online registration mostly for Girl Scout camps. For that, it opened at a certain 999 time, and there wasn't a pre-wish list, so you just scrambled at midnight or whenever it 1000 Draft Minutes 24 DRAFT opened. I've never used a system where you collected in a wish list. For those people 1001 who have collected it appropriately, there is that mini randomization process when they 1002 all hit enter at once, so you have 2,000 families doing that at once. I like that piece. I 1003 like that. I still would like to have the app fixed to have a more random process, but 1004 that's nice to know. One thing I forgot to ask last time is I know one way you can 1005 actually increase capacity for a limited venue like the zoo. I was looking through our 1006 prior calendars for the camps, and I noticed that none of the camps from my research start 1007 until at least two weeks after school is out. I asked someone about that actually, an 1008 administrator at the Junior Museum. She told me, "We don't start until two or three 1009 weeks after school is out because we have to train everyone." I think I had that 1010 information. I confirmed with her; I said, "I see that you don't start for a few weeks after 1011 school is out. Is that true?" She said, "Yes, it's true. This is the reason why ... ." I think 1012 that is an opportunity for some improvement in terms of offering more classes at the 1013 Junior Museum. Of course, with it going under construction and everything, it's going to 1014 be a little bit different until that remodel settles out. The reason I think it's an untapped 1015 resource is because for the Junior Museum, you do have a CIT program. Those kids do 1016 need to go through some of kind training. It's not like you do for the other arm of the 1017 recreation camps. The other arm of the recreation camps seem to have more extensive 1018 training; I don't know exactly. You could say, like for the first two weeks when we 1019 haven't really done adequate training, that's when we would schedule experienced CITs. 1020 Many of the CITs are not in their first year; they are coming back again. I just wanted to 1021 throw that out on the table to maybe look at that. I think also parents sometimes want 1022 camps for right when school gets out. I think it would also help working families. 1023 1024 Mr. de Geus: Thank you, Commissioner Crommie. It is a challenge particularly with the 1025 change in the school calendar and the kids getting out earlier. Many of our camp staff are 1026 college students that are returning, so there's a challenge there. My understanding though 1027 is that it's about a week, not two or three weeks. I'll look into that, because if it's that 1028 long ... 1029 1030 Commissioner Crommie: Look into it. I looked really carefully, and I saw it was at least 1031 two weeks from my research. 1032 1033 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Lacee. 1034 1035 4. Community Garden Ad Hoc Update Report and Recommendation. 1036 1037 Commissioner Ashlund: I'm going to kick this off, if that's okay? 1038 1039 Chair Reckdahl: Yes, please. 1040 1041 Draft Minutes 25 DRAFT Commissioner Ashlund: Commissioner Crommie and I have prepared the report. I'm 1042 certainly not going to go through it all point for point; I'm going to summarize it in about 1043 five minutes. I can go slower if people have questions. We'll see. I'm going to try to go 1044 through the background, the history and how we got to this point, and then hand it over at 1045 that point to Commissioner Crommie to review our recommendations. Overall, we found 1046 that there is a disconnect between the community need, the demand for public gardens 1047 and the availability that's based on location. From the map of the three public community 1048 gardens, they're all three not only north of Oregon Expressway, but they're all three north 1049 of Embarcadero. They are Johnson Park, Eleanor Pardee and Rinconada gardens. In 1050 addition, we've listed out three that fall into the public-private partnership category. 1051 Gamble Garden is a nonprofit garden that is a partner with the City as listed on the City 1052 website. While they don't offer garden plots for rent, they do offer gardening instruction 1053 to the community as a whole. The Midtown Community Garden is privately owned land, 1054 but is managed by a nonprofit partner of the City, Acterra. That definitely falls into the 1055 public-private partnership category, because Acterra is a City partner. Lastly is Ventura 1056 garden which we're going to talk about in this report. At the real high level, the entire 1057 property at Ventura is City-owned land, both the buildings as well as the open space. The 1058 garden which is part of the open space is not City managed and not currently under City 1059 rules and regulations. The Ventura Community Garden is currently managed by PACCC 1060 which is the Palo Alto Community Child Care nonprofit that's a City partner. If you go 1061 way back to 1981, the City purchased the entire Ventura property and leased it to 1062 PACCC. In reality, it is just the buildings on that property that were leased to PACCC 1063 for community child care and office space and community use. The open space was 1064 retained by the City being responsible for all the open space at that site including the 1065 playing fields and the playground which make up what we call Ventura Park. It also 1066 includes what is now the garden. The garden wasn't created originally by PACCC; it was 1067 created and funded by the Ventura Neighborhood Association approximately in '93. 1068 Ventura Neighborhood Association requested funding to build the garden on that land, 1069 and funding was not provided, but they were allowed to build the garden on that land. At 1070 some point, PACCC assumed management of the garden using rules and pricing and 1071 regulations that are different from the City public gardens. We did look at who is 1072 currently renting the plots at the Ventura site. Two of them are the child care center 1073 onsite that PACCC runs called Sojourner Truth. Ten of the plots are rented by the 1074 Country Day Little School which is a tenant, a sublettor of building space by PACCC, 1075 that also provides child care. One which we believe might be the largest plot is rented by 1076 the Keys Middle School which is adjacent to the Ventura property, but it's unrelated to 1077 PACCC and unrelated to the City. There's additionally one Mountain View resident and 1078 the remainder of the 29 plots are rented by Palo Alto residents presumably most likely 1079 that are in close proximity to the Ventura area. The Ventura Garden application does say 1080 it's restricted to Ventura area neighborhood residents, but they don't enforce that 1081 restriction. In the lease which we've included after our report in this packet, it stipulates 1082 that the City pays for the water for all the open space at the site. PACCC pays just for the 1083 Draft Minutes 26 DRAFT water that the buildings use, so the child care centers that the building houses. PACCC 1084 pays for that water. The water for the open space, for the playing fields as well as the 1085 gardens is all paid for by the City. We looked at the lease and included that here, and 1086 specifically want to call your attention to page 31 of the lease. It's very near the back of 1087 your packet. Exhibit C for the guidelines for site usage specifically states that all other 1088 open space is subject to the same use conditions that govern the use of City parks in this 1089 class. At this point, I'm going to hand it over to Commissioner Crommie for 1090 recommendations. There's really a wonderful opportunity here as far as the educational 1091 use of those gardens. The preschools getting access to it are wonderful, but there's a bit 1092 of a breakdown as far as availability of that garden and transparency in the process about 1093 how the plots are available and how they're rented. 1094 1095 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you, Commissioner Ashlund. I want to just take you 1096 through the recommendations. Commissioner Ashlund ended with Attachment C of the 1097 lease which shows that the open space should be governed by City guidelines. This park, 1098 this community garden is within the open space. Our recommendation is to bring this 1099 parkland which includes the Ventura Garden under City rules and regulations. Like I just 1100 said, it is supported by the lease. Another rationale is that we have a great need for public 1101 garden space in the southwest neighborhoods of the City. That is indicated when you 1102 look at the map that Commissioner Ashlund went over, that shows that our public 1103 gardens are on the north side of Embarcadero. We also need consistency with City rules 1104 and regulations on how this garden is managed. That is our primary recommendation. 1105 Within that primary recommendation, we recommend that we proceed by creating a clear 1106 timeline and a multiphase process. That's one thing we want to discuss with this 1107 Commission on how we should proceed. Commissioner Ashlund and I wrote out some 1108 steps which I'll just quickly go through, because I want to open this up to discussion as 1109 soon as possible. What we need to do to proceed is we need documentation of current 1110 garden dimensions and plot sizes. We need to determine who will manage this garden 1111 under City rules and regulations. We wrote in that we recommend that we first consider 1112 PACCC to manage this garden under City rules and regulations. They're the current 1113 manager, so it just seems logical to involve them. Again, make a timeline at which we 1114 designate how long we'll go into negotiation with them. If that doesn't work out, we 1115 thought we might recommend considering another nonprofit City partner. That's mostly 1116 with sensitivity to the workload that managing gardens produces for our staff. If there's 1117 no partner that's found within a certain timeline, we wouldn't recommend leaving the 1118 search for another nonprofit open to a year's time. We would recommend giving that 1119 some finite amount of time. Again, this is all predicated on it not working with PACCC, 1120 but we wanted to lay it all out. If PACCC doesn't work out nor another nonprofit, we 1121 would recommend that the City take over management of the garden. In concert with 1122 that, we do want to be sensitive to staff demands, so we would recommend that we have 1123 some additional City resources to manage gardens. Some of them, I think, should be the 1124 introduction of new web-based technology to help streamline communication with the 1125 Draft Minutes 27 DRAFT garden liaison. Each of our public gardens have a liaison, and that person does pick up 1126 quite a bit of work for staff. In return, I believe they might not be paying a garden rental 1127 plot fee. We need them to have all the information at their fingertips in a web-based 1128 format so they don't have to keep calling City staff to get information, which I've heard 1129 sometimes is the case. In addition, some kind of additional staff that might come in the 1130 form of hourly support. That really relates to bringing this garden under the City's 1131 regulations. In addition to that, we recommend obviously to revise the lease so it can 1132 state that there is a Ventura Garden. The Ventura Garden is not mentioned in this lease, 1133 even though this lease was last updated in 2013. This lease has been updated many, 1134 many times since the inception of this garden, but never mentions that this garden exists. 1135 We would want to have that visible in the lease. Two other points. As far as big picture 1136 and planning for our City resources, we would like to assess ongoing needs of expanding 1137 the community garden network, so that we do have geographical distribution of these 1138 gardens. Ventura would go a long way, but we also might certainly benefit by looking at 1139 some other gardens. We noticed that people who use the gardens tend to be clustered in 1140 that neighborhood. It's just a nice resource if we can provide that. Sort of a subtext of all 1141 this is that we hear we don't have land to do these things. A strong point I want to make 1142 is that here's a prime example of land. We have City-owned land with a community 1143 garden that is not on the radar of our residents. I just want to say that loud and clear to 1144 people who say we don't have resources. We do. The last point is that we would like to 1145 have this exercise, this endeavor help establish the rules for public-private partnerships 1146 for other community gardens. We see there is a deficit in institutional documentation and 1147 memory of how these gardens have grown up which is a natural occurrence, because it's a 1148 very hodge-podge system. There really is a deficit of documentation, so we don't even 1149 know how Johnson garden was formed for that neighborhood. Moving forward, there's 1150 two arms of moving forward. Should the City be managing other public gardens 1151 themselves? We certainly want to know how to do that, how to move forward with it. 1152 When we do these proposed public-private partnerships, we also want documentation for 1153 that. Now, I'd just like to open it up to questions. 1154 1155 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Knopper. 1156 1157 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. You mentioned in your—thank you. Obviously 1158 you guys put a lot of thought and work into this, so thank you for that. You mentioned a 1159 wait list. Do you specifically have information on how many people are on a wait list of 1160 the four gardens for each specific garden? 1161 1162 Commissioner Crommie: Are you talking about our public gardens within the City? 1163 Which garden ... 1164 1165 Commissioner Knopper: No. Rinconada, Eleanor Pardee, Johnson and Ventura. 1166 1167 Draft Minutes 28 DRAFT Commissioner Crommie: Yes, we absolutely have data on that. Catherine Bourquin is 1168 our staff member who is the liaison with the managers of those gardens. She absolutely 1169 has information. We have set rules and regulations for those gardens on our 1170 Commission. 1171 1172 Commissioner Knopper: No, no. I'm asking how many people are wait listed. You said 1173 that ... 1174 1175 Commissioner Ashlund: That does change on a fairly regular basis. 1176 1177 Commissioner Knopper: Do you have that information, like, handy? How many people 1178 currently are sitting on—because your report is predicated on a lot of people that are 1179 waiting. I'm just wondering how ... 1180 1181 Commissioner Crommie: There's a nuance here. For instance, if you don't live near the 1182 north end of town ... 1183 1184 Commissioner Knopper: That's my next ... 1185 1186 Commissioner Crommie: ... you're not necessarily going to put yourself on a wait list. 1187 1188 Commissioner Knopper: That's my next question. Where do the residents reside who 1189 actually have plots? For instance, I live near Eleanor Pardee Park, and a lot of people 1190 probably don't live in and around Pardee Park who have their community plot. It's like an 1191 "a" and "b" question. 1192 1193 Commissioner Ashlund: I think that's a good question. If Cat could address that, but 1194 what we have found is generally people do live in pretty close proximity for the most 1195 part, but I'd really like to turn it over to Cat just for that. 1196 1197 Catherine Bourquin: I think we ... 1198 1199 Commissioner Crommie: She has the address list. 1200 1201 Ms. Bourquin: Not with me, but we did bring it up when we were working with the 1202 consultants on gardens. 1203 1204 Commissioner Crommie: I was at that meeting. 1205 1206 Ms. Bourquin: Exactly. There were a lot of—I think it's 94306 which is on the south 1207 side. There's quite a few, but we never ... 1208 1209 Draft Minutes 29 DRAFT Commissioner Knopper: On the wait list? 1210 1211 Ms. Bourquin: No, no, not on the wait list. That are actually gardening at Rinconada for 1212 instance, who possibly if there was one on the south side might want to go on that side. 1213 There never was, so ... 1214 1215 Commissioner Knopper: Okay, that's what I'm trying to clarify. 1216 1217 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, you have to understand—a point of clarification for that 1218 ZIP Code is it does run on a band in our City that also includes College Terrace. 94306 is 1219 not only south. 1220 1221 Ms. Bourquin: Okay, but it was close enough to the south side compared to 94303 and 1222 94301, which is a lot of them. Johnson has its own waiting list. I just sent an email out 1223 to the ones that are on there asking if they still wanted to be on it. We've never had that 1224 many vacancies at Johnson. They've been on it for two or three years. 1225 1226 Commissioner Knopper: There are open plots to be ... 1227 1228 Ms. Bourquin: Johnson, right now there ... 1229 1230 Commissioner Knopper: You said vacancy. 1231 1232 Ms. Bourquin: There is a couple right now, but there's like eight people right now on the 1233 waiting list for Johnson. 1234 1235 Commissioner Ashlund: You said some of them have been on there for two or three 1236 years. 1237 1238 Ms. Bourquin: Yes. But only Johnson. Everybody that wants a plot there lives within 1239 walking distance. 1240 1241 Commissioner Knopper: Right. Thank you. Have there been complaints to you? Since 1242 you're sort of the manager of the list, do you get complaints with regard to lack of access 1243 or specifically I live in the south and I have to work in Rinconada? 1244 1245 Ms. Bourquin: Do I get complaints that they have to go so far to get to the garden? 1246 1247 Commissioner Knopper: Correct. 1248 1249 Ms. Bourquin: No. 1250 1251 Draft Minutes 30 DRAFT Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. With regard to the Ventura plot, 29 are Palo Alto 1252 residents and 13, 12 are of the immediate tenants, the preschool people, and then one is 1253 Keys School. Correct? 1254 1255 Commissioner Crommie: There's a humongous plot that's about four or five times the 1256 size of all the rest. Sometimes the absolute numbers don't make sense, because someone 1257 can have one plot which is the equivalent to five or six plots. We weren't able to get that 1258 information to map who has the plot and which plot it is. 1259 1260 Commissioner Knopper: I would imagine that would be difficult. I've been in that 1261 garden quite a bit. Do you have waiting lists for that particular area? 1262 1263 Ms. Bourquin: Not for Ventura. That's the child care. 1264 1265 Commissioner Ashlund: Cat doesn't manage the Ventura garden. PACCC does. 1266 1267 Commissioner Crommie: So we have no information. 1268 1269 Commissioner Ashlund: It is not managed by the City. 1270 1271 Commissioner Knopper: Can you kind of clarify—you want the garden—I'm just trying 1272 to sort of clarify ... 1273 1274 Commissioner Crommie: We want it to come under the City regulations. 1275 1276 Commissioner Knopper: Right. I guess my question is how are they running the garden 1277 that is not to your liking versus what the City's regulations would be with regard to the 1278 management? That's Question A. "B," why would you want another nonprofit to 1279 manage it potentially when the PACCC people are onsite and use it for their student 1280 population? 1281 1282 Commissioner Ashlund: Great, thank you. As far as how is PACCC running it, it's not a 1283 question of liking versus not liking. It's just a question of transparency in the City. As a 1284 Barron Park resident, as Commissioner Crommie is a Monroe Park resident, we're in 1285 close proximity, closest to Ventura. We weren't aware that it existed. On multiple 1286 searches on the internet, you cannot find out how to rent a plot at Ventura garden. You 1287 cannot find that it is City-owned land. Until we requested the lease and received the 1288 lease through staff, we couldn't even confirm that it was City-owned land and City-1289 owned water. It's a wonderful resource, and it's being used for educational purposes. 1290 When City-owned land and City-paid water is being run by a nonprofit where the rules 1291 and regulations are not made available to the public, it's in violation with City rules and 1292 regulations. 1293 Draft Minutes 31 DRAFT 1294 Commissioner Knopper: But there are 29 Palo Alto residents that have—they have the 1295 majority of plots there, so somebody—if Palo Alto residents are being ... 1296 1297 Commissioner Ashlund: People know about it. 1298 1299 Commissioner Knopper: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to clarify ... 1300 1301 Commissioner Ashlund: No, no, no. It's okay. Ventura Neighborhood Association 1302 originally built that garden. It was intended to be neighborhood, and it still mostly is 1303 neighborhood and Ventura site tenants that are using it. It's just a matter that we have a 1304 wonderful resource that isn't available unless you know by word of mouth. Because the 1305 lease specifically says the City governs the open space, that land needs to be brought 1306 under City rules and regulations. We are in violation of the current lease. Because 1307 PACCC is managing it, it's not a lot of money, but PACCC receives the rentals for these 1308 plots. The prices aren't even consistent with our plots on the other gardens. Maybe they 1309 don't need to be. I just wanted to jump quickly to your second question about why 1310 another nonprofit. Absolutely the first choice—the City is very strapped for time and 1311 resources in managing the three gardens that they manage on the north side of Palo Alto. 1312 Absolutely PACCC would be a perfect partner to manage this as long as the City rules 1313 and regulations are being followed by the City land. It's simply a matter of policy and 1314 what the lease says and what the lease doesn't say. The lease being updated in 2013 does 1315 not mention that PACCC is renting these garden plots to anybody. There's no mention of 1316 the garden. It's simply a matter of clarity with rules and regulations and transparency for 1317 the policy. If that makes sense. 1318 1319 Commissioner Crommie: I'd like to follow up and say, Commissioner Knopper, you 1320 might know about the garden because your child goes to the Keys School, so you had a 1321 connection through a school. Those of us who live in the neighborhood know nothing 1322 about this garden. You asked what is the problem with what is happening. There's no 1323 problem per se with PACCC being the manager of this system. It's just that there's a 1324 problem with the rules that PACCC is using being outside of the rules that our City has 1325 developed on this Commission. Some of the rules are very unusual. One of their rules, 1326 which they actually don't seem to follow, is that only people in the Ventura neighborhood 1327 should have garden plots. That would be excluding some of the people who currently 1328 have plots. There's not a clear use of these rules. Also there's not good institutional 1329 memory, so that within PACCC there's no documentation, an oral tradition of what 1330 they've done. They just had a recent staff change, and they don't know what was done in 1331 the past. Within PACCC themselves, it's not documented. There's some issues there. I'd 1332 say those are the problems. In answer to your question of why do another nonprofit, I'd 1333 say we don't need to if we can work that out with PACCC. PACCC is an absolute ideal 1334 Draft Minutes 32 DRAFT candidate to work this out with. We don't know that we would find another nonprofit to 1335 do this. 1336 1337 Commissioner Ashlund: Our first recommendation is to come to an agreement with 1338 PACCC and have the lease updated to reflect that accurately. 1339 1340 Ms. Bourquin: Can I make a comment? Things have changed since you started doing 1341 your ad hoc committee. Daren and I met with the new person. She got copies of the 1342 rules and regulations that we follow, and she has made them theirs. That part of it is 1343 done. 1344 1345 Commissioner Crommie: She can't do that until all those plots have been measured, 1346 because you charge on your gardens per square foot. 1347 1348 Ms. Bourquin: The fees would be the only issue the City would have to look into at this 1349 moment. As far as the rules and regulations, she's made it Palo Alto residents only. 1350 1351 Commissioner Crommie: If that's true, you have to grapple with the private schools that 1352 are using it. What you just said is not fully fleshed out. With the tenants that they have 1353 now at those gardens, they are not in compliance with our rules and regulations until we 1354 make accommodations as such. That statement is actually false. 1355 1356 Ms. Bourquin: True, but I was just saying that they have worked on the rules in trying to 1357 follow what we have going right now. 1358 1359 Commissioner Ashlund: Thanks. I'd like to continue. 1360 1361 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly, do you ... 1362 1363 Commissioner Hetterly: Do you want to weigh in on something? 1364 1365 Mr. de Geus: I don't know if it'll help. Just because we're going back and forth a little bit 1366 here, I want to be sure it's understood that PACCC didn't start this garden. It was started 1367 by the Ventura neighborhood many years ago. I don't know how long ago. This garden 1368 is serving some Palo Alto residents, and it was sort of happening in the background. I 1369 think PACCC just as good tenants were trying to provide support. They're willing to do 1370 whatever, I think, the City requires. We haven't asked them to do anything. They're very 1371 willing to have the garden be consistent with the other gardens. I think that's perfectly 1372 appropriate. 1373 1374 Commissioner Hetterly: I have several questions. One is also about the PACCC 1375 management. If there's a short answer to this, what does their management entail? They 1376 Draft Minutes 33 DRAFT collect the rent. They keep the forms. Are they responsible for maintenance, for waste 1377 disposal, for coordinating work days, all the other things that happen in the management 1378 of the other City parks? 1379 1380 Commissioner Crommie: The answer is no. 1381 1382 Commissioner Ashlund: They do coordinate work days. The only mention of Ventura 1383 Garden on any City of Palo Alto partner website is requesting volunteers to help manage 1384 the garden. The City maintains the playing fields, but I don't think the City maintains or 1385 hauls away anything from the garden area. Is that correct? 1386 1387 Commissioner Hetterly: PACCC doesn't either? 1388 1389 Commissioner Crommie: No, no one does it. When I went to visit the site—this is an 1390 illustration—there was a gardener who was digging up the dirt around one of the trees 1391 near the garden to get that dirt for her own garden. It's not a highly regulated space. 1392 That's not to say that there aren't some very important uses going on in that garden, but 1393 there's not a regulation. 1394 1395 Commissioner Hetterly: I have some more questions. My next question is the rents, 1396 PACCC collects the rents, $25 a plot it looked like. What do they do with that? That's 1397 supposed to cover their costs of management which is collecting the money? 1398 1399 Commissioner Ashlund: It doesn't go back to the City. What they do with it is 1400 presumably in exchange for the management. What we've heard through word of mouth 1401 is that in exchange for managing the garden they collect the rent, that small amount, for 1402 the plots. Yeah, but it doesn't go back to the City. 1403 1404 Commissioner Hetterly: It sounds like your goal of consistency in rules and access, 1405 certainly as far as rules, is well on the way to being achievable with the remaining 1406 question about the fees. Yeah? 1407 1408 Commissioner Ashlund: Actually our main concern is not consistency with the rules. 1409 That is a sub-goal of updating the lease to ... 1410 1411 Commissioner Hetterly: I'm getting to the other priorities. 1412 1413 Commissioner Ashlund: Okay, great. 1414 1415 Commissioner Hetterly: That, I think, seems like a problem that can be solved. The next 1416 question was about transparency. How do people know about it? How can they sign up 1417 for a plot? It does make sense for City-owned land, City-owned water, that there ought to 1418 Draft Minutes 34 DRAFT be a City affiliation with this garden. I think it is important to move forward in some way 1419 to make that happen. Whether or not it can have different exceptions to the standards that 1420 apply to the other gardens is yet to be seen. I think that's very tricky because of the 1421 amount and type of users you have in that garden right now. You're talking about you 1422 have 12, it seems under your proposal—maybe this is incorrect—I gathered that you were 1423 proposing that the Country Day Little School, the Keys Middle School and the Mountain 1424 View resident be ejected from the garden in order to free up those spots for residents ... 1425 1426 Commissioner Crommie: No, not exactly. 1427 1428 Commissioner Hetterly: ... consistent with the City rules. 1429 1430 Commissioner Crommie: Do you want to clarify? 1431 1432 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. First and foremost, we want the lease updated to reflect 1433 the existence and the management and the rules of the garden. After it comes in 1434 compliance, those accommodations are to be determined. Once we have the City land 1435 under City rules and regs, then that is a relatively easy question. Since the building itself 1436 is leased to PACCC and these are all tenants, the child care are all tenants of PACCC, 1437 Sojourner Truth and Country Day. Country Day I assume is a nonprofit although that 1438 wasn't verifiable on the website, but they are a child care tenant on PACCC. Sojourner 1439 Truth are the only two. The majority of these 29 are Palo Alto residents. This isn't a big 1440 issue about who's renting the plots. It's ... 1441 1442 Commissioner Hetterly: My only question was whether you were interested in having 1443 plot use consistent with the rules in all of our other City community gardens in terms of 1444 resident requirements. 1445 1446 Commissioner Ashlund: What we put in our recommendations regarding that is that ... 1447 1448 Commissioner Crommie: It's under "C;" it's under "1C." 1449 1450 Commissioner Ashlund: On "1C" under recommendations, determine whether PACCC 1451 can assume management of the garden under the same rules and regs as the City's three 1452 existing public gardens with an accommodation for PACCC and nonprofit child care 1453 centers at Ventura to retain existing plots. We did not address Keys, because the 1454 fundamental issue is the lease and the ownership and the rules. We just didn't touch it. 1455 It's a private school; it's adjacent to the property. They're not renting the property. That's 1456 not for us to decide. That's a much later down the timeline decision. 1457 1458 Commissioner Crommie: Also, I wanted to point out that another aspect of compliance 1459 that might not be obvious is that our public community gardens have what is called a 1460 Draft Minutes 35 DRAFT liaison, a person who is there to mentor other gardeners. Right now, we don't have that 1461 role being fulfilled at Ventura garden. That's another very critical aspect of the garden, 1462 especially given some of the practices that I saw going on at the garden. There's a 1463 vacuum there now. It's not that anyone did this on purpose; it has to do with institutional 1464 transitions of staff. There wasn't a backup plan for transitions between staff members. 1465 Maybe some people were doing more mentoring in the past. At some point, a Ventura 1466 Neighborhood Association was involved. That's a void. 1467 1468 Commissioner Hetterly: That's a question that you want to cover in terms of consistent 1469 operations across gardens. Okay. You may or may not entertain thoughts of 1470 grandfathering the current users who aren't residents. As far as the lease goes, it seems to 1471 me more important, if you're going to make this a City-affiliated garden, to make 1472 information about it publicly available. Changing the lease, I think, is a somewhat 1473 cumbersome process that doesn't improve transparency or awareness of the garden. I'm 1474 not sure I would put a ton of energy on that side of it. I would focus instead on 1475 community education and awareness of how it works. 1476 1477 Commissioner Crommie: That's number two on our recommendations. 1478 1479 Commissioner Hetterly: I'm working from my list. (crosstalk) 1480 1481 Commissioner Crommie: Okay. I just wanted to say it does tie back. We're very 1482 interested in that, in what you just said. The public communication is very critical. 1483 1484 Commissioner Hetterly: I would even go so far as to say I wouldn't bother with changing 1485 the lease unless you have to. I don't think it buys you much and it's a lot of effort. The 1486 next thing was expanded access. It seems to me your goal in elevating the visibility of 1487 this garden is to expand access, have better transparency and consistent rules. Right? 1488 Expanding access, it's full now and you have a wait list. We don't know how big the wait 1489 list is. Was it your sense that there's room for expansion of the site? 1490 1491 Commissioner Crommie: Absolutely. Again, that would be downstream, but there's a lot 1492 of land there. It's been expanded one time already, we were told anecdotally. 1493 1494 Commissioner Hetterly: I think that's worth pursuing as part of the Master Plan process 1495 and with City staff to figure out how much room there might be to grow in that location 1496 and what the impact would be on other uses of the City-used open space. Let's see. I 1497 think if you're looking at grandfathering all the current users and there's not room for 1498 expansion, then we're not buying a whole lot by getting the City involved in management 1499 of this garden, if we were to do that. It's a garden that's working, that people like. What 1500 you're missing is ... 1501 1502 Draft Minutes 36 DRAFT Commissioner Crommie: We don't know that for sure. I mean ... 1503 1504 Commissioner Hetterly: Wait a minute. What you're missing is the ability to compete 1505 for the plot. Right? Your access is limited because it's full and people don't know how to 1506 get into it. If and when there's turnover, then you're not filling it in an open and good 1507 way. That's something that you can focus on. I'm trying to evaluate where the return on 1508 investment is in terms of staff time in making this conversion. I think that's something 1509 that's worth thinking about for you all. The first thing I would do is investigate capacity 1510 for expansion. The transparency—I'll leave it at that. I think I made all my points. 1511 1512 Commissioner Ashlund: I do want to come back. We did consult with staff on this, and 1513 we do defer to staff and the City Attorney's Office on whether the City is out of—I don't 1514 know if compliance is the word—if the lease does need to be updated to reflect the 1515 current use of the land and the current financial arrangements. 1516 1517 Daren Anderson: Yes, thanks. We consulted the City Attorney specifically about the 1518 question of is it permissible or is it legally advisable to have a City garden run and 1519 managed and charged fees for a certain way and to have on City land another community 1520 garden with different rules and different fees. The City Attorney advised us we should be 1521 making it consistent. We should have them consistent. Regarding your lease question, it 1522 makes good sense to me to change the lease or at least bring this up at the expiration date 1523 of the current lease. The point behind that is the ambiguity that we're suffering under 1524 right now of when did this happen. It would be formalized and captured in a legal 1525 document which makes sense to me. 1526 1527 Commissioner Lauing: That was one of my questions. When is the lease up? 1528 1529 Mr. de Geus: Next year. 1530 1531 Mr. Anderson: I think it's June 2016. 1532 1533 Commissioner Crommie: It's like eight months from now. 1534 1535 Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, I think it's 2016 as well. 1536 1537 Commissioner Lauing: Am I next? 1538 1539 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 1540 1541 Commissioner Lauing: Are you done? 1542 1543 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. Commissioner Lauing. 1544 Draft Minutes 37 DRAFT 1545 Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. I don't think this is ready to take action on. I just want to 1546 add a couple of things to what Jennifer said. We now know when the lease is up. I don't 1547 think we should be taking action on it until the lease is up a year from now. There's 1548 already a lot of cooperation on the site with the City, and you can get a little bit more 1549 with a little bit of discussion as opposed to legal documentation. As I read the numbers, 1550 basically 98 percent of the people that are using these plots are either Palo Alto residents 1551 or go to school in Palo Alto. I certainly wouldn't want to take it away from the kids, 1552 which I know is being debated as yes or no or whatever. The biggest point is that you 1553 don't get any more plots which was Commissioner Hetterly's point. I totally support that 1554 idea, that we should be looking at expanding community gardens generally and in the 1555 south. I would say currently this is a very small problem that we don't have to go through 1556 legal changes. We need some research on more land. As was stated, 30 of the 43 plots 1557 are already being used by Palo Alto folks. The transparency, I think, can be better 1558 coordinated through Cat. That could solve that problem right there. Also, the press is 1559 here tonight, so everybody's going to know about it by Wednesday. Thank you. 1560 1561 Mr. Anderson: May I chime in on that? Catherine Bourquin and I met with the staff 1562 from PACCC, and they did agree and were amenable to the concept of advertising 1563 through our website. That's something we can move on an action item relatively quickly. 1564 1565 Chair Reckdahl: I have a question about the nonprofits. Are nonprofits eligible to get 1566 plots of land at other parks? 1567 1568 Commissioner Crommie: We wrote the rules and regulations, Commissioner Reckdahl. 1569 They are not. 1570 1571 Chair Reckdahl: They're not. It has to be an individual? 1572 1573 Commissioner Crommie: We wrote them on this Commission. 1574 1575 Ms. Bourquin: I inherited the program. With the gardens at Rinconada, like a housing 1576 authority, they get a plot there. I don't know if they're a nonprofit or not, but they don't 1577 pay. 1578 1579 Chair Reckdahl: Who's the housing authority? 1580 1581 Ms. Bourquin: The housing authority. There's some people, they get on a list through 1582 the housing authority, and then they have a plot there. I inherited that. 1583 1584 Commissioner Hetterly: They're individuals. They don't represent the authority? 1585 1586 Draft Minutes 38 DRAFT Ms. Bourquin: Correct. 1587 1588 Commissioner Hetterly: (inaudible) they're not using the plot for the authority? 1589 1590 Ms. Bourquin: No, no, no. 1591 1592 Chair Reckdahl: They're not Palo Alto residents or they are? 1593 1594 Ms. Bourquin: They are. In Palo Alto. 1595 1596 Chair Reckdahl: How much maintenance do we do on the gardens? Daren or Peter, can 1597 you answer that question? On the gardens. 1598 1599 Mr. Anderson: On the City-managed gardens at Rinconada, yeah. A decent amount. 1600 Right now the infrastructure for the irrigation system is very old, and there are frequent 1601 repairs. Peter Jensen's heading up a project to replace that infrastructure. I anticipate 1602 there will be a significant drop-off in how much time out staff spends fixing main line 1603 breaks. A reasonable amount, it's not too disproportionate to where we deal with other 1604 irrigation spots in the City. 1605 1606 Chair Reckdahl: When people pay garden fees, where does that money go? 1607 1608 Mr. Anderson: To the general fund. 1609 1610 Chair Reckdahl: It doesn't go to the Parks Department? It goes to the general fund? 1611 1612 Mr. Anderson: Correct. 1613 1614 Chair Reckdahl: Then you get your funding through the ... . Okay. We talked about 1615 having the nonprofit run it. Is that just because you don't want to change horses in 1616 midstream? If you're trying to get uniformity, it would make more sense to have Cat run 1617 it. 1618 1619 Commissioner Crommie: You're absolutely right about that. It's just trying to walk a 1620 fine line between staff feeling overburdened, PACCC already being there, this confusion 1621 over the schools. Right now, everyone's taking all these numbers very literally, beyond 1622 what they should be. You need to do a tour of the garden. Not all these plots are being 1623 used. We were given these numbers by someone who didn't know necessarily who was 1624 assigned to what plot. There's one plot, I'm telling you, that like takes up a fourth of this 1625 garden or a fifth of this garden. We think it's called one plot, so that in itself is very 1626 confusing. There's a lot that's not known right now about the availability of plots in this 1627 garden. Actually I take exception at those kinds of statements like should we open this 1628 Draft Minutes 39 DRAFT up to more advertising that we wouldn't have some turnover possibilities to absorb 1629 another 12 residents into that garden. We don't really know how these numbers work. 1630 We really need our staff to figure that out. Our staff hasn't done that yet. This is very 1631 preliminary, so we can't really draw conclusions about capacity at this point. 1632 1633 Chair Reckdahl: Didn't we go through the gardens and shrink the plots recently? 1634 1635 Mr. Anderson: There was some reconfiguration done at Rinconada when we did the 1636 recent project to the Library and Art Center. There was an annex that was changed, and 1637 so some reconfiguration did happen. Also for very large plots in the past, as those 1638 gardeners have cycled out, some of them have been split into smaller sizes. 1639 1640 Chair Reckdahl: The path forward, is the ad hoc going to be working on this issue? Is 1641 staff going to be working? What's the next step? 1642 1643 Mr. de Geus: I think staff can take it from here. This wasn't really on our radar. It is 1644 now, and so we'll work closely with PACCC and the gardeners that are there and work 1645 our way to get it compliant with the rest of our gardens in the system. I'll be happy to 1646 come back to the Commission and provide updates. That's what I would suggest. 1647 1648 Commissioner Ashlund: I wanted to add. This is the current version of the lease that we 1649 received from staff. When it was most recently renewed in 2013, it was a two-year lease 1650 which expired August 2013. The previous terms were a five-year and a ten-year. We 1651 don't have documentation of whether this expired in another two-year term this past 1652 August, last month, or whether it's a three-year term. We don't have that information 1653 from staff. If it was another two-year term, it may have expired this past month. 1654 1655 Ms. Bourquin: Are you referring to Ventura? Is that what you're referring to, the 1656 Ventura? 1657 1658 Commissioner Ashlund: I'm referring to the lease of the Ventura property, yeah. 1659 1660 Ms. Bourquin: Donna Hartman from real estate said it's going to be expiring in June of 1661 '16. 1662 1663 Commissioner Ashlund: June of 2016? 1664 1665 Ms. Bourquin: Yeah. It's confirmation on that, yes. 1666 1667 Commissioner Ashlund: The terms aren't ... 1668 1669 Ms. Bourquin: The lease is basically for the buildings. 1670 Draft Minutes 40 DRAFT 1671 Commissioner Ashlund: The lease is for the buildings, not the open space. 1672 1673 Ms. Bourquin: Yeah, it's not for the open space land. 1674 1675 Chair Reckdahl: I think we can handle this offline though. The end result is staff will 1676 work this, and we will get an update. 1677 1678 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. I think our Commission for our ad hoc, I mean, 1679 sometimes our ad hoc committees do result in a recommendation from our Commission. 1680 I think sometimes that's a position of strength to get to do that. I don't know if we should 1681 decide immediately that we're not going to at some point take action on this item on our 1682 Commission. I mean, I just sort of wanted to open it up for some discussion. 1683 1684 Chair Reckdahl: I think my preference would be to let staff work it, and let's reevaluate 1685 this further and see if we want to act on it or whether everything's in a good situation. 1686 1687 Commissioner Ashlund: Can we have a timeline for follow-up from staff? 1688 1689 Mr. Anderson: Catherine and I are working on this one right now, so we'll continue in 1690 dialog. I think we've got pretty clear direction of transparency both from the Commission 1691 and from our City Attorney's Office on where we need to be. I think we can take steps 1692 for the transparency portion of having it posted on the website. The rules and regulations 1693 are already underway. I think in the next three months, we could have that part fairly 1694 well flushed through. Some of the other parts, I think, will lend itself to some public 1695 outreach, some meeting with the gardeners. That pertains to bringing it in alignment with 1696 what we charge at our other gardens and how that would transition with the Ventura site. 1697 That might take a little longer. I'd probably need some time to talk to PACCC about that 1698 and those gardeners before I committed to any timeframe for that portion. 1699 1700 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Thank you. Let's move on. We are behind time, so let's move 1701 onto the next. 1702 1703 5. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 1704 Plan. 1705 1706 Chair Reckdahl: Isn't natural spaces in there too? In any case, Peter Jensen will be 1707 talking about the Master Plan. 1708 1709 Rob de Geus: I'll just kick it off. There isn't a whole lot to go over this evening. I just 1710 wanted to give the Commission an update. We did have a Study Session with the City 1711 Council on August 27th. Is that right, August 27? 1712 Draft Minutes 41 DRAFT 1713 Peter Jensen: 31st. 1714 1715 Mr. de Geus: Okay. End of August. We got some feedback from the Council Members. 1716 Some of you saw it. Chair Reckdahl was there, and thank you for speaking. I think that 1717 we learned that we did not have enough information to share with Council, didn't give 1718 them the full story of the path that we've been on as a Commission which has been pretty 1719 extensive and pretty deeply involved in this process. What we shared with Council was 1720 sort of too narrow of a perspective of where we've been and where we are. They shared 1721 their feedback, and it was very fair actually. We're taking some time to redo with the 1722 Council in another Study Session which is planned for November 2nd. A much more 1723 comprehensive report from MIG and a staff report as well. We're excited about that. In 1724 fact, the report that MIG prepared for the Study Session that we had has already been 1725 reworked considerably. The latest draft was yesterday, I believe. It's, I think, nicely 1726 written and much better and closer to what we need, what the Commission is looking for 1727 and the Council is looking for. Peter's going to, I think, talk a little bit about that. I 1728 would like to suggest that between now and that Study Session that either the ad hoc 1729 committee continue to meet to refine the presentation to the Council, because you've been 1730 so close to this. I think it's helpful to have us aligned with that presentation. I think this 1731 time it was staff sort of on our own there, and the Commission wasn't quite there with us. 1732 That's on us. We could do that with the ad hoc that's been meeting. By the way, thank 1733 you for doing that. That's Chair Reckdahl, Commissioner Lauing and Commissioner 1734 Hetterly, have been meeting with us these last couple of months on this. We could do 1735 that or we can have a special meeting with the full Commission between now and the 1736 Study Session. I mention that because the next regular meeting is October 27th, I think. 1737 That's like a week before the Study Session with Council. I'm eager to have sort of some 1738 more time with the Commission on the Parks Master Plan particularly before the next 1739 Study Session. We can talk more about that after Peter shares just a little bit about the 1740 latest report we've got from MIG. 1741 1742 Mr. Jensen: Yes, as Rob was alluding to, the Council wanted to see a lot more 1743 information on the process that we've been going through as well as a detailed breakdown 1744 of where we're actually going and how the Master Plan will be put together and the 1745 recommendations that we've made. The newest draft of that report is much more 1746 detailed. It has a lot of information on how we get to that final destination, which I know 1747 that some of the members of the Commission here have definitely had questions about. 1748 Just in general I feel very positive about what we are producing for the Council report, 1749 but I think it also will help solidify the direction that we're going in and tells the story all 1750 the way to the end. We've been, I think, getting to that process but, I think, we want to 1751 see it now. That's kind of what this does. I am excited to see that that is going along and 1752 looking forward to working with the ad hoc and then also coming back to the 1753 Draft Minutes 42 DRAFT Commission at the end of next month before we do our Study Session with the Council 1754 again to discuss those more and to lay out that whole thing so everyone can see it. 1755 1756 Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question about the survey. How are you 1757 feeling about survey responses? 1758 1759 Mr. Jensen: Survey responses, I haven't received an update from MIG in about a week. 1760 We were past 200 responses already. There still is further outreach that City staff can do 1761 to bolster those numbers. We're feeling pretty good about the response that we're getting 1762 so far. 1763 1764 Commissioner Hetterly: When does it close? 1765 1766 Mr. Jensen: We were looking at doing it at the end of this week. Because of our 1767 response to the Council, we're going to keep it open for another two or three weeks. 1768 1769 Mr. de Geus: Just anecdotal feedback. The people that are participating, they like the 1770 money piece and having to make choices about where to invest. That seems to be 1771 somewhat effective. I look forward to seeing the summary response. I do hope we get 1772 quite a few more than 200. The other thing that is important to mention is we do have a 1773 stakeholders meeting this week, on Thursday evening, the 1st. The meeting is not going 1774 to be so much about working the priorities or getting into recommendations. The 1775 stakeholders group hasn't come together as a group for some time, largely because we 1776 took a couple of steps back and did more data and outreach. They've been engaged, come 1777 to different community meetings and some of the specific focus groups meetings we've 1778 had during that process. We really think it's important to give them an orientation as well 1779 as where we are at and what we've discovered through the process and the building of the 1780 matrix and the areas of focus and sort of talk through those things and allow them to ask 1781 questions, share with them the variety of reports that are on the website, so that they can 1782 really do some homework and some harder thinking before our workshop, so they come 1783 really ready to help us out with the prioritization and recommendation exercise. That's 1784 the focus for the stakeholder group meeting this Thursday. Hopefully some 1785 Commissioners can be there. I think we decided on a couple of Commissioners to be ad 1786 hoc to the stakeholders committee, but I can't remember who that is right off the bat. 1787 1788 Commissioner Hetterly: We did. I think it was Commissioner Crommie. 1789 1790 Commissioner Crommie: I went to the original meeting. I know I'm on that ad hoc. 1791 1792 Commissioner Hetterly: It might have been Pat. 1793 1794 Commissioner Crommie: I forget who the second person was. 1795 Draft Minutes 43 DRAFT 1796 Mr. de Geus: I think we have the documentation of that. I'm sure we can find it. 1797 1798 Commissioner Crommie: For the stakeholders meetings, was it Keith? Okay. We can 1799 always have three too. 1800 1801 Commissioner Ashlund: I was at the first one, but I'm out of town this Thursday night. I 1802 can't attend. 1803 1804 Mr. Jensen: The meeting is at 6:30 at the Embarcadero Room at the Rinconada Library. 1805 If you haven't been in that room yet, it's one of our beautiful, new public spaces. It's 1806 always good to have more meeting spaces and use that room. 1807 1808 Commissioner Crommie: I have a question. Are you opening it up at some point? Is this 1809 time for questions? Are you ... 1810 1811 Chair Reckdahl: Are you done? Yes, go ahead. 1812 1813 Commissioner Crommie: Can you review with me what the ad hoc committee on the 1814 Master Plan's goals are? You mentioned it's comprised by Commissioners Hetterly, 1815 Reckdahl and Lauing. I'm a little bit confused. I know they were formed when we were 1816 looking over some of the document. I just need clarity, because I want to make sure that 1817 a lot of these issues are still coming to the full Commission, which is what we decided as 1818 a Commission. Sometimes when this work gets taken offline, we lose the transparency 1819 on the whole Commission. This is a really important topic. I don't quite get what the ad 1820 hoc is doing. Can you review what those goals are, of that ad hoc? Whoever is in 1821 charge, whoever is the staff liaison to that ad hoc. 1822 1823 Mr. de Geus: I don't think we established specific goals. I don't think we've done that for 1824 any ad hoc committee specifically, other than you're going to be involved with the 1825 stakeholder committee and follow that process along. With this particular one, it was 1826 more recent, and it was focused primarily on the criteria. We did the principles, and then 1827 there was sort of the next filter which is the criteria. The Commission and staff, I would 1828 say, was not satisfied with the initial first sort of draft and even second draft of that. We 1829 said we could use some help working with a few Commissioners on redefining those. 1830 That was very helpful. Actually I think we're in a much better place with the criteria. 1831 That's how it was formed. I think it was pretty much limited to that, so this does expand 1832 a little more if we're going to (crosstalk). 1833 1834 Commissioner Crommie: I guess that's what I want to know. I kind of understood why 1835 we formed them, and they reported back to us with a report. Tonight, we didn't even get 1836 a report on anything for this agenda item, so I feel a little bit in the dark. I just want to 1837 Draft Minutes 44 DRAFT make sure that something hasn't just been taken offline with that ad hoc that's not 1838 transparent to the rest of the Commission. I don't think it's a good thing to have a 30-1839 minute agenda item on something this important with no report, unless I missed it in my 1840 packet. 1841 1842 Mr. de Geus: No. Maybe it's not clear, but there isn't a whole lot to report, I guess is 1843 what we're saying. We had the Study Session with Council, and we're taking a step back 1844 and going to redo it. 1845 1846 Commissioner Crommie: I wasn't at that Study Session with Council, so it would have 1847 been really nice to document what came from that to our Commission. I can go back and 1848 watch the tape, but usually we get some kind of information exchange when things like 1849 that happen. 1850 1851 Mr. de Geus: I think every other meeting we've had an update report. We didn't have 1852 one today. We're just giving you the verbal report of what occurred. I didn't think that it 1853 was an especially good use of our time to write that all up, but rather focus on the return 1854 to Council and rewriting the report so that it's more closely fitting to what the Council 1855 needs. The Commission's going to see that report as well, and we'll be sharing that report 1856 with you at the next meeting. My hope would be that the Commission and I would 1857 recommend that the ad hoc, maybe that's a redefining of what the ad hoc committee's 1858 doing. That's ... 1859 1860 Commissioner Crommie: That's what I want definition on. 1861 1862 Mr. de Geus: If we do that, work with staff in our preparation for going back to Council 1863 on the November 2nd, it'd be very helpful for staff if the ad hoc committee would be 1864 willing to do that. We could then meet over the next few weeks and then on the 27th 1865 even sort of dry run the Study Session with Council the week before we go to Council for 1866 feedback from the full Commission. You'd have the report, of course. 1867 1868 Commissioner Crommie: I think that ad hoc—what is the name of that ad hoc 1869 committee? 1870 1871 Mr. de Geus: I don't know that we have names for ad hoc committees. 1872 1873 Commissioner Crommie: We do. We have a name for every ad hoc committee on the 1874 Master Plan. 1875 1876 Mr. de Geus: We have a topical name. 1877 1878 Commissioner Knopper: Master Plan Stakeholders Group. 1879 Draft Minutes 45 DRAFT 1880 Commissioner Crommie: We have Master Plan Survey Ad Hoc. We have Master Plan 1881 Stakeholders Ad Hoc. We had a third. We were very careful in how we divvied this up. 1882 I can't remember the name of the third ad hoc. Someone here who's on it. I was on the 1883 Master Plan Survey Ad Hoc with Stacey Ashlund. 1884 1885 Mr. de Geus: Let's call it the Master Plan Council Study Session Ad Hoc. 1886 1887 Commissioner Crommie: Then I think we should open it up and make sure—I don't 1888 think it's a good policy to form an ad hoc for a certain purpose which was served. Again, 1889 I'm not asking for a space on this myself. I'm not doing that. I think if it's a new ad hoc 1890 for a new purpose, we should at least go through the exercise of opening it up and make 1891 sure that everyone who wants to be on that has a chance. I guess I defer to our Chair of 1892 our Commission on that. 1893 1894 Chair Reckdahl: Right now we have three of us. You have no interest in being on the ad 1895 hoc? 1896 1897 Commissioner Crommie: At least I now know what this ad hoc is. I really have been 1898 confused about what the new role of this ad hoc is and what the name of it is. Can you 1899 just summarize that and then we can open it up? 1900 1901 Chair Reckdahl: We don't have a name. The name is that we are helping the staff work 1902 on the Master Plan for the Council, the presentation for the Council and the final report. 1903 1904 Mr. de Geus: I did name it. 1905 1906 Female: (inaudible) 1907 1908 Mr. de Geus: Right. Up until now, we've been talking about the criteria with the ad hoc, 1909 which is what it was formed for. I think I brought it up for this very reason, that it would 1910 be helpful to have the ad hoc continue with a little bit of a different focus to help us get 1911 ready for the Study Session. That's completely transparent in my view. 1912 1913 Commissioner Crommie: It's called the Master Plan Council Presentation Ad Hoc? 1914 1915 Mr. de Geus: Sure, that's fine. 1916 1917 Commissioner Crommie: We really do always name our ad hocs. We really do. 1918 1919 Mr. de Geus: They have a topic that they focus on. Right? 1920 1921 Draft Minutes 46 DRAFT Commissioner Crommie: Is there anyone else who wants to be on this? It just seems like 1922 we should form it tonight. 1923 1924 Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, are you interested? 1925 1926 Commissioner Ashlund: No. 1927 1928 Chair Reckdahl: We have three interested and three on it. We'll keep the status quo then. 1929 Do you guys have anything else to add for the Master Plan? 1930 1931 Mr. de Geus: I have nothing more to add. 1932 1933 6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1934 1935 Chair Reckdahl: Do we have any ad hoc updates? 1936 1937 Commissioner Hetterly: Daren's going to do an update on the dog park situation. 1938 1939 Daren Anderson: Thank you so much. I'll give you a real quick update on where the ad 1940 hoc committee's at working on the shared-use dog park concept. This'll be a brief update. 1941 In October I'll bring a staff report. We'll discuss this more fully and get the 1942 Commission's feedback on how we best meet the City's dog park needs. A quick recap 1943 on what the Commission has done on dog parks. In 2010, the Commission had a policy 1944 that said we should be looking for dog recreation areas every time we do a park 1945 renovation. That has not resulted, as we all know, in any knew dog parks. We said we 1946 should take a holistic look rather than a piecemeal approach. As every renovation 1947 arrives, let's look holistically. Along came the Parks Master Plan which does exactly that 1948 and it will do that. It's looking at our entire park system and giving advice on where we 1949 best should locate these dog parks. However, the ad hoc said in the interim would it 1950 make sense to do a six-month pilot study to look at a shared-use concept. Shared use 1951 being some place where we've got a partially fenced off or a fenced off area—typically it 1952 ends up being athletic fields—where it's already partially fenced and large where dogs 1953 can exercise. This issue was discussed with the Commission on September 23rd, 2014. 1954 The Commission advised the ad hoc should move forward looking at a proposal 1955 including outreach to neighbors, user groups and the strategy for evaluating how this 1956 criteria might work and metrics of success. The ad hoc committee met with a small 1957 group of stakeholders from the newly organized Palo Alto dog owners group representing 1958 300 dog owners in Palo Alto, and met separately with the athletic field users or some 1959 stakeholders from them to figure out their interests and concerns. The athletic user group 1960 explained that they're concerned that the off-leash activity, should it take place in an area 1961 where teams are practicing and competing, would pose a threat to the safety of kids 1962 playing soccer and baseball. Primarily dogs digging holes, kids turning ankles or balls 1963 Draft Minutes 47 DRAFT taking bad hops out of those holes and injuring players. They were also slightly 1964 concerned about gradual deterioration of playing conditions should there be dogs 1965 exercising and playing on soccer fields or baseball fields and perhaps there being dog 1966 feces that might not be picked up. The representatives from the dog owners group 1967 explained, not surprisingly, that there's a shortage of dog parks in Palo Alto and that we 1968 need more desperately and that ideally they would have spaces for small dogs as well as 1969 large areas where big dogs could really open up and run. Staff hosted a community 1970 meeting on July 30th, 2015 to collect feedback on this concept of shared dog parks. We 1971 brought locations after the ad hoc committee and staff had analyzed what places would 1972 lend themselves to having sensible shared use facilities. There were really three that 1973 jumped out. That's Greer, Hoover and Baylands Athletic Center. There were hours that 1974 also we proposed as Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. It was a well 1975 attended public meeting; approximately 75 people attended. The vast majority of 1976 participants were dog owners advocating for additional parks. A small number of the 1977 participants were neighbors to one of the three parks, saying that they were very 1978 concerned that we would have more off-leash activity. The primary concern is 1979 confrontations between their children and off-leash dogs and an increase in unpicked-up 1980 dog feces. There were also a small group of people mentioning their concerns that the 1981 off-leash activity would have a negative impact where the sports teams practice and 1982 compete. In general, the dog owners were not satisfied with the proposed hours and 1983 locations. Several people had pointed out that if we went with what we were proposing, 1984 that would be 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., we would be excluding a large majority of park 1985 users or dog walkers that aren't available at that time; they're either working or busy. To 1986 be fair, it really had to have a.m. and p.m. hours. We also heard that you really need dog 1987 parks all over. The idea that we'd have one pilot really seemed to draw a lot of frustration 1988 from folks. Because the need is so great, one little spot is just insufficient, and we needed 1989 to find spaces in a number of areas to make it successful. One participant also pointed 1990 out the City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off-leash areas and 1991 suggested we look into that. After the community meeting, the ad hoc committee and 1992 staff did some additional research. We started by verifying the amount of use we have at 1993 those three sites we talked about, Greer, Hoover and Baylands Athletic Center. By use, I 1994 mean scheduled recreation activities, soccer, baseball, etc. We met with our recreation 1995 staff and found out where the conflicts would be, specifically looking at the a.m./p.m. 1996 thing. It would be a conflict at Greer and Baylands Athletic Center, where we have 1997 evening athletics taking place. That would be a challenge. Hoover would also be if it 1998 was inside the baseball field, but there's also turf at Hoover outside that baseball field that 1999 seemed to be the area where we'd have the least conflicts with the user groups. We 2000 researched how the City of Mountain View has experimented with their shared-use dog 2001 parks. The City of Mountain View started a pilot program in June 2014 and made it 2002 permanent in May 2015. I spoke with one of the staff that managed that and got it off the 2003 ground and did some of the public outreach. He explained that the success of the 2004 program really depends on who you're talking to. His experience was that if you ask the 2005 Draft Minutes 48 DRAFT dog owners, they're loving it. It's going extremely well. Many other residents aren't so 2006 happy with the program. Only one of their nine sites is on an athletic field, that is a 2007 shared use with an athletic field. The other eight are unfenced, passive recreation areas, 2008 passive turf. One of the sites is fenced off; that's the Shoreline Park dog park. The other 2009 ones that they added in 2014 are all unfenced, so dogs could meander in and out of the 2010 area without any fence to contain them. Lack of fencing has caused some issues for 2011 them. They said that the dog owners frequently stray outside the confines of the off-leash 2012 area or end up treating the entire park as an off-leash site. There were a number of 2013 complaints during the pilot program. The major ones focused around the people not 2014 observing the hours or days, dog owners coming on days where they weren't supposed to 2015 be there off-leash. The other concerns were from parents whose dogs had approached 2016 their children. Mountain View hired a security firm, CLM, to do security at two of the 2017 parks. They also have a partnership with Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority to 2018 help with the enforcement of these rules. The staff also pointed out that their Park and 2019 Recreation Commission did not recommend doing any pilot off-leash shared-use sites. 2020 Instead, they had recommended a permanent dog park, but their City Council had said 2021 that they would like to go ahead and proceed with the pilot for one year, and they did so. 2022 When they came back and had done analysis on their one-year pilot, shared it with their 2023 Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission said, "We need to do more. We need 2024 more enforcement, and we need to analyze this for an additional year." Their City 2025 Council did not agree and said, "We're going to go ahead and make it permanent right 2026 now." They did so in May of 2015. That's the initial outreach we've got from or learning 2027 lessons from the City of Mountain View. Our ad hoc committee working on this, 2028 because of some of the challenges we learned from that public outreach, the desire to say 2029 a.m. is not going to be enough. You really have to have more. One site's not enough; 2030 you need to have more than that. The ad hoc committee and staff started to investigate 2031 opportunities for permanent dog parks that could be implemented soon without 2032 necessarily spending too much money and not having to wait for the Parks Master Plan to 2033 be completed. We sat together, talked through some different options that staff had been 2034 thinking about as had our Commissioners on the ad hoc. We came up with three sites 2035 that we think are going to be viable options. That is, they'll be fairly low cost to put up 2036 the necessary fencing to secure it. We can't think of too many obstacles in them. It 2037 would not have to necessarily wait for the Parks Master Plan to be completed. These are 2038 still preliminary; there still has to be some additional ideas fleshed out. I'll give you just 2039 an example. One of them is Mitchell Park dog run. It's about .5 acres, but there's a 2040 significant amount of passive turf adjacent to that area that, with a minimal amount of 2041 fencing, could almost double the size of that dog run. We could have a fairly large dog 2042 run where large dogs could kind of open up and get a real run in. Another idea was at El 2043 Camino Park. We'd originally looked at a dog park being on the north side of El Camino 2044 that was closest to San Francisquito Creek. We found out that because of creek setbacks 2045 that was not a viable option. However, there is undeveloped portions of El Camino Park 2046 on the south side. This is closest to Red Cross. It's undeveloped; there's nothing on it 2047 Draft Minutes 49 DRAFT except for some underground utilities that pertain to our Utilities Department. We 2048 thought that might be a viable option. We looked into what kind of size approximately 2049 we could have if we fenced off this. It's about .77 acres which would be our biggest 2050 existing dog park. You could get a fairly sizeable dog park out of that. There are a 2051 couple of nuances that we still need to flesh through. That is, Stanford may have an issue 2052 with this. There's some conversation about perhaps a pathway going through there. 2053 Right now I'm working with the Planning Department to look into that and see if this is a 2054 viable option. One last site similar to this one and that we've got a few hoops we need to 2055 go through, but the Colorado substation. This is adjacent to Greer Park on the Colorado 2056 side. It's a utility site, and there's a large landscaped area. It's just under an acre in size 2057 actually, passive turf, not used for anything but aesthetics. We had thought at one point 2058 could we fence that off and could it be a dog park. We're having preliminary discussions 2059 with Utilities right now to see if they'd be amenable to that. It could be another viable 2060 option for something we could implement sooner rather than later. There's no other uses 2061 for that site identified or planned right now. That's where we're at right now with the ad 2062 hoc. I'll defer to Commissioner Hetterly and Knopper if they have anything else to add to 2063 that. Again, we look to come back next month with a staff report with some of this more 2064 fleshed out. Thank you. 2065 2066 Commissioner Hetterly: I don't have anything to add. That was a very detailed report. 2067 I'd just reiterate it's not a discussion item tonight; it's just an update. You got a detailed 2068 preview of what will be in the staff report for full discussion next month. 2069 2070 Chair Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. 2071 2072 Commissioner Crommie: I mean, I have a comment on some of the material you said. 2073 Because it is not on the agenda, I guess I have to withhold it which sort of begs the 2074 question of why we got that beautiful report when we can't respond to it. I think we do 2075 have to keep with our goal of noticing ad hoc presentations on our agenda. It would be 2076 lovely to get to respond to that presentation. 2077 2078 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 2079 2080 Chair Reckdahl: Comments and announcements? 2081 2082 Commissioner Crommie: Before we left ad hocs, I didn't get to say we do have a Lucy 2083 B. Evans Ad Hoc Committee. We have not really been able to do anything on it, because 2084 we've been waiting for a presentation from Mr. Aiken. Our last meeting was with him, 2085 and then the next step was for him to come and do a presentation which we haven't had 2086 yet. I do want to point out there's a very important community outreach meeting taking 2087 place on the Lucy B. Evans Interpretive Center. Can staff remind us? Commissioner 2088 Ashlund and I think it might conflict ... 2089 Draft Minutes 50 DRAFT 2090 Commissioner Ashlund: We think it's this Thursday, October 1st. 2091 2092 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah. It might conflict with the stakeholders meeting. 2093 2094 Rob de Geus: It's tomorrow, the 30th, 6:00 at the Lucy Evans Center. 2095 2096 Commissioner Ashlund: It is tomorrow. 2097 2098 Commissioner Crommie: I just want to make sure I get that in my notes. It's 2099 Wednesday, the 30th at 6:00 p.m. I wouldn't ... 2100 2101 Commissioner Ashlund: It's at the Interpretive Center. 2102 2103 Mr. de Geus: Yes. 2104 2105 Commissioner Crommie: I will get to go. Commissioner Ashlund won't be in town, but 2106 if anyone else from the Commission wants to go, I think that would be really great to 2107 have someone else there. 2108 2109 Mr. de Geus: I had two announcements I was going to mention. That one that 2110 Commissioner Crommie just mentioned. We did have a Commission recognition, 2111 Commission and Boards recognition event on September 12th. Those that couldn't 2112 attend, I've got a little gift and it's in the box right here. You can pick that up as you 2113 leave. It was a nice event at Mitchell Park. There's also an interesting event happening 2114 out of our Office of Human Services. We'll be doing a little more work across the 2115 department. Their Commission is doing a variety of things, doing a veterans summit this 2116 Friday which you may have seen or heard about. It's Friday afternoon. I think there still 2117 may be some seats available if you're interested in doing that. The Commission's 2118 focusing on a couple of things. One of the things is ending veteran homelessness. It's a 2119 big issue around the country, and it's an issue here in Palo Alto too. It's estimated that 2120 there are 40 homeless veterans in Palo Alto actually. Proportionately our county has 2121 more veteran homeless folks than around the country. There's some people coming from 2122 the White House actually that work on this topic; they're going to be speaking on Friday 2123 afternoon. It starts at 1:00. I just thought you should be aware of that. I can send you a 2124 link so you can get a little more information. If you are interested, I can make sure you 2125 can get into that event. Peter. 2126 2127 Peter Jensen: Aurora, the sculpture in front of City Hall, is being replaced with a new 2128 sculpture. If you didn't notice on the way in, we're dismantling it. The new sculpture 2129 will be installed October 8th. It's called Rondo. Right now it's on display at Cal 2130 Berkeley. Associated with that, the planting that's going to go back into the circular 2131 Draft Minutes 51 DRAFT planter out there on October 17th, which is a Saturday, there will be a volunteer planting 2132 day. I will be leading that. I will also be discussing some of the things you heard about 2133 trees today. Trees and water, plants that are adequate with those trees. We'll be doing 2134 planting and I'll be doing a demonstration of installing a drip irrigation system. That's 2135 happening on October 17th. October 24th, there's a volunteer tree planting day that I'm 2136 working on with Canopy and the Barron Park Homeowners Association along the Bol 2137 Park pathway next to the veterans construction site there. That will be on October 24th. 2138 That's a Saturday as well from 8:00 'til noon. We'll be planting 60 trees on that day. If 2139 you'd like to attend either one of those, please feel free. 2140 2141 Chair Reckdahl: I had a question about El Camino Park. When is it scheduled to open? 2142 2143 Daren Anderson: We're scheduled for November. It's looking like mid-November. We 2144 just got the sod in today, so it's going to be establishing. Got a few last amenities like 2145 trash cans and recycling totes coming in. I should have a firmed up date coming soon. 2146 We'll probably do a grand opening. I'll be sure to send it to you guys right away. 2147 2148 Chair Reckdahl: Bowden Park, what's the status on that? 2149 2150 Mr. Anderson: I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't have a date for that. 2151 2152 Chair Reckdahl: Monroe Park, is that (crosstalk) Council. 2153 2154 Mr. Anderson: Monroe Park, we're going out to bid right now. 2155 2156 Chair Reckdahl: What? 2157 2158 Mr. Anderson: We are going out to bid. The contract has gone to Council, so we're 2159 waiting for approval. 2160 2161 Chair Reckdahl: Magical Bridge, how's the durability? Has there been any problems 2162 with the new ... 2163 2164 Mr. de Geus: That's been a big challenge for us. A good challenge in some ways, 2165 because it's such a successful playground. It's very, very popular. With popularity comes 2166 additional challenges of trash, of bathroom maintenance and equipment, just wear and 2167 tear. The need to invest more time and resources to support that new asset we're 2168 discovering is very much needed. We don't have all of those resources, so we're working 2169 hard on that, Daren and his staff in particular, and working with the Friends group who 2170 are still contributing a lot. They're there and helping. It's something that we're going to 2171 be asking for in the budget probably to support some additional maintenance costs for 2172 that new playground. 2173 Draft Minutes 52 DRAFT 2174 Chair Reckdahl: Last thing. I went out to Byxbee. I hadn't been out there for a month or 2175 so. A lot of stuff going on. They've gone through and almost the whole park now is 2176 being redone including the part over by the poles. That whole park that has been open for 2177 years, now they're putting new soil on it. Was it early 2016, we're going to open the 2178 whole thing or is it mid-2016? 2179 2180 Mr. Anderson: I believe they're wrapping up the prep right now. What they did was 2181 bring it back into compliance. It had settled near the pole fields. It was significantly, 2182 almost 5 feet depressed from where it needs to be per the regulations to manage the 2183 landfill. They brought that back up, and they've hydroseeded and put down straw wattles 2184 to prep it for the storm that'll be coming hopefully November-December. 2185 2186 Chair Reckdahl: They've hydroseeded? 2187 2188 Mr. Anderson: Mm-hmm. Significant portions. It's coming along very nicely. 2189 2190 Chair Reckdahl: I noticed they put like burlap on that slope right by the parking lot. 2191 2192 Mr. Anderson: Yeah. That'll help a lot with that erosion. Brand new soil brought in like 2193 that will not hold well when the storms hit. Those are the measures, hydroseeding and 2194 put down that. 2195 2196 Commissioner Lauing: Let me piggy-back on that. It was just in time for the eclipse. I 2197 went up there for the eclipse. There were hundreds of citizens in the dark by the poles. It 2198 was awesome. You couldn't get a parking spot in the no parking areas. It was just 2199 absolutely terrific to see at night time all these people using our parks. Yeah, good job. 2200 There was no moon, but everybody had fun in the park. 2201 2202 Chair Reckdahl: That's it. Go ahead. 2203 2204 Mr. de Geus: I just had one more. I wanted to do a shout out to Commissioner Lauing 2205 for his support of our interview process for the new Assistant Director. We're down that 2206 very important key position in the department plus two superintendants which has been 2207 challenging with all the stuff going on. Commissioner Lauing made himself available for 2208 two days, two afternoons, one full day and then an afternoon which was today, to 2209 interview seven or eight candidates. We appreciate that very much. We have a couple of 2210 good candidates that we're looking at and hope to make a decision soon. 2211 2212 Draft Minutes 53 DRAFT VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 27, 2015 MEETING 2213 2214 Chair Reckdahl: Did we want to consider moving it up a week to give us an extra week 2215 between the meeting and the Council meeting? 2216 2217 Rob de Geus: We could do that. That might be helpful. I don't know how ... 2218 2219 Chair Reckdahl: What do people think about it? October 20th versus October 27th. 2220 2221 Mr. de Geus: Actually I have to be at another committee meeting on the 20th. The 2222 Finance Committee meeting, I will be at. 2223 2224 Commissioner Crommie: I'm out of town on the 20th as well. 2225 2226 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Let's keep it the 27th then. What's on the list? 2227 2228 Mr. de Geus: I think we have a dog park report. 2229 2230 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, I vote for dog park to come back. 2231 2232 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, the staff report. 2233 2234 Chair Reckdahl: The agendized staff report. 2235 2236 Mr. de Geus: Obviously the Parks Master Plan will be on there. 2237 2238 Commissioner Hetterly: We'll probably have a website (inaudible). 2239 2240 Mr. de Geus: A website update. 2241 2242 Chair Reckdahl: We had mentioned last month about possibly having the Junior 2243 Museum. Is that in the cards or do you think that's going to be a slower rolling ... 2244 2245 Mr. de Geus: I'll have to check with the team on that to see if they're ready to come back. 2246 2247 Commissioner Crommie: It might not hurt to come back to Byxbee Park since so much 2248 is going on. It'd be nice to just get a report periodically. 2249 2250 Mr. de Geus: Byxbee Park, okay. 2251 2252 Commissioner Crommie: If we don't have other, more pressing matters. 2253 2254 Draft Minutes 54 DRAFT Commissioner Ashlund: The bulk of that agenda is going to be on the Master Plan, 2255 planning for the meeting with Council. Is that correct? 2256 2257 Chair Reckdahl: The meeting on Council is going to be just a few days later, so we'll 2258 basically say what we think will be on it. We won't be able to do major changes. We 2259 may be able to polish it up here and there. We have to submit it ahead of time, ten days 2260 ahead. Don't we? 2261 2262 Mr. de Geus: Yeah. The packet for the Council for the 2nd will already have gone out, 2263 and it'll be public. You'll all see that. Of course, (crosstalk). 2264 2265 Chair Reckdahl: We won't be able to change it, but we ... 2266 2267 Commissioner Hetterly: How early would we have to meet if we were to have a special 2268 meeting to discuss that and still get it (inaudible)? 2269 2270 Chair Reckdahl: Two weeks. 2271 2272 Mr. de Geus: Within the next couple of weeks. We'll get something on the calendar right 2273 away. 2274 2275 Chair Reckdahl: The last time we mentioned something about an auditor fee study. 2276 What ... 2277 2278 Mr. de Geus: I don't have anything to report on that just yet. The auditor is doing a fee 2279 study on ... 2280 2281 Chair Reckdahl: When is that going to be done? 2282 2283 Mr. de Geus: They usually take about three months to do their audit, and they're 2284 probably six weeks in. I can check to see if there's anything to report. 2285 2286 Chair Reckdahl: Do you have ... 2287 2288 Mr. de Geus: November, we might want to talk about the November meeting. I think it 2289 lands the week of Thanksgiving. We'll probably want to move it out or up. 2290 2291 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, we should not have it Thanksgiving week. 2292 2293 Mr. de Geus: Everybody's calendars get filled up so quickly; it might be good to make a 2294 decision this evening. 2295 2296 Draft Minutes 55 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: Do we want to pencil it in a week early? 2297 2298 Catherine Bourquin: Why don't I just send an email out with some dates? Just so I can 2299 check and see if a room's available. 2300 2301 Chair Reckdahl: Okay. 2302 2303 Mr. de Geus: That works. 2304 2305 Chair Reckdahl: The other option is leap frog the other way and just have an early 2306 December meeting and not having anything late December. Just split the difference. The 2307 Master Plan may be driving us if the Council wants certain stuff done. 2308 2309 VII. ADJOURNMENT 2310 2311 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 2312 Ashlund at 10:00p.m. Passed 6-0. 2313 Draft Minutes 56 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DATE: 10/27/2015 SUBJECT: To review the status of the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. Staff is updating the commission with the status of the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Feasibility Study and the City’s public outreach plan. BACKGROUND The Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center) is located within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. Built on piles above the salt marsh in 1967, the center was the first educational center within this unique Bay Area ecosystem. The scope of this Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project includes replacement of the decking, railings, exterior wood siding, flooring, cabinetry and doors, structural framing members as needed and code upgrades to meet American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The Baylands Boardwalk is connected to the Interpretive Center. The scope of the CIP project includes a feasibility study to evaluate short, medium and long term repair and replacement options, development of concept designs for short term temporary repairs to allow for the reopening of the boardwalk immediately, ADA code upgrades and a structural assessment report. DISCUSSION For the Interpretive Center project, FOG Studio was hired to provide a structural assessment and report, an ADA compliance assessment and design development drawings for repairs and/or improvements to exterior siding, decking, railings, interior floor refinishing and cabinetry. Their work also includes a project costs and schedule incorporating time for required permits. FOG Studio has completed approximately 50% of the design development drawings (Attachment A) and the executive summary of structural repairs performed by FOG’s subconsultant, Holmes Culley (Attachment B). The proposed improvements do not include changes to the existing architecture of the building. Staff is seeking input from the Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the community on the proposed improvements. The consultant will also provide construction documents, including architectural, structural, and building systems drawings, materials lists and specifications. The consultant will provide a preliminary cost estimate at the end of the design development phase and a final cost estimate to accompany the construction documents. The consultant will coordinate, prepare and submit all necessary documents and plans needed for construction and permitting as part of the project. Design of potential restroom upgrades to comply with ADA and any code-mandated improvements to the electrical and mechanical systems not previously anticipated in the project scope are also included in this contract. For the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study, Biggs Cardosa was hired to provide a structural inspection and needs assessment; concept development of temporary repairs, rehabilitation and replacement options; and draft and final feasibility study reports. Biggs Cardosa has developed preliminary structural repairs and replacement options (Attachment B). Staff is seeking input from the PRC and the community on these options before finalizing the draft feasibility study. The feasibility study shall include: 1. Life cycle, environmental impacts. costs and timeline (design, permitting, and project completion) for all options 2. Concept level sketches of preferred alternative suitable for conveying structural improvements (repair, rehabilitation, replacement) 3. Concept level cost estimates of probable construction costs for each option 4. Key structural constraints, design criteria and structure types considered, constructability and staging 5. Key geotechnical constraints and foundation type recommendations 6. Key hydraulic constraints and mitigation recommendations 7. Key access issues and ADA compliance requirements 8. Environmental documentation and permit considerations memorandum including necessary approvals for repair/ rehabilitation/ replacement of the boardwalk a. Environmental documentation will include a qualitative analysis evaluation describing potential environmental impacts that could occur should the proposed project option is implemented. Permitting from various agencies may include but not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Federal and State Department of Fish and Wildlife (FWS) According to Biggs Cardosa’s preliminary structural assessment, the first two hundred feet of the boardwalk (from the Interpretive Center to the first overlook platform) is in general safe condition only requiring a few minor repairs. The minor repairs include replacing damaged deck planks, posts and cross-bracing located under the decking in spot locations above the marsh area. Based on the public feedback to reopen the boardwalk on September 30, staff is completing these repairs with the intent to provide access to this section of the boardwalk for public use. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff met with the community on September 30, 2015 to discuss the Interpretive Center improvements and the Boardwalk repairs/rehabilitation/replacement options. See Attachment C for summary of public input from the meeting. For the Interpretive Center, staff will receive comments from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) tentatively planned for December. Staff will return to PRC in January for approval of the Park Improvements Ordinance (PIO) for proposed improvements. For the Boardwalk Feasibility Study, staff will return to Council to present the feasibility study along with the public, and board and commission comments to seek further guidance on a preferred option. RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Improvements design phase is available in CIP project PE-15029. Additional construction funding may be required to address ADA improvements to the restroom and other building code requirements that will be assessed during the design phase. Staff will return to Council in the future to request additional funding for this work. Funding for the Baylands Boardwalk feasibility study is available in CIP project PE-14018. Staff will return to Council asking for guidance on how to proceed. A preferred option and funding for rehabilitation or replacement will be determined by Council. NEXT STEPS Interpretive Center ARB review December 2015 PRC approval of PIO January 2016 Complete Interpretive Center 100% design Spring 2016 Obtain Permits/ Bid Project for Interpretive Center Summer 2016 Begin Construction (pending permits) Summer 2016 Boardwalk Completion of Draft Feasibility Study Fall/Winter 2015 PRC recommendation of a preferred option Winter 2016 Council Approval of Final Feasibility Study Early 2016 and a preferred option 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 Attachment A: Interpretive Center Design Development Drawings Attachment B: Interpretive Center Executive Summary of Structural Repairs and Boardwalk Draft Structural Concept Sketches Attachment C: September 30, 2015 Public Meeting Summary PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________ Hung Nguyen Project Engineer, Public Works Engineering N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 3 1 P M 15.10 10/19/15 COVER SHEET G0.00 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTOSHEET INDEX PRC REVIEW SET OCTOBER 19, 2015 SHEET NO.SHEET NAME G0.00 COVER SHEET G0.01 PROJECT INFORMATION A1.00 SITE PLAN A1.21 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A1.22 FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN A1.23 EXISTING ROOF PLAN A1.30 EXISTING REFLECTED UNDER-DECK PLAN A1.31 EXISTING REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A1.32 CEILING DEMOLITION PLAN A2.01 PARTITION PLAN A2.02 ROOF PLAN A3.00 REFLECTED UNDER- DECK PLAN A3.01 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A5.01 FINISH PLAN AND SCHEDULE A7.01 BUILDING SECTIONS A7.11 ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9.10 RESTROOM ENLARGED PLAN & INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9.11 RESTROOM INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A10.20 DETAILS - EXTERIOR WALL A12.00 DOOR SCHEDULE & DETAILS LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 No. Description Date PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 C Fireproof(ing)F.P. W.PT. Top of SteelTop of Slab Refrigerator Refrigerator Square Yard(s) SystemSymmetrical StructureStructural Structure Sheer WallSuspend(ed) Storage Sound Transmission CoefficientStandardSteel Service SinkStation SpeakerSpecificationSee Plumbing DrawingsSanitary Napkin ReceptacleSanitary Napkin DispenserSheet NoteSee Mechanical DrawingsStanchion ModuleSee Landscape DrawingsSlidingSinkSimilarSheetShowerShelfSprinkler HeadSquare Foot (Feet)See Finish DrawingsSee Fire Protection DrawingsSee Electrical DrawingsSectionSoap DispenserScheduleSeat Cover Dispenser Self Adhesive Sheet MembraneSanitarySouth See Structural DrawingsStainless SteelSquare S.Y. SYS.SYM. STRL. S.W.SUSP. STR.STOR. STCSTD. STRUCT. STL. S.SK.STA. SPKR.SPEC.S.P.D.S.N.R.S.N.D.S.N.S.M.D.S.M.S.L.D.SL.SK.SIM.SHT.SHR.SHLF.S.H.S.F.S.F.D.S.F.P.D.S.E.D.SECT.S.D.SCHED.S.C.D.S.C. SAN.S. S.S.SQ. S.S.D. Radius PointR.P.Rain Water LeaderRWL. Rough OpeningRoundRoomRegisterReflected RemainingReinforced ReferenceRecessedRoof DrainReflected Ceiling PlanResilient BaseRadiusReturn AirRiser Revised / RevisionRetainingResilientRequired Quarry Tile R.O.RND.RM. RFG. RGTR.RFL. REM.REINF. REF.REC.R.D.R.C.P.R.B.RAD.R.A. REF. REV.RET.RES.REQ. Q.T. Paper Towel Dispenser & Receptacle PaintedPaper Towel Dispenser PartitionPaper Towel ReceptaclePTN. P.T.D. / R. PTD.P.T.D. P.T.R. Welded Wire FabricWWF WaterproofWork PointWP. WeightWT.W.R. Water Resistant WindowWDW W/W. W.F.W.H.W/O WithoutWater HeaterWood Flooring White BoardW.B. West OR WidthWith W.C.WD. Water ClosetWall CoveringWood WC Veneer PlasterV.P.VOL.VolumeV.I.F.Verify in Field VERT.Vestibule VeneerVerticalVEN. VEST. Vapor BarrierVB.VariesVAR. Underwriters LaboratoryU.L. Top of WallT.W. T.O.STL.T.O.S. T.O.P. Top of Parapet Top of ConcreteTop of CurbTop Of T.O.CONC.T.O.C.T.O. T.V.T.P.H.Toilet Paper DispenserTop of Wall Top of Plate T.P.D.T.O.W. T.O.PL. Toilet Paper HolderTelevision U.B.C.U.C. Under Counter TYP. Typical Uniform Building Code UrinalUnless Otherwise NotedUNF.U.O.N.UR. Unfinished ThickTH. T. & G. Tongue and Groove Top of Deck(ing)T.D.Top of Concrete Towel BarT.B.T.B.D.T.C.To Be Determined TemperedTelephoneTEMP.TEL. TreadT-24 Title 24 T. R. Precast PolishedPlumbing PairPanelPanel Module PlywoodPlasterPlastic Laminate PRCST. POL.PLBG. PR.PNL.P.M. P.LAM. PLYWD.PLAS. PointPT. Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Owner Furnished Contractor Installed PerpendicularPrecast ConcretePavingPaint PlatePaint Grade OunceOverheadOriented Strand BoardOpposite HandOpposite Overflow Drain Outside DiameterOn CenterOverall Not To ScaleNominalNumberNot In ContractNewNorth Opening Masonry Opening Middle MullionMounted MiscellaneousMirrorMinimum MicrowaveManhole Owner Furnished Owner InstalledOverflow Leader Overhead ManufacturerMetalMechanical, Electrical, PlumbingMembraneMechanicalMedium Density Fiber BoardMaximumMasonryMaterialMaintenanceMachineMillimeterMeter Low PointLocker Light FixtureLight LongLinear Foot Laboratory LavatoryLaminate Length Kick PlateKnockout JointJoist Junction BoxJanitor Include(d) (ing) Inside Diameter / Dimension Invert Inch IntermediateInteriorInsulationInformation Incandescent Hot water HourHandrail MET./MTL. PERP.P.C.PAV.P. PL.P.G. OZ.OVHD.OSBOPP. HD.OPP.OPNG.O.H.O.F.O.I.OFL.OFD.O.F.C.I.O.D.O.C.O.A. N.T.S.NOM.NO.N.I.C. N.(N) M.O. MID. MUL.MTD. MISC.MIRR.MIN. MIC.M.H.MFR. MEPMEMB.MECH.M.D.F.MAX.MAS.MAT.MAINT.MACH.MMM. LT.FIXT.LT.L.PT.LKR. LG.L.F. LAB. LAV.LAM. L. K.P.KO. J-BOX JT.JST.JAN. INV. INCL. IN. INTER.INT.INSUL.INFO. INCAN. I.D. H.W.H.V.A.C.HR.H.R. Ground Fault Circuit Interruption High Point HandrailHorizontal HeightHollow Metal Hardwood Hardboard HardwareHeader HandicappedHollow CoreHose Bib Hand Ground Glass Reinforced GypsumGlass Fiber Reinforced Concrete GradeGuard Rail Gypsum Board General NoteGlass GalvanizedGauge GeneralGarbage DisposalGeneral ContractorGrab Bar FutureFurringFootingFoot OR FeetFire TreatedFull SizeFire Retardant H.PT. HNDRL.HOR. HT.H.M. HDWD. HDBD. HDW.HDR. HCP.H.C.H.B. HD. GR.G.R. GYP. G.N.GND. GL.GRG.GFRCGFCI GALV.GA. GEN.G.D.G.C.G.B. FUT.FURR.FTG.FT.F.T.F.S.F.R. Corridor Face of Building Face of StudFace of FinishFace of ConcreteF.O.B. F.O.S.F.O.F.F.O.C. Factory MutualFluorescentFlashingFloorFixtureFinishFlat Head OR Full Height Floor Drain OR Fire DamperFoundation Fire Extinguisher CabinetFire Extinguisher Fire AlarmFabric Electro-static DissipativeElectrical Water CoolerExpansionExposedExistingExterior (elastic plastic flashing)Ethylene PolypropyleneElectrical Panelboard EngineerEnclosureEmergencyElevatorElectricalElevationExpansion JointExterior Insulation Finish System EquipmentEqual EachExistingEast Drawer Dimension PointDoor Demountable Double DispenserDimensionDiameterDrinking FountainDetailDepartment Door OpeningDownDoor Note Counter Control JointCast in PlaceCast IronCorner Guard Category ClearClosetCaulkingCeiling CeramicCement CabinetCarpet BasementBuilt-up RoofingBrickBearingBracketBottom DownspoutDrain DrawingsDrawingDishwasher BelowBoard Bottom OfBrick ModuleBeamBlockBuilding Asphalt Anchor Access PanelAluminumAggregate Architectural Above finished floorAdjacentAdjustableAdditionalAmericans W/ Disabilities Act Approximate Area Drain CountersunkCenter Curtain wall Ceramic TileCold Rolled Concrete Masonry Unit Carpet ContractorContinuousConstructionConcreteColumnCased Opening AcousticalAir ConditionAbove Automatic FM.FLUOR.FLASH.FL./FLR.FIXT.FIN.F.H.F.E.C.F.E.FND.F.D.F.A.F. EXST.EXT. EXP.EXPO. E.W.C.ESD EPDME.P. ENGR.ENCL.EMER.ELEV.ELEC.EL.E.J.E.I.F.S. EQPT.EQ. EA.(E)E. DS.DRN. DWR. D.P.DR. DMT. DBL. DIM.DISP. DIA.D.F.DET./DTL.DEPT. D.O.DN.D.N. CNTR. C.M.U. CLO.CLR. CLKG.CLG.C.J.C.I.P.C.I.C.G. CER.CEM.CBCCAT.CAB.C. BSMT.B.U.R.BRK.BRG.BRKT.BOT. DWGS.DWG.D.W. BEL.BD. B.O.B.M.BM.BLK.BLDG. AUTOASPH. ANCH. A.P.AL.AGGR. ARCH. ADJA.A.F.F. ADJ.ADDL.ADA APPROX. A.D. CTSK.CTR. CW. C.T.C.R.CPT.CORR. COL.C.O. CONTR.CONT.CONSTR.CONC. ACOUS.A/C.ABV. Property LineP Square FeetS.F.#Number or Pound »«PerpendicularParallel Plus or Minus± ¬ ABBREVIATIONS DiameterDegreesCopyrightCenterlineAtAngleAnd غ & © @ L Solid CoreSASM Cross-Laminated TimberCLT California Building Code Above Sea LevelA.S.L. L MidpointM.P. Glazed Aluminum Wall SystemGAWS EnvironmentalENV. Cold-Formed Metal FramingCFF ModuleMOD. A B INDICATES ROOM NAME INDICATES PARTITION TYPE INDICATES SHEET NUMBER INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER SUBGROUP INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM NAME & NUMBER WALL TAG INDICATES SHEET NUMBER INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER INDICATES SHEET NUMBER INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION SYMBOLS INDICATES ROOM NUMBER INDICATES ROOM AREA 1 A101 SIM INDICATES SHEET NUMBER INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER Room name101150 SF A B INDICATES DRAWING NUMBER SUBGROUP INDICATES PARTITION FIRE RATING STUD SIZE 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 1 A101 ADDITIONAL NOTE DETAIL KEY 1 1AB2 PROJECT ADDRESS:2775 EMBARCADERO WAY, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 SCOPE OF WORK: STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AS REQUIRED; RENOVATION OR REPLACEMENT OF EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS, FINISHES AND DECKING; RECONFIGURATION OF INTERIOR RESTROOMS TO MEET CURRENT CODE; REFINISHING OF EXISTING INTERIOR WOOD FLOORING. BUILDING DESCRIPTION: SMALL PUBLIC BUILDING, OF INTERLOCKING OCTAGONS IN PLAN, BUILT ABOVE THE BAY MARSH ON WOOD PILES AND WOOD BEAMS. GROSS BUILDING AREA:3,101 SF BOARDWALK AREA:2,394 SF CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE V-B - SPRINKLERED NUMBER OF STORIES:1 OCCUPANCY CLASS.:GROUP A-3 - COMMUNITY HALL / MUSEUM LIFE SAFETY:EXISTING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT HVAC:EXISTING HVAC SYSTEM ON ROOF PROJECT DATA GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE CODES, AMENDMENTS, RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, LAWS, ORDERS, APPROVALS, ETC., THAT ARE REQUIRED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT, THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL COMPLY. 2. CONTRACTOR TO FOLLOW MANUFACTURER’S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS AND INSTALLATION PROCEDURES. IF THESE ARE CONTRARY TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT, IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY, TO RESOLVE DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 3 “FURNISH” MEANS SUPPLY ONLY, FOR OWNER TO PUT IN PLACE. 4. “INSTALL” MEANS SUPPLIED BY OWNER, TO BE INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR. 5. “PROVIDE” MEANS FURNISH AND INSTALL, COMPLETE AND IN PLACE. 6. “SIMILAR” MEANS COMPARABLE CHARACTERISTICS FOR CONDITIONS NOTED. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION. 7. “TYPICAL” MEANS IDENTICAL FOR CONDITIONS NOTED. 8 DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, DIMENSIONS GOVERN. VERIFY DIMENSIONS WITH FIELD CONDITIONS, IF DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED BETWEEN FIELD CONDITIONS AND DRAWINGS OR BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL DRAWINGS, CONTACT THE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE PROCEEDING. 9. HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS INDICATED ARE TO/FROM FINISHED FACE OF CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT AS NOTED. 10. VERTICAL DIMENSIONS ARE FROM TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR, (A.F.F.). 11. IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN DATA SHOWN ON DRAWINGS AND DATA SHOWN IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL GOVERN. DIMENSIONS NOTED ON DRAWINGS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. DETAIL DRAWINGS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DRAWINGS OF SMALLER SCALE. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY TIME DISCOVER AN ERROR IN A DRAWING OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR A DISCREPANCY OR VARIATION BETWEEN DIMENSIONS ON DRAWINGS AND MEASUREMENTS AT SITE, OR LACK OF DIMENSIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION, HE/SHE SHALL REPORT AT ONCE TO THE ARCHITECT FOR CLARIFICATION AND SHALL NOT PROCEED WITH THE WORK AFFECTED UNTIL CLARIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS AT THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR AND SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL COORDINATE THE LAYOUT AND EXACT LOCATION OF ALL PARTITIONING, DOORS, ELECTRICAL/TELEPHONE OUTLETS, LIGHT SWITCHES AND THERMOSTATS WITH THE ARCHITECT IN THE FIELD BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUOUSLY CHECK ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL CLEARANCES FOR ACCESSIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT AND MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT NO CONFLICTS EXIST IN LOCATIONS OF ANY AND ALL MECHANICAL, TELEPHONE, ELECTRICAL, LIGHTING, PLUMBING, AND SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT (TO INCLUDE ALL PIPING, DUCT WORK AND CONDUIT) AND THAT ALL REQUIRED CLEARANCES FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ABOVE EQUIPMENT ARE PROVIDED. NO ALLOWANCE OF ANY KIND WILL BE MADE FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE TO NOTE UNFORESEEN MEANS OF INSTALLING EQUIPMENT INTO POSITION INSIDE STRUCTURE. 14. ALL WORK SHALL BE ERECTED AND INSTALLED PLUMB, LEVEL, SQUARE AND TRUE, AND IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. 15. COORDINATE AND PROVIDE APPROPRIATE STRUCTURAL BLOCKING/BACKING AND REINFORCING IN PARTITIONS BEHIND ALL WALL MOUNTED ITEMS. 16. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, FIELD CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS FOR ACCURACY AND CONFIRMING THAT WORK IS AS SHOWN BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING ANY CONFLICTS SHALL BE ACHIEVED PRIOR TO RELATED WORK BEING STARTED. 17. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT NO CONFLICTS EXIST IN LOCATIONS OF ANY AND ALL MECHANICAL, TELEPHONE, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT (TO INCLUDE ALL PRICING, DUCT WORK AND CONDUIT) AND THAT ALL REQUIRED CLEARANCES FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL ABOVE EQUIPMENT ARE PROVIDED. WHAT ELEMENTS ARE TO BE EXPOSED OR CONCEALED SHALL BE DETERMINED AND REVIEWED WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING. 18. IF AT ANY TIME BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, OR DURING PROCESS THEREOF, CONTRACTOR'S METHODS, EQUIPMENT OR APPLIANCES ARE INEFFICIENT OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR SECURING QUALITY OF WORK, OR RATE OF PROGRESS INTENDED BY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, CITY MAY ORDER CONTRACTOR TO IMPROVE THEIR QUALITY OR INCREASE THEIR EFFICIENCY. THIS WILL NOT RELIEVE CONTRACTOR OR HIS SURETIES FROM THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO SECURE QUALITY OF WORK AND RATE OF PROGRESS SPECIFIED IN CONTRACT. 19. LOUD ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THE USE OF JACKHAMMERS OR OTHER HEAVY POWER TOOLS THAT MAY DISTURB ADJACENT TENANTS IS PROHIBITED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00AM TO 7:00PM. N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO As indicated 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 3 2 P M 15.10 10/19/15 PROJECT INFORMATION G0.01 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G H 9 SAN FR ANCISQUITO CREEK TRAIL BOARDWALK (NIC) BOARDWALK GRAVEL PATH BOARDWALK (NON-OCCUPIED AREA) MARSH BELOW, TYP EXHIBITION ROOM LOUNGE INFORMATION LAB / LIBRARY OFFICE RESTROOM SUPPLIES JANITOR YOUTH WC WOMEN MEN JAN. STORAGE STORAGE N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/8" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 1 9 P M 15.10 10/19/15 SITE PLAN A1.00 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FD FD OFFICE WOMEN MEN LAB / LIBRARY EXHIBITION ROOM INFORMATION VENDING STORAGE STORAGE JAN. LOUNGE A B C D E F 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0"12' - 0" 6 0 . 0 0 ° T Y P ELECTRICAL PANEL MECH FLOOR GRILLE, TYP VIEWER - REMOVE AND RETAIN FOR POSSIBLE REINSTALLATION DRINKING FOUNTAIN BOARDWALK BOARDWALK (NON-OCCUPIED AREA) BOARDWALK (NON-OCCUPIED AREA) PUBLIC PAY PHONE THROUGH-WALL EXHAUST FANS HB VIEWER - REMOVE AND RETAIN FOR POSSIBLE REINSTALLATION BOARDWALK (CLOSED) N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 2 1 P M 15.10 10/19/15 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A1.21 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FD FD A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REMOVE (E) EXHIBIT EXHIBITION ROOM LOUNGE INFORMATION LAB / LIBRARY OFFICE WOMEN MENSTORAGE STORAGE VENDING REMOVE (E) DRINKING FOUNTAIN REMOVE PLUMBING FIXTURES, ACCESSORIES, LIGHTING, TILE REMOVE ALL (E) 2X3 BOARDWALK DECKING BOARDS REMOVE ALL (E) BOARDWALK FASCIA REMOVE (E) EXHAUST FANS REMOVE WOOD WALL FINISH IN RESTROOMS AND PROTECT / RETAIN FOR REINSTALLATION JAN. REMOVE TRIM BOARDS FROM FASCIA AT HIGH ROOF REMOVE (E) FLOOD LIGHTS & CONDUITS AT BEAM TOPS REMOVE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING AT ROOF STRUCTURE REMOVE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING AT VITRINE REMOVE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING AT ROOF STRUCTURE VIEWER - REMOVE AND RETAIN FOR POSSIBLE REINSTALLATION VIEWER - REMOVE AND RETAIN FOR POSSIBLE REINSTALLATION PAY PHONE - PROTECT IN PLACE N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 3 3 P M 15.10 10/19/15 FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN A1.22 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY, TYP - PROTECT IN PLACE 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0"12' - 0" 6 0 ° T Y P OPEN 4X4 ROOF STRUCTURE, TYP.EXPOSED BEAM WITH METAL CAP, TYP BUILT-UP ROOF (E) 2" VENT STACK (E) SPRINKLER MAIN BUILT UP ROOF BUILT UP ROOF ROOF DRAIN ROOF DRAIN ROOF DRAIN ROOF DRAIN BUILDING OUTLINE BELOW WOOD STRUCTURE, TYP N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 3 4 P M 15.10 10/19/15 EXISTING ROOF PLAN A1.23 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 UNDER-DECK & ROOF SURVEYSCHEMATIC DESIGN ADDENDUM 08/26/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FD FD A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8UP TO BLDG 6" F W 1.5" SPRINKLER APPROXIMATE (E) SPRINKLER HEAD AND MAIN LOCATIONS UP TO BLDG 6" F W 1.5" SPRINKLER CO 2" V HB 2" W UP 2"W4"SS CO CO 1" W 1" W UP CO 3" SS DF WCLAV WCLAV FD FD LAV WCUR 1" W 2" W 1" W UP HWH 2" W DN 4" S S JAN 2" S S 1" W UP LAV 1" W DN LINE APPEARS TO SUPPLY HOT WATER FROM HWH TO KITCHEN SINK - VERIFY IN FIELD LEGEND (E) FIRE MAIN OR SPRINKLER LINE (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM (E) SPRINKLER HEAD (E) SANITARY SEWER PIPING (E) WATER PIPING G H N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 3 6 P M 15.10 10/19/15 EXISTING REFLECTED UNDER-DECK PLAN A1.30 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXISTING REFLECTED UNDER DECK PLAN No. Description Date UNDER-DECK & ROOF SURVEYSCHEMATIC DESIGN ADDENDUM 08/26/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1A EXISTING REFLECTED UNDER DECK PLAN AT BRIDGE AREA A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOW ROOF HIGH ROOF HIGH ROOF EXTERIOR FLOOD LIGHT, TYP. EXTERIOR WHITE LIGHT FIXTURE EXTERIOR CYLINDER DOWNLIGHT FIXTURE, TYP SPRINKLER HEAD, TYP - VERIFY LOCATIONS AND OPERABILITY ABANDONED, OPEN HOLE EXPOSED WIRING UP TO WEATHER STATION GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING, SURFACE FASTENED IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING, SURFACE FASTENED ABOVE VITRINE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING, SURFACE FASTENED IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS EXTERIOR FLOOD LIGHT MOUNTED ATOP BEAM EXP EXP EXP EXP EXISTING REFLECTED CEILING PLAN LEGEND SHEET NOTES 1. EXTERIOR CONDUIT RUNS EXPOSED, TYP AT ALL EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 2. SPRINKLER PIPING RUNS EXPOSED. TYP AT ALL SPRINKLER LINES (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM LEGEND N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 2 : 5 0 P M 15.10 10/19/15 EXISTING REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A1.31 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LOW ROOF HIGH ROOF HIGH ROOF REMOVE AND RETAIN EXTERIOR FLOOD LIGHT FOR POSSIBLE REINSTALLATION REMOVE EXTERIOR DOWNLIGHT FIXTURES, TYP REMOVE SPRINKLER HEAD, TYP REMOVE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING REMOVE EXTERIOR FLOOD LIGHTS EXP EXP EXP EXP REMOVE GALVANIZED METAL MESH SCREENING REMOVE DIAGONAL WOOD CLADDING FROM TIMBER FASCIA, TYP. AROUND ROOF PERIMETER REMOVE BIRD NETTING / SCREENING EXISTING REFLECTED CEILING PLAN LEGEND SHEET NOTES 1. EXTERIOR CONDUIT RUNS EXPOSED, TYP AT ALL EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES 2. SPRINKLER PIPING RUNS EXPOSED. TYP AT ALL SPRINKLER LINES (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM LEGEND N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 0 4 P M 15.10 10/19/15 CEILING DEMOLITION PLAN A1.32 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FDFDFD A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LAB / LIBRARY EXHIBITION ROOM VENDING STORAGE STORAGE LOUNGE A9.101 A7.11 A A7.11 B A7.11 C A7.11 D A7.11 E-1 A7.11 F A7.11 G A7.11 H A7.11 E-2 REPLACE ALL (E) STEEL PICKET RAILINGS WITH WOOD GUARDRAIL (EXCEPT WHERE NOTED AS GLASS VISION PANEL) REPLACE FLASHING & SIDING @ VITRINE REPLACE ALL (E) WOOD SIDING REPLACE (E) 2X3 BOARDWALK DECKING BOARDS 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 60 ' - 0 " 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 7' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 62 ' - 0 " REPLACE ALL (E) BOARDWALK FASCIA, TYP PATCH WITH SIDING (E) EXHAUST FAN OPENINGS 7' - 0" 2' - 0" A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.207 SIM A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.20 7 A10.207 SIM SIM SIM A10.20 7 SIM A10.207 SIM 3 A10.20 TYP 3 A10.20 TYP 3 A10.20 TYP 3 A10.20 TYP 3 A10.20 TYP INFORMATION OFFICE JAN. MENWOMEN YOUTH WC RESTROOM SUPPLIESJANITOR REFINISH (E) INTERIOR WOOD FLOORING THROUGHOUT - SEE A5.01 FOR FINISHES AND NOTES ON RESTROOM FLOORING 2 A7.01 1 A7.01 OPENING IN DECKING - BEAMS BELOW TO REMAIN (N) WOOD RAILING AROUND OPENING OPENING IN DECKING - BEAMS BELOW TO REMAIN (N) WOOD RAILING AROUND OPENING STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 1: USE SIKADUR 35M HI-MOD LV OR EQUIVALENT TO FILL ¼” OR GREATER CRACKS - TYP AT ALL SPLIT COLUMN CRACK LOCATIONS, VERIFY IN FIELD STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 4: REPLACE DECKING MEMBERS - PROVIDE NAILING FOR EXISTING OR REPLACED DECKING TO FLOOR FRAMING - TYP AT ALL EXTERIOR DECKING GLASS VISION PANEL AT CENTER SECTION OF RAILING GLASS VISION PANEL AT CENTER SECTION OF RAILING GLASS VISION PANEL AT CENTER SECTION OF RAILING DRINKING FOUNTAIN: ELKAYBI-LEVEL TUBULAR OUTDOOR WITH BOTTLE FILLING STATION LK4420BF BOARDWALK (CLOSED) PLAN LEGEND (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM SHEET NOTES 1. SEE G0.1 FOR GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS. 2. FOR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEMS, REFER TO DOCUMENT "STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT" BY HOLMES CULLEY DATED JULY 28, 2015 LEGEND N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 0 7 P M 15.10 10/19/15 PARTITION PLAN A2.01 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EF-1 EF-2 EF-3 (N) EXHAUST FAN, TYP REUSE (E) VENT STACK LOCATIONS FOR (N) RESTROOM FIXTURES EF-4 2 A7.01 1 A7.01 6 A10.20 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 3: STRENGTHEN ROOF CONNECTION - VERIFY OR INSTALL POSITIVE CONNECTION BETWEEN ROOF JOISTS AND GIRDERS - TYP AT ALL JOIST/GIRDER CONNECTIONS, VERIFY IN FIELD STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 5: PROTECT EXPOSED GLBS - TREAT EXPOSED ENDS OF ROOF GLBS WITH K-7067 PFP CLEAR SEALER OR EQUIVALENT - TYP AT ALL BEAM ENDS, VERIFY IN FIELD REMOVE AND REPLACE HIGH ROOF FASCIA BOARD WHERE SPLIT AND DAMAGED ROOF PLAN LEGEND (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM SHEET NOTES 1. SEE G0.1 FOR GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS. 2.FOR STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEMS, REFER TO DOCUMENT "STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORT" BY HOLMES CULLEY DATED JULY 28, 2015 3. AT HIGH ROOF: SAND, PRIME & PAINT (E) 4X16 FASCIA BD, TYP (APPROX. 115 LF), TYP. U.O.N. 4. AT LOW ROOF: REMOVE AND REPLACE 1X10 FASCIA BD, TYP (APPROX. 200 LF), TYP. U.O.N. LEGEND P-2 P-2 N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 0 7 P M 15.10 10/19/15 ROOF PLAN A2.02 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FDFDFD A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 1: USE SIKADUR 35M HI-MOD LV OR EQUIVALENT TO FILL ¼” OR GREATER CRACKS - TYP AT ALL SPLIT COLUMN CRACK LOCATIONS, VERIFY IN FIELD STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 2: STRENGTHEN FLOOR CONNECTION - INSTALL SIMPSON LTP5 PLATES ALONG EXISTING BLOCKING TO PROVIDE POSITIVE SHEAR TRANSFER - TYP AT ALL BLOCKING/GIRDER CONNECTIONS, VERIFY IN FIELD STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 6: REPLACE DETERIORATED MEP SUPPORTS BELOW DECK - TYP AT ALL PIPING, VERIFY IN FIELD STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE ITEM 7: PROTECT EXPOSED SAWN LUMBER - TREAT EXPOSED ENDS OF SAWN LUMBER WITH K-7067 PFP CLEAR SEALER OR EQUIVALENT - TYP AT ALL MEMBER ENDS, VERIFY IN FIELD UP TO BLDG 6" F W 1.5" SPRINKLER APPROXIMATE (E) SPRINKLER HEAD AND MAIN LOCATIONS UP TO BLDG 6" F W 1.5" SPRINKLER HB2"W NEW 4"SS TO REPLACE (E) - VERIFY SLOPES CO CO 1" W 1" W UP 1" W UP HWH JAN 2" S S 1" W UP LAV 1" W DN INSULATE ALL HOT WATER SUPPLY PIPING, TYP NEW WATER AND SEWER PIPING PER PROPOSED RESTROOM LAYOUT NEW 4"SS TO REPLACE (E) - VERIFY SLOPES NEW WATER LINE CONNECT HB TO NEW WATER LINE CONNECT HWH AND JANITOR SINK TO NEW PIPING UNDER-DECK REFLECTED CEILING PLAN LEGEND (E) FIRE MAIN OR SPRINKLER LINE (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM (E) SPRINKLER HEAD SHEET NOTES 1. SEE G0.1 FOR GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS. 2. SPRINKLERS SHOWN ARE EXISTING. VERIFY LOCATIONS AND REPLACE HEADS. 3. REPLACE ALL BROKEN OR DETERIORATED CLEVISES AND HANGERS AT PIPING AND CONDUIT, TYP. 4. REPLACE ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT SECTIONS THAT ARE BROKEN OR REPAIRED WITH ELECTRICAL TAPE, TYP. 5. REPLACE SANITARY SEWER PIPING FROM RESTROOMS BACK TO MAIN NEAR GRIDLINE E. VERIFY SLOPES. LEGEND (E) SANITARY SEWER PIPING (E) WATER PIPING N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 0 8 P M 15.10 10/19/15 REFLECTED UNDER- DECK PLAN A3.00 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 UNDER-DECK & ROOF SURVEYSCHEMATIC DESIGN ADDENDUM 08/26/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1XF-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-1X F-2 F- 2 A F- 2 A F- 2 A F- 2 F- 2 F-3 F-3 F-2AF-2A F-2A F-4 F-2 F-2A F-3 F-1 F-4 A B C D E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LAB / LIBRARY EXHIBITION ROOM VENDING STORAGE STORAGE LOUNGE OFFICE JAN. INFORMATION 8' - 0" 8' - 0" EXP EXPEXP 13" 30" 30" 23" EF EFEF CLG-1CLG-1 8' - 0" REPAIR OPEN HOLE IN ROOF WOMEN MENYOUTH WC RESTROOM JANITOR SUPPLIESCLG-1 8' - 0" RETAIN HEADER ABOVE (E) RESTROOM DOORS EXP EXP EXP INSTALL WOOD SWALLOW HABITAT BOXES AT BEAM OR SOFFIT, TYP 6 A10.20 WD-3 WD-3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN LEGEND SPRINKLER (E) SPRINKLER LINE EXTERIOR WOOD SOFFIT PANEL (E) STRUCTURAL BEAM RESTROOM EXHAUST CEILING GRILLE (E) SPRINKLER EUREKA "MOONRISE PLUS" 35" SUSPENDED SHEET NOTES 1. SEE G0.1 FOR GENERAL NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS. 2. SPRINKLERS SHOWN ARE EXISTING. VERIFY LOCATIONS AND FUNCTIONALITY. REPLACE HEADS AS REQUIRED. 3. RESTROOM EXHAUST FAN MUST BE ENERGY STAR RATED, DUCTED TO OUTSIDE, AND CONTROLLED BY HUMIDISTAT CAPABLE OF ADJUSTMENT TO A RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF LESS THAN 50 TO MAXIMUM OF 80%. 4. REUSE (E) LIGHTING CONDUITS WHERE (E) FIXTURES ARE REPLACED. PAINT CONDUIT TO MATCH TRIM. CLG-1 RESTROOM EXHAUST FAN WALL GRILLE LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE EF INTERIOR WOOD SOFFIT OVER METAL STUD FRAMING EUREKA "MOONRISE PLUS" 23" WALL-MTD COOPER METALUX STRIP 24" NAUTILUX NT640C REBELLE STREAMLINE 6003 LED LEGEND (E) EXPOSED 4X4 WOOD CEILINGEXP WD-1 P-2 P-4 N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 0 P M 15.10 10/19/15 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A3.01 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FDFDFD C D 6 7 8 REMOVE BATHROOM TILE WHERE OCCURS, REFINISH WD FLOORING BELOW (APPROX. 150 SF) AT SOFFIT AT WALL OPENING, TYP CT-1 CT-1 CT-1 WD-2 WD-2 SS-1SS-1 SS-1 WD-1 CT-3 (TO 48" A.F.F.) MENWOMEN YOUTH WC RESTROOM SUPPLIESJANITOR CT-2CT-2 CT-3 (TO 48" A.F.F.) WD-1 WD-1 CT-3 (TO 48" A.F.F.) CT-2 CT-3 P-1 P-1 WD-1 U.O.N. CT-3 REFINISH WD FLOORING THROUGHOUT INTERIOR, TYP CT-2CT-2 FINISH TAG FINISH TYPE FINISH NUMBER FINISH LEGEND CEILING SOLID SURFACING CLG-1 DESCRIPTION STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS --- WOOD FINISH ON METAL FRAMING --- TO MATCH (E) INTERIOR WOOD WALL FINISH --- REUSE REMOVED / RETAINED WOOD FINISH IF POSSIBLE SS-1 --- SOLID SURFACING --- --- --- HORIZONTAL SURFACES ABOVE LOW WALLS BEHIND TOILETS CLG-1 CERAMIC TILE CT-1 --- PORCELAIN FLOOR TILE AND COVED BASE TILE --- DAL TILE --- 12"X12" --- AT MEN, WOMEN AND WC PAINT P-1 --- INTERIOR PAINT --- --- WHITE; ZERO-VOC FORMULA --- TYPICAL AT INTERIOR GYP BD SURFACES, U.O.N. DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS CT-2 --- CERAMIC WALL TILE --- DAL TILE --- FIELD COLOR --- FULL HEIGHT IN MEN, WOMEN & WC DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS CT-4 --- CERAMIC WALL TILE --- DAL TILE --- MOSAIC - CUSTOM MURAL --- AT WALL ABOVE TROUGH SINK DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS WOOD WD-1 --- EXISTING INTERIOR WOOD WALL FINISH --- --- --- RELOCATED / CLEANED AS REQUIRED DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS WD-2 --- CLEAR HEART REDWOOD WITH TRANSPARENT INTERIOR FINISH --- --- --- INTERIOR TRIM DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS P-2 --- EXTERIOR WOOD TRANSPARENT TINTED STAIN / SEALER --- --- MARINE-GRADE TRANSPARENT STAIN / SEALER --- TYPICAL AT EXTERIOR WOOD SIDING, WALL TRIM & SOFFIT BOARDS DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS P-3 --- EXTERIOR WOOD PAINT --- --- MARINE-GRADE PAINT --- TYPICAL AT EXTERIOR ROOF STRUCTURE AND FASCIA DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS WD-3 --- CLEAR HEART REDWOOD --- --- --- EXTERIOR SIDING, SOFFITS AND RAILINGS DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS WD-4 --- IPE OR TEAK, SEALED --- --- --- EXTERIOR DECKING DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS CT-3 --- CERAMIC WALL TILE --- DAL TILE --- ACCENT COLOR --- AT LOW WALLS BEHIND TOILETS DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS P-4 --- EXTERIOR METAL PAINT --- --- MARINE-GRADE PAINT --- TYPICAL AT EXPOSED CONDUIT & SPRINKLER PIPING DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS P-5 --- INTERIOR TRIM PAINT --- --- SEMI-GLOOS --- RESTROOM DOORS & FRAMES DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER STYLE/MODEL COMMENTS N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO As indicated 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 3 P M 15.10 10/19/15 FINISH PLAN AND SCHEDULE A5.01 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 RESTROOM FINISH PLAN No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" 540 SF INFORMATION 157 SF RESTROOM 1020 SF EXHIBITION ROOM LEVEL 1 0' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" A B C D E F G H 540 SF INFORMATION 1020 SF EXHIBITION ROOM BRIDGE AREA N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 3 P M 15.10 10/19/15 BUILDING SECTIONS A7.01 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EAST-WEST BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 NORTH-SOUTH BUILDING SECTION No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 160 SF REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP 10 ' - 6 " (E) METAL SIGN - CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE & RETAIN FOR REINSTALLATION P-2 REMOVE (E) FASCIA SIDING, SAND & PAINT FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-3 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 285 SF 10 ' - 6 " REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP PAINT (E) PLYWOOD PANELLING, TYP 2 A7.01 P-3 P-2 REMOVE (E) FASCIA SIDING, SAND & PAINT FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-3 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 230 SF REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP 10 ' - 6 " REMOVE (E) FASCIA SIDING, SAND & PAINT FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-3 P-2 LEVEL 10' - 0" HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE (E) WIRE CAGE. ADD (N) SLOPED ROOF & SIDING @ VITRINE REPLACE (E) SIDING & FLASHING @ VITRINE REMOVE (E) FASCIA SIDING, SAND & PAINT FASCIA BOARD, TYP REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX 155 SF P-2 P-3 P-2 P-2 LEVEL 10' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" PAINT (E) PLYWOOD SILL REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX 130 SF REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP SAND & PAINT (E) FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-2 P-3 P-3 LEVEL 10' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 40 SF REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP P-2 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX 185 SF REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP SAND & PAINT (E) FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-3 P-2 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 145 SF SAND & PAINT (E) FASCIA BOARD, TYP P-2 P-3 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" REPLACE FLASHING @ BATTERED JOINTS, TYP REMOVE & REPLACE (E) SIDING WITH (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING. APPROX. 45 SF P-2 N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/4" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 7 P M 15.10 10/19/15 ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7.11 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A EXTERION ELEVATION - A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" B EXTERIOR ELEVATION - B SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" C EXTERIOR ELEVATION - C SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" D EXTERIOR ELEVATION - D SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" E-1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - E-1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" E-2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - E-2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" F EXTERIOR ELEVATION - F SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" G EXTERIOR ELEVATION - G SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" H EXTERIOR ELEVATION - H No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 FDFDFD C D 6 7 8 A7.11 G 163 SF OFFICE A9.113 1 2 A9.10 3 60"X59" 48" MIN 30 " X 4 8 " 30 " X 4 8 " 30 " X 4 8 " 30 " X 4 8 " 34 1/2" 18" MAX 17 " M I N 18" MAX 17" MIN 60 1 / 2 " 60 " X 5 9 " 48" MIN 4" 12" MIN 17" 87" EQ EQ 20 " 30" MIN 31" EQ EQ 76 3 / 8 " 11" 14" 11" 16" 28" 16" D=60" D=60" D=60" 32" MIN CLR 34 1/4" 32" MIN CLR 34 1/4" 36" 60" YOUTH TROUGH SINK: EKO EKORS-COM36 TOP AT 28", SEE ADA ACCESS BOARD ONGOING DEBATES METERED FAUCETS: AMERICAN STANDARD 1340M.105 HAND DRYERS: DYSON AIRBLADE V FLOOR DRAIN IN EACH WC - COORDINATE LOCATIONS WITH EXISTING PIPING 9 0 ° WC IN WOMEN & MEN: AMERICAN STANDARD MADERA 3461.160; SLOAN SOLIS FLUSHOMETER VALVE SINGLE FLUSH 8111-1.6-SF SOLAR POWERED WITH BATTERY BACKUP WC (SEE CBC TABLE 11B-604.9): AMERICAN STANDARD MADERA YOUTH FLOWISE 14" HEIGHT ELONGATED FLUSHOMETER TOILET; SLOAN SOLIS FLUSHOMETER VALVE SINGLE FLUSH 8111-1.6- SF SOLAR POWERED WITH BATTERY BACKUP DRINKING FOUNTAIN WITH BOTTLE FILLING STATION: ELKAY ADA LZWS-EDFPBM117K 15" 25" 73 1 / 4 " URINAL: ZURN Z5798.206.00 "THE PINT" 1/8 GPF, ECOVANTAGE, HARDWIRED ULTRA LOW CONSUMPTION URINAL SYSTEM 12" MIN 17 1/2" 6 1 / 2 " CHANGING STATION IN WOMEN & MEN: KOALA KARE KB100-ST HORIZONTAL RECESSED MOUNTED 30 " X 4 8 " LAVATORY IN WOMEN & MEN: AMERICAN STANDARD ADA LUCERNE 0355.012 WALL-HUNG LAVATORY; METERED FAUCETS: AMERICAN STANDARD 1340M.105 LINE OF (E) WALL / CEILING TRANSITION SHELF @ 48" AFF SHELF @ 48" AFF SHELF @ 48" AFF 30"X48" 28 1/4" 18 SF YOUTH WC 40 SF WOMEN 45 SF MEN 5 SF SUPPLIES 8 SF JANITOR 157 SF RESTROOM NEW ELECTRICAL PANEL TO BE INSTALLED IN CURRENT PANEL LOCATION 18 SF JAN. 540 SF INFORMATION WOOD SHELVING IN STORAGE - 18" HIGH VERTICAL SPACING, FULL-HEIGHT 1/2" CW OUTLET BELOW COUNTER 60" TROUGH SINK: EKO EKORS-COM60 TOP AT 34" AT LAVATORIES: SOAP DISPENSERS - BOBRICK B-822 (TOTAL OF 5) 6" 60" MIN CLR 60" MOP SERVICE BASIN - ZURN Z-1996-24 WOOD SHELVING IN STORAGE - 18" HIGH VERTICAL SPACING, FULL-HEIGHT ACCESSIBLE & STANDARD LAVATORY HAND DRYER LV-1 38 " ( 4 0 " M A X . ) TA-7 9" M I N . 6" MAX. 26" MAX. 29 " M I N . 27 " M I N . 8" MIN. LV-1 CLR. KNEE & TOE SPACE TA-HD 30 1 / 2 " M A X . TO B . O . O F RE F L E C T I V E SU R F A C E TO O P E R A B L E PA R T S ACCESSIBLE TOILET STANDARD TOILET ACCESSIBLE TOILET NOTES: 1. FLUSH CONTROL 44" MAX FROM F.F. @ WIDE SIDE 2. FLUSH CONTROL FORCE 5 POUND MAX 3. FLUSH CONTROL SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING OR TWISTING 4. TOILET SEAT SHALL BE A MAX. OF 2" HIGH. TA-1 @ MEN FINISH FLOOR TA-3 @ WOMEN 19 " WC-1 19 " M A X / 17 " M I N 42" 6 3/4" 36" 19 " 24" 7"-9" 12" MAX. TA-6B TA-6A 19 " 33 " 36"6" 18" MAX 17" MIN WC-1 15 " TA-2 @ MEN TA-4 @ WOMEN NOTE: THESE ELEVATIONS ARE INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY 29 " M I N 34 " M A X LV-2 @ TROUGH SINK LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" EXPOSED (E) BEAM WHERE OCCURS (E) INTERIOR WOOD FINISH (PATCH IN SALVAGED / REPLACED FINISH BOARDS WHERE REQUIRED) WD-1 CT-1 N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO As indicated 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 9 P M 15.10 10/19/15 RESTROOM ENLARGED PLAN & INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9.10 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 RESTROOM ENLARGED PLAN No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 2 FIXTURES, ACCESSORIES & MOUNTING HEIGHTS, TYP. SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 RESTROOM TO BACK WALL LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" DF-1 CT-1 WD-1 CT-3 WD-2 LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF 8' - 10" LV-2 CT-1 CT-3 LV-3 CT-3 TA-HD TA-HD LEVEL 1 0' - 0" LOW ROOF8' - 10" D TA-HD OPEN TO INFORMATION AREA BEYOND LV-3 CT-1 CT-2 (E) WD COLUMN EXPOSED (E) BEAM WHERE OCCURS LV-2 N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO 1/2" = 1'-0" 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 2 9 P M 15.10 10/19/15 RESTROOM INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9.11 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO No. Description Date PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 RESTROOM TO NORTH SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 RESTROOM TO TROUGH SINK SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 RESTROOM TO WEST (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING @ SOFFIT, SEE RCP (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING (N) GSM FLASHING (N) GSM FLASHING PAINT EXPOSED PLYWOOD PANEL, BATTENS & 4X4 TRELLIS, TYP REMOVE (E) SIDING, 2X6 & WD CANT STRIPS, SAND & PAINT (E) 4X16 FASCIA BOARD ALL SIDES (E) SPRINKLER, WHERE OCCURS. REPLACE HEAD AND PROVIDE ESCUTCHEON 1X PTD TRIM @ SOFFIT EDGE PAINT (E) COPING, TYP P-3 1/ 2 " P-2 P-3 P-3 P-2 P-3 NOTE: (E) CONDITION DIFFERS FROM ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ~ 4 1 . 5 " V . I . F . T.O. (E) DECK T.O. (E) RAILING (N) PT WD SHIM PAINT (E) WD CAP (N) WOOD RAILING (N) WD BOARDWALK SAND, PRIME & PAINT OUTSIDE FACE OF (E) WD FASCIA 42 " M I N . (N) PTD GSM COPING, SLOPED TO DECK 6" 1" NOTE: BOARDWALK CONTAINS APPROX 215 LF OF RAILING T.O. (E) DECK VARIES (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING, TYP (N) SLOPED PTD WD CAP (N) WD SUPPORT FRAME (N) 2X3 WOOD DECK (N) PTD 1.5" STD STEEL PIPE GRAPHIC SUPPORT V.I.F. 4" MAX V.I.F. 4" MAX 0' - 1 3 / 8 " 1' - 4 " V . I . F . VARIES EQ EQ (N) PTD 1.5" STD STEEL PIPE GRAPHIC SUPPORT EXHIBIT SUPPORT (BY OTHERS) TO ACCOMMODATE VERTICAL DISPLAY PANEL (N) 1X6 REDWOOD SHIPLAP SIDING, TYP (N) WD SUPPORT FRAME PTD STEEL SUPPORT BRACKETS, ANCHORED TO RAIL SUPPORT FRAME (N) PTD STEEL SUPPORT BRACKETS, ANCHORED TO RAIL SUPPORT FRAME BOARDWALK BAY SECTION PLAN 12" 1" MIN. 42" ABOVE DECK EQ EQ (N) PTD GSM COPING W/ HEMMED EDGE P-3 P-3 P-2 P-4 P-4 P-4 P-2 TYP HIGH ROOF 12' - 3" ARTIFICIAL BIRD HABITAT VARIES (E) BEAM A10.20 4 SIM N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO As indicated 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 3 0 P M 15.10 10/19/15 DETAILS - EXTERIOR WALL A10.20 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 BATTERED WALL - EXISTING (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 BATTERED WALL ALTERATIONS SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 3 RAILING CAP DETAIL SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 7 RAILING SUPPORT DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 6 SECTION AT SWALLOW HABITAT No. Description Date SCHEMATIC PRICING SET 07/28/15 SCHEMATIC DESIGN 08/18/15 PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 TYPE A - FLUSH PANEL DOORA SEE SCHED. SE E S C H E D . DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 08710 FOR HARDWARE GROUPS. SEE FINISH SCHEDULE ON A5.01. MAXIMUM EFFORT TO OPERATE INTERIOR DOORS SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 POUNDS. TYPICAL JAMB DIMENSION IS 4" FROM ADJACENT PARTITION U.O.N. WIDTH / HEIGHT DIMENSIONS ARE LEAF OPENING SIZE. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. N SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE 8106 TERRACE DRIVE, EL CERRITO, CA 94530 707.297.6185 www.fogprojects.com STAMP CONSULTANT LOGO As indicated 10 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 5 2 : 4 3 : 3 0 P M 15.10 10/19/15 DOOR SCHEDULE & DETAILS A12.00 LUCY EVANS BAYLANDS INTERPRETIVE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO DOOR FRAME NOTESROOM NAME TYPE MAT'L FIN. WIDTH HT. THK. MAT'L FIN. HDW. GROUP MEN A SOLID CORE WOOD PAINT 3' - 0"7' - 0" 0' - 1 3/4" WOOD PAINT WOMEN A SOLID CORE WOOD PAINT 3' - 0" 7' - 0" 0' - 1 3/4" WOOD PAINT YOUTH WC A SOLID CORE WOOD PAINT 2' - 6" 7' - 0" 0' - 1 3/4" WOOD PAINT JANITOR A SOLID CORE WOOD PAINT 2' - 4" 7' - 0" 0' - 1 3/4" WOOD PAINT SUPPLIES A SOLID CORE WOOD PAINT 2' - 0" 7' - 0" 0' - 1 3/4" WOOD PAINT DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR TYPES No. Description Date PRC REVIEW SET 10/19/15 Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2015\15041.10\WP\15041.10SE0714.001.DOC Project No: 15041.10 i Date: 7/28/15 Interpretive Center Executive Summary Holmes Culley has been engaged to perform a structural evaluation of the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center in Palo Alto, CA. The scope of work for this project is: visual observation of the existing conditions, review of existing architectural and structural plans, quantitative analysis of the structure, and recommendations as to future improvement of the structure. It is our understanding that the building will remain in the same occupancy group and that no change in Risk Category is planned or anticipated. Any repairs or replacements made to the building will be similar to the existing features. None of the proposed work is anticipated to result in an increase in design gravity load by more than 5 percent, nor an increase in seismic demand-capacity ratio of more than 10 percent. No mandatory strengthening measures are required per chapter 34 of the California Building Code. We have reviewed the supplied original drawings and completed a site investigation of the existing hexagonal shaped building which was built in 1968. The Low Roof is framed with 6x10 solid sawn lumber girders along diagonal structural grid lines and the High Roof High Roof is framed with 7”x21- 1/8” Glu-Lam girders. Both roof areas are supported by cantilevered timber column piles with a diaphragm assembly of ½” plywood sheathing over 4x4 joists spaced at 8” on center. The floor deck diaphragm is composed of solid 2x3 decking slats over a system of either 3x12 or 4x12 pressure treated sawn lumber joists typically spaced at 3’-6” on center. The floor joists span between double 4x14 pressure treated solid sawn lumber girders which are bolted to the column piles. Generally, the building is in good condition and appears to have been well maintained with the exceptions of minor deterioration of the exterior ends of a select amount of Glu-Lams at the High Roof. Also between the floor deck and roof, various columns showed splitting along their length, as much as 1” wide. At the roof, the connection between the 4x4 joists and the girders could not be determined from the supplied drawings nor the preliminary building investigation. It is unclear if a positive connection exists between the floor decking and the joists. Pressure treatment incising marks were seen on the members as well as evidence that the treatment preservative, most likely copper based, is leaching out of the floor framing causing a teal discoloration. There was no evidence of dry rot observed at the floor framing. At some exposed ends of the 4x14 girders minor splitting was observed. We have undertaken limited lateral seismic analysis of the primary force resisting elements, mainly the timber cantilevered column piles. Based on various assumptions made about the structure, typically the cantilevered wood piles satisfy current lateral load requirements; there are some areas of uncertainty at the worst case locations. If the client chooses to study all pile capacities in greater detail, a geotechnical engineer can provide further investigation on soil parameters. There are no mandatory upgrade required, however there are some repairs and voluntary improvements that we recommend to improve the longevity of the structure. Those recommended repairs can be found in Table ES.1 and the related sketches in the Appendix. ATTCHMENT B Interpretive Center Executive Summary of Structural Repairs and Boardwalk Draft Structural Concept Sketches Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center File:H:\#HC_SFO.STR\2015\15041.10\WP\15041.10SE0714.001.DOC Project No: 15041.10 ii Date: 7/28/15 Table ES.1: List of Recommendations NUMBER RECOMMENDATION DETAIL(S) DESCRIPTION 1 Epoxy Injection @ Split Columns Use Sikadur 35m Hi-Mod LV or equivalent to fill ¼” or greater cracks. 2 Strengthen Floor Connection SK-B Install Simpson LTP5 plates along existing blocking to provide positive shear transfer. 3 Strengthen Roof Connection SK-C1, SK-C2 Verify or install positive connection between roof joists and girders. 4 Replace Decking Members Provide nailing for existing and replaced decking to floor framing. 5 Protect Exposed GLBs Treat exposed ends of roof GLBs with K- 7067 PFP Clear Sealer or equivalent. 6 Replace MEP Supports Replace deteriorated MEP supports below the deck. 7 Additional Wood Protection Treat sawn lumber member similar to GLBs Repair Option •Conduct Limited Repairs to Provide Limited Public Access Until Full Rehabilitation / Replacement •Open: Nature Center to First Overlook Platform (approx. 200 ft.) •Closed: Beyond First Overlook •Key Advantages/Challenges: •ADA Compliance: Match Existing •Sea Level Rise: Not Addressed •Design Life: Approx. 3-5 years •Construction Costs: Low Cost •Maintenance Costs: Similar to Exist •Const. Duration: Approx. 1-2 months Boardwalk Draft Structure Sketches Rehabilitation Option 1 •Utilizes Temporary Support System to Support Exist Structure While Failed Substructure is Replaced •Key Challenges: •ADA Compliance: Difficult to Meet Current Standards •Sea Level Rise: Difficult to Raise Exist Deck Level •Design Life: Approx. 25-50 years •Construction Costs: Similar to Full Replacement Costs •Maintenance Costs: Similar to Exist •Const. Duration: approx. 1-2 years Rehabilitation Option 2 •Constructs a New Support System Outboard of Existing Support System and Boardwalk Decking •Key Challenges •ADA Compliance: Difficult to Meet Current Standards •Sea Level Rise: Less Difficult than Option 1 to Raise Exist Deck Level •Design Life: Approx. 25-50 years •Construction Costs: Similar to Full Replacement Costs •Maintenance Costs: Similar to Exist •Const. Duration: Approx. 1-2 years Replacement Option 1 •Replaces Existing Boardwalk with New Timber Boardwalk with Timber Plank Decking with Either Timber or Steel Supports •Key Advantages •ADA Compliance: Fully Compliant •Sea Level Rise: Deck Elev. Raised •Design Life: Approx. 50-75 years •Construction Costs: Similar to Rehabilitation Costs •Maintenance Costs: Less than Exist •Const. Duration: Approx. 1-2 years Replacement Option 2 •Replaces Existing Boardwalk with New Timber Boardwalk with Timber Stringer and Decking with Either Timber or Steel Supports •Key Advantages •ADA Compliance: Fully Compliant •Sea Level Rise: Deck Elev. Raised •Design Life: Approx. 50-75 years •Construction Costs: Similar to Rehabilitation Costs •Maintenance Costs: Less than Exist and Slightly Less than Option 1 •Const. Duration: Approx. 1-2 years ATTACHMENT C September 30, 2015 Public Meeting Summary   Overall the upgrades and maintenance proposals for the interpretive center and boardwalk are feasible.   There was general agreement of the following items below:   Interpretive Center   All exterior colors should match the more earthy color tones of the Baylands;   Desire for a solution to retain the habitat for swallows on‐site;   A large sink area in the restroom that will provide more flexibility and access;   Improve pedestrian access leading up to the interpretive center from the parking lot;    Desire to salvage existing siding and other materials for other uses elsewhere.  Boardwalk   Immediately repair the boardwalk to provide partial accessibility given the lengthy time  necessary to complete the permitting process for major repairs;   Rehabilitation and replacement options should consider sea level rise;   Raising the boardwalk elevation may detract from the Baylands experience.  Part of the  boardwalk experience is being close to and part of the marshland environment;   A balance between public desire, regulatory requirements, and structural feasibility will be  sought in the design;   Consider composite decking if possible (use of recycled materials).    TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2015 SUBJECT: SHARED USE DOG PARK PILOT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in meeting the community’s dog park needs. BACKGROUND In the summer of 2009, staff hosted a community meeting about recreational opportunities for dog owners. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. The dog owners expressed a strong desire for off-leash dog recreation in all areas of Palo Alto to improve walkability and connections among neighbors; for more grass surfacing in off-leash areas; and for consideration of designated, non-peak hours for fenced athletic fields use by dog owners for off-leash recreation. The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in Palo Alto’s park system. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary, shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer Park, and Hoover Park (Attachment A). On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal, including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential sites. 1 The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns. a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that there are not enough off-leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto, and that there is an interest in finding spaces dedicated to small dogs, and larger spaces that allow large dogs to run. b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could make a baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs digging could have safety impact to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They saidthis would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up. KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SHARED-USE DOG PARK The Ad Hoc Committee researched what other communities have learned regarding shared-use dog parks. The Committee reviewed a summary of the 2009 Palo Alto community meeting, and the dog policies and rules for San Francisco and for dog parks throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Committee consulted with the Palo Alto and Menlo Park dog owners groups and city staff operating shared-use, off-leash dog parks in Menlo Park, San Carlos, and Cambridge, MA. The following are some important considerations for any shared-use dog park pilot learned from other communities: 1.SafetySafety of both people and dogs is an important consideration for all dog parks. While other communities have successfully allowed shared-use facilities without fencing, the Ad Hoc Committee believes a self-contained field will provide better control of the dogs and increase the comfort of nearby park users. Use rules must require appropriate supervision of dogs and children during shared-use hours and prohibit aggressive dog behavior. In addition, a waste cleanup plan should be in place before opening the pilot in order to protect other field users from abandoned dog waste. Rules should be prominently posted, and cleanup bags and trash cans should be provided. In addition, a double door entry will provide security as dogs enter and exit the facility. 2.SizeThe primary benefit of a shared-use facility for dog recreation is the potential for a grass-surfaced space of significant size. A shared field would provide dog owners legal access, during limited, underused hours, to a recreation space large enough to play fetch or just let their dogs run, while also distributing the impacts of dog wear over sufficient acreage to preserve the quality of the surfacing. 2 Palo Alto’s existing dedicated dog parks are all small: Greer - .12 acres, Hoover - .14 acres and Mitchell - .5 acres. Both San Francisco and Menlo Park Recreation and Park Departments cited 10,000 square feet (approximately .25 acres) as the minimum acceptable size for a dedicated dog park, with San Francisco preferring a minimum of 30,000 sf (approximately .75 acres) and Menlo Park rating 1.5 acres or more as best. At Mitchell, the City’s largest dog park, a little less than half the surface is grass and the remainder is decomposed granite. Staff perennially reports problems maintaining the grass, due to overuse for its small coverage area. Users regularly complain of disruptions due to grass maintenance issues, but also strongly oppose eliminating this lone grass-surfaced area for off leash dogs. 3.LocationIdeally, a dog park should be located within a neighborhood to allow users to walk to the facility and build community around their shared interests, but sufficiently distant from residences so that noise and activity levels are no more disruptive to neighbors than typical park uses. It should not cause significant displacement of established recreational activities, including passive recreation, and it should not cause a detriment to the facility or surrounding environment such as digging and trampling. In addition, it naturally would be preferred to open a new dog park in an area of town that is currently underserved. If the goal is to test a large, temporary, shared-use area, options are limited to City-owned parks with adequate space to minimize the impacts of wear and with minimal new fencing requirements as fencing represents the primary start-up cost. Unfortunately, the only sites that currently fit that bill are the three proposed sites (Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover Park), all of which fall in the midtown, east-west corridor, already served by two small dog parks. The proposed pilot locations would accommodate fenced, shared-use areas sized as follows: Baylands Athletic Center: Large field: --- 3.27 acres Small field: ---1.30 acres Greer Park: --- 2.09 acres Hoover Park: Inside baseball field: --- .96 acres Turf area outside baseball field: ---1.17 acres. 4.Costs 3 The primary expense of a new off-leash dog area is the purchase and installation of fencing to fully enclose the area. All three sites proposed have significant existing fencing that will help keep the cost of a temporary pilot to a minimum. All three would require a new double-gated entry. Hoover and the Baylands Athletic Center would need a negligible amount of new fence length. Greer would need more, but less than half the linear footage required to enclose the entire field area. Staff estimates new fencing costs, including double gated entries, as below. Staff is investigating temporary fencing as an alternative, but do not anticipate significant savings from that option. Baylands Athletic Center: $ 1,000. Greer Park: $ 21,350. Hoover Park (inside baseball field: $ 4,000. Hoover Park (turf outside baseball field: $ 18,775 Additional start-up costs include the installation of waste stations, signage and optional benches that will be the same regardless of location: Signs: approx. $ 250.00 each Waste stations: approx. $ 800.00 for two Benches: approx. $ 1,500.00 each There would be additional costs for water spigots for drinking water or additional cleanup alternatives, and those costs will vary by location. Beyond start-up costs, there would be marginal increases in ongoing maintenance costs in the form of increased staff time. 5.EnforceabilitySuccessful enforcement of rules and hours of use will be vital to justifying the compromises made by neighbors and other users. In other cities, dog owner groups have successfully minimized violations through spot monitoring and peer pressure. San Carlos, however, reported that its dog owners group dissolved quickly, leaving the City to fund all expenses. Where engaged and organized, dog groups have managed waste cleanup and ensured that owners addressed aggressive and loud dogs immediately through community oversight during use hours and volunteer sector-by-sector cleanup in advance of non-dog uses. In recent years, the Menlo Park dog owners’ group has switched over to a professional cleanup service hired and funded by the dog group through user donations at an approximate cost of $6,000 per year. In addition to behavior and clean-up, it will be important to communicate and enforce rain closures for this new user group. Current enforcement of leash laws in Palo Alto operates on a complaint-only basis. Enforcement officers are stretched thin, and according to Animal Services, cannot guarantee stepped up enforcement for a pilot. The Ad Hoc Committee have looked at targeted oversight using contracted staff for a pilot program, but in the long term, an expanded leash law enforcement, City-wide, will be vital to securing and maintaining 4 community buy-in for a permanent shared-use site and additional dedicated dog parks. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City develop and budget for a plan of increased enforcement of the leash law City-wide. As for waste clean-up, the City could request that the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group coordinate, manage, and fund a professional clean-up service similar to Menlo Park’s practice. It has been suggested, however, that the City maintains recreation facilities at no cost to other users (un-reserved picnic sites, Skate Park, playgrounds, etc.) and that dog owners should similarly be entitled to services within our city. Others contend that organized field users contribute to maintenance through field rental fees that give them exclusive use at reserved times. Given public sanitation concerns regarding shared use, a professional clean-up strategy may be advantageous. It would cost approximately $21,000 to hire a contract security firm to enforce the rules and clean up the dog waste at one shared-use Dog Park for a 6-month pilot program. This is based on 12 hours per week for a period of 26 weeks. 6.Long-term UseThe Parks Master Plan consultants, MIG, and other cities reported that in many cases, once a pilot is opened, it is very difficult to discontinue that use. Furthermore, once regular use is established, there is often an increase in off-hour use of the site when not otherwise occupied. In Menlo Park, the dog owners’ group was helpful in spot checking for off-hour use and talking with violators about the risk of permanent closure. The concern about the ability to curtail off-leash use at the end of the pilot, and the close proximity of the affordable sites suitable for the pilot, are reasons for caution about opening multiple pilot sites. Nonetheless, dual pilots at both the Baylands Athletic Center and a neighborhood park, could provide useful data about usage and the desirability of quite different models – one very large, mostly single use, facility with high fencing at the outskirts of town versus a smaller, walkable site within a popular neighborhood park that currently serves many diverse uses. 7.Metrics and RulesBefore initiating a six-month pilot program it is important to develop criteria that will allow the City to collect and monitor incoming data associated with the pilot program. Based on our discussions with other cities and review of their pilot programs, the Ad Hoc Committee drafted a list of criteria to help measure the success and/or failure of a six-month off leash dog pilot (Attachment B) and proposed rules for use of the facility (Attachment C). 5 8.Pros and Cons of Potential Sites Location Pros Cons Baylands Athletic Center Proposed Size: Large Field: 3.27 acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $ 1,000. Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt. Fencing/Cost: Minimal required Size: Significantly larger than other options – better capacity and reduced maintenance impacts. Location: High fencing – so even “jumpers” can safely use. Little noise impact – no adjacent residences. No nearby playground. Less risk of inviting unauthorized use due to remote location. Location: Not in neighborhood: •Users will more likely drivethan walk, possiblyexacerbating morningcongestion atEmbarcadero/101 intersection; •Harder for dog owners group tospot check compliance; •Less community buildingamong neighbors; •May invite more non-residentusers.Adjacent to delicate Baylands ecosystem – errant dogs could pose threat. If pilot extends beyond 6 months, potential construction of the Flood Control project and the Golf Course renovation could impede access to the site. 6 Location Pros Cons Hoover Park Inside the baseball field Proposed Size: .96 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $4,000. Turf Area outside the baseball field Proposed size: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775 Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt Fencing/Cost: Minimal required for inside the baseball field area High costs for outside the baseball field area. Location: Walkable to neighborhood. Lots of current dog use in and outside of existing dog park: •Shared use pilot would allowcurrent users to become “legal” during open hours; •Increased attention to enforcement, maintenance andcleanup could improve conditions for other users. Location: Frequent use of field by Key School. Nearby playground. Highest potential impact on others: •Heavily used community park; •Close proximity to multi-unithousing. Fencing: Existing fencing is less than 4 feet high in outfield - may have high risk of “escapees.” Size: Smallest option, yet high current unauthorized dog use: •May be difficult to get dogowners to stay in fenced area; •Heavy dog usage would have agreater impact on this smallfield. 7 Location Pros Cons Greer Park Proposed Size: 2.09 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $21,350. Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt Location: Little noise impact. Walkable to neighborhood. Few adjacent residences. Existing dedicated dog park is smallest in the city – currently attracts mostly one-off users (and professional dog walkers) rather than gathering of dog folks. Larger space could allow better community building opportunities. Size: Midsized option Fencing/Cost: Biggest fencing need of all the options. Permanent fencing could change the character of the adjacent picnic area. Location: Current off-leash use is low – pilot may attract more usage during unauthorized times. Nearby playground. DISCUSSION Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am). Approximately 75 people attended. See Attachment D for notes from the community meeting. The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports teams practice and compete. The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations. Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we 8 need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful. Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas. After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research. 1.Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, HooverPark, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see ifthere are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and eveninghours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of thefield at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the leastconflicts with field users. 2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experiencewith shared-use dog parks. City of Mountain View’s Experience The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts. Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off- leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children. Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October. Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an enforcement component. The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off- leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program. Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement. However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent. 9 Palo Alto Consider Permanent Dog Parks Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to explore opportunities for permanent dog parks that could be implemented quickly without investing too much money, nor waiting for the Parks Master Plan to be completed. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee are investigating few options for locations for permanent or expanded dog parks (See Attachment E). 1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. It would require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000. Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park. 2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21 acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing would cost approximately $9,575.3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000. Utilities staff advises that they may need to use this landscaped area for future expansion and that they have some security concerns because this is the site where the City gets its power. Another complication is that Utilities pays a significant amount of money to theCity’s general fund for the lease of this site. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed shared-use pilot locations Attachment B: Metrics for evaluation of a pilot dog park Attachment C: Proposed rules for pilot dog park facility Attachment D: Notes from July 30, 2015 community meeting on dog parks Attachment E: Proposed permanent or expanded dog parks 10 1 Greer Park Proposed size: 2.09 acres. Estimate fencing costs: $21,350 ATTACHMENT A 2 Baylands Athletic Center Red Area: proposed size: 3.27 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000 Yellow Area: Proposed size: 1.3 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000 3 Hoover Park Red area: .96 acres; Fencing costs: $4,000 Yellow area: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775 ATTACHMENT B METRICS FOR EVALUATION Listed below is how we will be monitoring activity and ways with which we will gather the pertinent information: 1.Place comment box on site with pen and cards for information gathering and/or post an email address to send in comments. 2.Spot monitor on site during designated off leash hours to track compliance. 3.Poll participating dog owners on site about off leash opportunity: a.How did participants get to off leash location? Walk, drive, other? b.How often are participants using the off leash opportunity (daily, once a week, etc.). c.Is the location desirable? How far from their residence? 4.How compliant are dog owners on dog waste clean up? 5.What is the condition of the field/grass after the off leash pilot (take “before” photos to establish baseline and track with additional photos monthly.) 6.What type and amount of additional maintenance and costs are required to keep field/grass in proper condition? Weekly, monthly? 7.How many off leash dog owners are participating weekly. (How will this data be obtained? Staff can do a monthly count when they take photos. Perhaps Dog Owners Group could keep sign-ins or provide spot counts. Maybe Commissioners?) 8.What is the nature of the complaints, if any? How many complaints per week, per month, during the six- month pilot? (Daren will track via an excel spreadsheet). How will the Commission decide how many complaints is too many? 9.What additional city staff and outside vendors (waste clean up service) are required with regard to hours, costs associated with keeping off leash dog hours? 10.How cooperative is the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group in self -policing violators of off leash dog rules? 11.How do we handle enforcement of non-compliance? 12.How do we provide notice of field closures? Add field closure hotline to signage? ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C RULES OF USE 1.Dogs are permitted off leash ONLY Monday thru Friday, 8:00am-10:00am in this designated location ONLY. 2.Dogs must be licensed, vaccinated, and wearing a collar with ID. 3.Dogs must be leashed when entering and leaving the off leash area. 4.Dogs in heat or under 4 months of age are not permitted in off-leash area. 5.Dog owner must be in control of dog(s) at all times. Aggressive dogs must leave the off leash area immediately. 6.Dog waste must be picked up. Please dispose of dog waste in the containers provided. 7.Do not leave dogs unattended at any time. 8.All dog bites must be reported to the City of Palo Alto Animal Services. 9.Supervise small children during off leash hours. 10.No more than three dogs per owner allowed during off leash hours. 11.No food or alcohol is allowed during designated off leash dog hours. 12.If there is a field closure there will be no off lease dog usage until City of Palo Alto notifies the field is re-opened. The City of Palo Alto assumes no liability for the users of this area. Use these facilities at your own risk. 1 ATTACHMENT C Attachment D Notes from Public Meeting Topic: Pilot Shared Use Dog Park Date: July 30, 2015 6:30pm to 7:30pm Location: Lucy Stern Ballroom •75 people in attendance – 4 commissioners & 4 staff o Why 8-10 Monday-Friday? Teacher is excluded from use. Include early evening after recreation activities. o Big need for after work crowd. o What about using the former landfill for an off-leash dog park? Very large area that could be used for a dog park. o Anything around the Baylands will disturb the wildlife. Dogs off-leash around the former landfill (currently Byxbee Park) will disturb the natural wildlife. o Real opportunity at Byxbee Park. People and animals can enjoy. Another small fenced yard in a park will get too much use and it will smell bad. 60% of households have dogs. The time is now to plan the use of Byxbee Park to be fenced and have multi-use. o Another resident concerned about birds. ATTACHMENT D o There is very little life on Byxbee right now, so the time is now to establish a dog area to not disturb the flyway. o Resident likes the ideas. South Palo Alto has the only dog recreation. He would like something in North Palo Alto. o Another resident would like the after work hours, which could be after recreation times. o Another resident likes the idea of after hours. A dog friendly neighborhood park area or areas. Reduce people driving to locations. Every park should have a designated area. o Greer Park is a great choice for shared use. Lots of dogs in the neighborhood. No real place to go. The existing dog park is a joke. The current dog park is being used by people out of town. Phase 4 area could be used that wouldn’t conflict with athletic field use. o We need large area as well as small neighborhood off-leash areas so that dogs can socialize. o The least offensive would be the Baylands Athletic Center. The birds aren’t near the athletic fields. Byxbee Park could be used where people walk the trails. Doesn’t see the need to have big and small. They should be able to socialize together in one area. o Just having morning hours won’t satisfy the need. Fields are used by sports teams until sunset. Children are environmentally sensitive and important, too. Shared use has a lot of problems in respect to effective use. Other parks in the region with shared use dog parks do not have good success. Seen lots of evidence of their shared use dog parks having harmful effects on the condition of the fields. o No situation is perfect. Nealon Park (shared use site) can do the professional clean up service for $6K. At the end of the day, holes and cleanup is minimal. o After the shared use plan is over, maybe we can try to choose a site that best for everyone and get a stable, dedicated dog park open all hours.. o Resident doesn’t agree to use baseball fields at Baylands. Recipe for disaster for the kids. North Palo alto needs a dog park. Mitchell and Hoover exist for south Palo Alto. North Palo Alto needs a walking distance park. Why not Johnson park? Hoover Park baseball field is already separated. The yellow portion on the map (the area outside of the baseball field) could be only for dog parks. o There are lots of kids in Palo Alto. People are able to walk in a park safely because there are so many dogs. Hoover Park is always being used for everything. After work, people that live nearby want to be able to interact with their kids and play sports. Unfortunately, kids and big dogs don’t always interact well. o Segregating large and small dogs. There are tragic examples of not doing this. Shoreline Park has good results with separated areas for large and small dogs. o Lots of dog owners let their dogs run up to people on bikes, don’t clean up after their dogs. This will be an attraction for people to come out and let their dogs run out. Parents have to be concerned with off leash dogs when visiting a park. Small dog parks smell bad. o Supports the idea of people being able to walk their dogs to their local park. Space for dogs in several parks would be a good idea. One park is not appropriate. Dogs need an open space to run. Comparable to humans on 101 during rush hour. Times of usage are important in order to have a shared use space with wider flexibility. Supports morning and evening times. In order to establish the concept of sharing, not every single park has to have a sport held in it. We have enough parks to designate a non-sports field for dog users. Equal number of dog owner and non-dog owners. Statistics show that there is a greater risk of being hit by a ball than bit by a dog. o Morning hours will be very tough for parents to make it. It’s not dog owners vs. kids or parents. o A lot of the tension happens when there are shorter hours in the day and when its dark. o Dogs, children and dog owners should share. Parks should have an area for just kids, and an area just for kids and dogs. o We have to find a balance where kids can recreate safely. o A lot of people can’t get there from 8am-10am, but it doesn’t mean that every place should be open all day long. Not every park should serve every need. Some in the morning, some in the evening. o Dog group founder appreciates the meeting. Advocate for a decent size fence for dogs of different sizes. He thinks in the long term it will be better, and he would like an experiment. It’s important to have morning and evening hours so everyone isn’t trying to get in at once. Hoover works well to use existing dog park as small dog and the new for bigger dogs. o There should be a place for dogs in each park on the power point presentation (Greer, Hoover, and Baylands Athletic Center). There should be a fence that comes up and down so that people can share. o Experience at Nealon with shared use dog park. Her son has been on a baseball team for years. At least once per week he steps in poop. Nealon is a failure. In Palo Alto, the off leash law isn’t enforced now, so will they start enforcing them now? Having dogs on sports fields has huge implications. Field damage, potholes, dog waste. There are also other associated costs-- will the city pick up the cost of repairing the fields that are damaged by dogs? o CPA has poor enforcement. Animal services said they cannot routinely patrol the parks to enforce the leash law. Repair costs have not been factored into the numbers shared tonight. It is challenging to re-grow grass in dead areas of the turf. o Seattle has large dog parks two/five acre dog parks. Parks with small and larger dog areas are more successful. Dedicate space and have flexible hours. Have you reached out to others that have had success with dedicated dog parks? o To hear there will not be enforcement from Animal Services in concerning. Also concern that such large portions of the parks are being proposed for shared use. Concerned of additional traffic and how dogs are let out of vehicles off leash. His own children have been affected by dog use and owners are not very apologetic. o Have we considered Seale Park? Used for soccer and grass is clumpy. It would be better since it has three sides. Is noise a real issue? Can the hours be pushed to 6am? Or extend the hours in the evening so that afternoon users could use park lights. o COMMISIONERS COMMENTS- Hetterley- There aren’t many parks with a lot of acreage. In order to dedicate a park year round, it would most likely be a smaller park. Would it be better to have a smaller dedicated dog park or limited hours in a larger site? o Alma and El Camino slated for being a park? Why was the area taken off the table? We were not allowed to develop it due to creek setback. o Bags at the sites? o Byxbee has an endangered species there, the burrowing owl and ridgeway rail. o Sometimes dog walkers park in front of residents’ driveways at Hoover Park. o Byxbee would be a good site if it were fenced off. o An apartment resident adjacent to Hoover Park noted that the apartments accept dogs so its beneficial for many of the people who live in the apartments. If there were lights at Hoover it would allow longer use of the site. o Neither choice of a small dedicated dog park, or limited shared use site is a good idea and a vote isn’t right. o Small spaces and too many dogs in small spaces is not good. o Are we talking about the pilot program or the whole solution? Opportunities for big areas are limited. o Likes the idea of large spaces. Also likes the idea of large areas to build communities. o Agrees that small areas can be good dog parks, but if its as small as .1 acres it is not worth it. o People come up to dog owners, elderly, families and ask if they can play and pet the dogs. A form of socialization and community. o The City of Mountain view has made ALL of their parks shared use parks at some time during the day. o Mountain views off leash 6am to 10am and its not the entire park and its away from the playground area. o Expand the thinking outside the box of other available locations . EX. Lucie Stern can be turned into a dog park with some fencing. Partner with companies in PA with lawn areas to use their properties as off leash dog use. o Loma Verde area behind Sterling Canal near utilities property where they keep their stuff. Dogs are compatible with native plants. Some teams are not from Palo Alto and excluding Palo Alto residents to use the parks in their city. Greer Park especially being used by out of towners. Real unfriendly place. Additional Comments made after the public meeting -Comment re: Greer Park. It's right around the corner from PAAS (Palo Alto Animal Services) and once they get new management in charge perhaps that person would allow the dog socializer volunteers to bring adoptable dogs to the dog park to mingle with neighbors. That kind of visibility is an incredible tool for getting the word out about shelter dogs. I also like the idea of enclosing the field part of Seale Park for shared use. This park already has 3 sides enclosed and many people take their dogs there to play and socialize. During the open comment section I mentioned there is a part of Greer Park that is essentially unused that could be idea for a dog park. It's the section at the corner of the W Bayshore and Colorado. It's sort of rolling hillocks with a few trees and several picnic benches. The only activity I have ever seen on the grassy area is people playing with their dogs. I think you mentioned it is a new area (I don't know as I have only lived here 4 years). It is called Scott Meadow after Charles Scott. (BTW he lives down the street from me and I have even met him.) This area could be enclosed perhaps including one of the picnic table sections and excluding the other. It's far away from any homes, and is a friendly looking spot as opposed to the strip on the other side of Colorado. It could even be designated as the large dog park and the small one that already exists in Greer Park could become the small dog park. While that existing dog park gets very little use, I believe it would become more attractive if this part of the park brought more dogs with their people. -Your staff were doing a good job of taking notes, so we are not going to comment on everything brought up, but we would like to summarize our main thoughts subsequent to the meeting. 1. While there are pros and cons to any program, we still feel that it is important to have at least one Shared Use Dog Park in Palo Alto until more permanent and dedicated, larger dog parks can be developed. Two or three would be better than one, but we would settle for one at this time. The one with the fewest cons appears to be Hoover Park outside the baseball field. This will detract the least from existing recreation for children and others. The fencing cost is small compared to the cost of acquiring any land in Palo Alto. Without both morning and evening hours, any shared use dog park will concentrate too many dogs into too little time and space. 2. The need for dog recreation in Palo Alto north of Oregon Expressway will not be met by any of these proposals, so the highest priority for any future dog parks in Palo Alto should be in the north. As we have discussed before, a relatively easy and low cost facility could be an artificial turf park within Rinconada Park. It could avoid all of the negative factors mentioned by the concerned citizens who showed up at the meeting, both those for more/better dog parks, and those not so sure. 3. In spite of the concerns about birds and endangered species, we feel that a portion of Bixby Park should be fenced and set aside for a new dog park. A fenced area would still mean a net positive gain for wildlife in the Palo Alto bayfront at Bixby Park. This should be done in a manner to minimize adverse impact of the park on wildlife. 4. Palo Alto Dog Owners stands ready to work with you and your staff in the development of strong rules and strategies to minimize the impact of a shared use park on other park uses and to make our facilities a model for best practices. We are willing to hold meetings and publicize the rules to maximize compliance. On behalf of Palo Alto Dog Owners, thank you again for putting on such a well-run meeting last evening. There were lots of excellent comments. -1. Tables and benches in current dog parks: I appreciate the idea of having those, but what this means in reality is that dog parks attract people who sit at the tables or on the benches and play cards or chat and not supervise their dogs. I see people in Hover park dog park every day reading on the benches while their dogs are left unsupervised. It's even worse in Mitchell Park where people play cards at the tables rather than pay attention to their dogs. We've had many encounters with aggressive dogs left to their own devices. Because of this, we don't go to any of the dog parks any more and instead use the shared fields off leash. The irony is that people that have their dogs off leash "illegally" have well trained dogs that hardly ever cause problems. 2. I think we all need to be tolerant to each group of stakeholders. What nobody brought up tonight is that baseball at Hover park is incredibly loud, much louder than the dogs. There is also litter left behind every time and parking is a nightmare during baseball hours. Every interest group comes with their challenges and we need to be acknowledge all of it. 3. Shared hours: I'm really torn with this one. I like the idea per se, but I'm worried that this will mean people start calling animal control 5 min after the off-leash window runs out because they can. People are very opinionated and I'm worried that this would create an opportunity that would backfire on the dog community. 4. Small dog areas all over the city are a bad idea. We need large areas where big dogs can run and be exercised plus the small areas we have right now are already overrun with little dogs and owners that don't supervise them. Separating small from big dogs is a good idea, we have met lots of aggressive little dogs in Palo Alto. 5. It really comes down to this: there are very responsible dog owners in Palo Alto, who need space to run with their dogs and exercise them (people at Hover park even pick up other dogs' poop if they see it). But there also totally irresponsible owners who ruin it for everyone. Perhaps a "good citizen dog pass" could help weeding out irresponsible dog owners and they would not be allowed in shared spaces? Also, nobody needs to worry about their children if the dog owner is responsible and the dog well trained (mind you, children should also be trained how to and always supervised when approaching a dog!). Howard Hoffman has set up a good group of people already if this could be used as a starting point. 6. A city in Italy has created a DNA library from all dogs in the city and whenever there is poop left without cleaning up, they take a sample and test which dog it was. The owner then has to pay for the DNA test and a clean up fee. This is extreme and probably unnecessary in Palo Alto, but could perhaps ease everyone's fear about people not cleaning up after their dog. I'd sign up for this voluntarily as a gesture of good will. -I owned a Vizsla for 14.5 years. He passed away last year due to cancer. Vizslas, German ShortHairs, Weimeraners are all hunting dogs. They are most happy being off-leash and looking for birds. Vizslas were bred to hunt, point and flush quail and pheasant. They are extremely high energy and remain that way their entire lives. Joey was my first and only dog that I raised and trained from a puppy. I learned a lot about dogs and dog behavior by reading, training with various trainers and being consistent with my dog. My biggest problem was finding a big off-leash area to run my dog. The dog pens in Palo Alto are way too small. My dog was most happy investigating his environment. When he was a puppy I would bring him over to the Mitchell Park dog park and it was a nice place for him to socialize with other dogs. However as soon as he turned into an adult dog he was no longer interested in going, preferring to be off-leash. So, I looked for areas to run him, finding the Woodside Horse Park (which I paid $500.00/year just to walk him around the perimeter of the park) and a dog walker that would drive him over to the beach for a 3 hour run. That was $35.00/time. Overnights with the dog walker was $60.00 per night. I invested a lot of time getting him to be a socialized dog. However, he still turned out to be an anxious, reactive dog and I soon found I could not trust him in certain circumstances. One such instance was at Gunn High School when Joey decided to chase a person in an electric wheelchair who was on the walking path by the school. I knew then I could not take him there off-leash unless there were barriers. Joey became very protective of me which I could do nothing to stop. I think the exercising of dogs in Palo Alto need to be comprehensive. I think that the more places you have to exercise dogs then less dogs in each location. So, there should be morning/evening times at most neighborhood parks, and there should be a dedicated dog park that is so big you can walk for an hour in it. There is no place for people to walk their dogs off-leash in a secured area without bikes and horses interfering. When you get a group of people in a park or a dog park they have a tendency to ignore their dogs behavior because they are too busy talking to each other. When you are in a secured dog area, you can be walking and training your dog at the same time. I used this approach to train Joey in recall. I used a whistle and he was very good at coming to me. The old dump at the Baylands is a perfect place for an off=leash site. It is rustic (dogs don’t care that there no lawn), it is fenced and close to bathrooms. It is also relatively close to people in Palo Alto. I don’t think there are any birds nesting in it as well. You don’t have to worry about dogs digging it up or the smell or the noise. A sign at the entrance telling people that it is a dog exclusive park and that young children probably shouldn’t be in there. Athletic fields and very small and busy parks probably should not have any off-leash activity as it seems to be too stressful for the neighbors and dogs have a tendency to dig and leave poop on the field. People are not particularly consistent in cleaning up after their dog. The biggest problem with dogs are their owners. People just don’t understand dogs and their behavior. They will ignore them when they are annoying people or other dogs or when they are wanting to fight other dogs. These problems can crop up anywhere because people don’t have a good understanding of dogs. I have seen kids chased by dogs because they started running and they were small (dogs have a strong prey drive) and I have seen fights between owners because of bad dog behavior. I have seen people ignore the responsibility of cleaning up after their dog (a lot!). So at all the parks you should have bags available and a place to dispose of the dog poop. It would be nice to offer classes in owning a dog. In fact that would be a good thing to teach children in school (how to approach dogs or dog etiquette). The one last thing that there should be in Palo Alto is consistent availability of police officers in case you need someone. I have heard of fights at the dog park where a man picked up a black and tan coonhound and threw it to the ground. Police were called but they got there too late. The man had fled. So, having a protocol on when to call someone would be good. Well, I hope that this information helps. Not every dog is a ball dog that just runs after balls. Dogs don’t need a nice lawn to run on. They don’t care where they are. Dogs that are untrained need an enclosed area to keep them from getting into trouble. They also need an area just dedicated to dogs — only. Attachment E Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks Colorado Utilities Substation -landscaped area This grass area is approximately 1 acre and is fenced on one side. It is located across the street from Greer Park. Size: Approximately 1 acre Cost: Approximately $15,000. ATTACHMENT E Mitchell Park Expanded Dog Park The area outlined in red is the existing dog park The area outlined in green is the proposed expanded dog park area. Size: Increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21 acres. Cost: Approximately $9,575. El Camino Park- Southern Undeveloped Area The area outlined in red is the potential dog park location. Size: Approximately .77 acres Cost: Approximately $15,000 Another photo of the potential El Camino Park Dog Park TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DATE: October 27, 2015 SUBJECT: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto has 37 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 (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 on the city’s recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs, establishing a prioritized schedule and budget of future park renovations, facility improvements and expansion of recreational programs. DISCUSSION Staff will introduce and discuss with the commission the proposed evaluation process of prioritization as outlined below. The second phase of the master planning process focuses on developing and prioritizing recommendations. This phase started in June of this year with the drafting of the project principles and criteria. The evaluation process created in this phase will provide the basis for determining which potential projects and actions will be included in the final Master Plan Report. Creating a process that is concise and defensible, which leads to clear actions will be the main focus of discussion. Steps of Prioritization Step 1: Draft the Initial List of Recommendations - The consultant (MIG) will generate a list of potential recommended projects and actions based on the data analysis and community input from phase one, as well as compatibility with the principles. The list of potential recommendations and the available background data information for each recommendation will be reviewed and vetted by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Step 2: Criteria Evaluation of Recommendations - Once the list of potential projects and actions has been generated, each of them will be evaluated by an evaluation panel using the criteria and ranked using a point system. The point evaluation system and the composition of the evaluation panel are under development. The commission is requested to discuss the overall process, the point ranking system applied to the criteria and the formulation of an evaluation panel. NEXT STEPS City Council Study Session (November 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. PREPARED BY Peter Jensen Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENTS 1.City Council Study Session – Draft Staff Report 2.City Council Study Session – Draft Consultant Report Attachment A Attachment B Recommendation This is a study session report, no Council action is required. Executive Summary This report provides an update on the ongoing Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan), including an in depth summary of the analysis work and community outreach that has been done to date, a review of the strategic direction and prioritization phase that is currently taking place, and an update of the project schedule. The intent of this master planning process is the identification and prioritization of community-relevant short-term (within 5 years), mid-term (10 years) and long-term (25 years) improvements, enhancements or acquisition of park and recreation facilities and development of a strategic funding plan to successfully implement the Master Plan. Through this process not only will there be a master plan for the entire parks and recreation system, there will also be complementary individual plans for each City park and recreational facility, and suggested enhancements and additions to the City’s recreational programs. The planning process to develop the Master Plan includes the following: 1.Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Proactive engagement of the public and a broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements. 2.Technical Assessment and Analysis: A comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreational facilities and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends, and an analysis of community recreation needs. 3.Developing and Prioritizing Projects: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (10- year) and long-term (20-year) ranges. 4.Plan Review and Adoption: Public, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Council review; and Council approval process to adopt the plan. This update presents a summary of the in-depth reports and findings to date, as directed by Council at the August 31 study session. All the reports referenced in this document are available on the City of Palo Alto’s project website at www.paloaltoparksplan.org in the Project Updates library. In addition to this staff report, there is a consultant report (Attachment A) that traces the master planning process along its development, highlights key findings and discusses the process of evaluation and prioritization. Staff and the consultants plan to return to the Council again in the next few months to review and discuss the list of potential recommendations as well as the framework that will be used in prioritization. Staff will return to Council again in spring of 2016 to review the draft Master Plan, and expect to have the final draft of the Master Plan to the Council by summer of 2016, after thorough screening of the community-developed draft plan with the Parks and Recreation Commission. ATTACHMENT A Background A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (PE- 13003) 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 long- range (25-year) Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation facilities and programs. The master plan will also include recommendations to meet demands for future recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs and establish a prioritized schedule of future park renovations and facility improvements. Though the Master Plan addresses trails and natural open space, it is not intended to provide specific guidance on how best to manage and maintain the City’s open space preserves and trails. Existing plans, such as the Arastradero Preserve Trail Management Plan (2001) and the Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan (2002), provide guidance on the management of trails. There are also future plans, such as the 2017 Capital Improvement Project to complete a Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which will provide specific guidance on vegetation and habitat management, wildlife management, and wildlife-appropriate public access. Similar comprehensive conservation plans will be created for Foothills Park and Pearson Arastradero Preserve. In the November 2, 2015 study session presentation, staff and representatives of the contracted consulting firm MIG, Inc. will review and discuss the following components of the Master Plan development: 1.The data collection and analysis 2.The Summary of Data and the Summary of Potential Needs 3.The Strategic Direction of the Master Plan 4.The recommendation and prioritization process and decision making framework. One of the key goals of this update is to collect feedback from Council on the strategic direction of the Master Plan, and the framework for the recommendation and prioritization process. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreational Master Planning process is divided into three project phases: 1) The analysis phase, 2) The priority and recommendation phase, and 3) The master plan drafting/adoption phase. The project team is comprised of City staff and the consultant firm MIG, along with significant review and input from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The team has spent the first 15 months of the project focused on gathering and analysis of data collected from Palo Alto’s current parks and recreation system and the community. The analysis in phase one included a thorough physical inventory of the parks and recreation assets, extensive community outreach, and a review of projected demographics. This culminated in a list of potential needs for the overall system and is compiled in a “Data and Needs Summary Matrix”, which references specific data points that support the summarized needs. It should be noted that one of the main needs expressed by the community is to continue to maintain the high level of service of the current parks and recreation system, which the community identifies as a tremendous asset to the city (Refer to Section 2 & 3 pages 2-19 of Attachment A). Upon the completion of the Data and Needs Summary Matrix and the identification of potential needs, the project moved into the second phase: recommendations and prioritization. Over the past few months the project team, with assistance from the Parks and Recreation Commission, has begun constructing a framework that will guide the process of recommendations and prioritization. This framework, derived from the data analysis completed in the first phase, identifies common and reoccurring themes, and will provide the structure for guiding how Palo Alto maintains, enhances and expands the existing parks and recreation system for the short (5 year), mid (15year) and long (25 years) term. Discussion At the August 31 study session, Council requested a more in-depth review of the master planning process and summary of findings. As a result, this staff report, and the attached consultant report (Attachment A), provides significantly more detail and background on the process and public outreach that staff, the consultant and the Parks and Recreation Commission have been engaged in throughout the project. This more detailed review of the planning process will provide a clearer understanding of where the project has been and where it is headed. The consultant report (Attachment A) includes an introduction on the purpose of the master planning process followed by a summary of the technical assessments of existing conditions, public outreach and data summary and opportunity analysis. For the past year and a half the project team has worked hard to provide ongoing meaningful opportunities for public input which will continue throughout the process. As referenced in the consultant report the project team has collected a wide range of community input concerning the parks and recreation system: what is working and what is not, community interests and desires and possible areas for greater investment. In the consultant report, at the end of each data collection or source section, a summary of main points learned is provided. While not all the data gathered and analyzed are in this update report, this more detailed report illustrates the depth and breadth of outreach and analysis to provide Council with a greater understanding of the process that has been conducted to date. Guided by community input, the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan will be an actionable working document that will advise staff, and appointed and elected officials on how to better manage Palo Alto’s treasured parks and recreaton system for many years to come. The following areas of discussion represent some of the key questions Council had for staff at the August 31, 2015 meeting. Below, staff discuss the invaluable role of the Parks and Recreation Commisison, more detail on the process of the master plan, and next steps for moving toward completion of the planning process. The accompanying MIG report provides the consultants’ perspective on the process to date and shares key findings that have emerged during the public outreach of the planning process. Parks and Recreation Commission Involvement The City of Palo Alto’s Parks and Recreation Commission has been closely involved with the master planning process from the inception of the project. Beginning in June of 2013 a Commission Ad Hoc Committee was formed to provide feedback on the project’s Request for Proposal (RFP) and to take part in consultant interviews. Per the feedback provided by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Master Plan scope was expanded to encompass all the aspects of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system including: trails, natural open spaces and recreational programming. The Commission has worked closely with the project team to create a meaningful and engaging master planning process, and has provided a strong guiding voice in steering its formulation. To date, the Commission has discussed the Parks Master Plan at all its monthly meetings since September 2014, has held one special meeting to discuss and finalize the community survey and has formed four Ad Hoc Committees to assist with the development of the plan. All the commissioners have been closely involved with the project, and have provided valuable insight. Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Involvement and meeting agenda item reviewed: ●July 2013 PRC Meeting: Review the Master Plan RFP ●July 2013 - January 2013 PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed: Review RFP, participate in consultant interviews ●February 2014 PRC Meeting: Introduction of consultant team; discuss involvement of PRC in planning process ●May 2014 PRC Meeting: PRC presents consultant list of prioritization for the Master Plan ●June 2014 PRC Meeting: Review the community outreach plan ●September 2014 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Park inventory, demographics, and geographic and planning environment summaries) ●October 2014 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Mapita survey, recreation programming inventory) and discuss framework for community workshop ●October 2014 – Present: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to comment on the structure of and attend community meetings ●March 24, 2014: Master Plan study session with Council and PRC ●October 2014 – November 2014: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft community survey ●November 2014: Special meeting called to review final draft of community survey ●December 2014 PRC Meeting: Community Outreach Update ●January 2014 PRC Meeting: Discuss need for providing reference to data ●February 2015 PRC Meeting: Review data matrix summary draft ●March 2015 PRC Meeting: Review initial analysis data (Community survey summary, existing conditions maps of each park and preserve) ●March - June 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft summary needs matrix ●April 2015 PRC Meeting: Data matrix draft review, distribution of project binder, additional community survey findings discussed. ●May 2015 PRC Meeting: Data survey matrix update and in depth review ●June 2015 PRC Meeting: Introduction and discussion of principles ●June – October 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to draft principles, areas of focus, community on-line challenge and criteria ●July 2015 PRC Meeting: Review revised principles and introduced criteria ●August 2015 PRC Meeting: Review on-line community challenge survey ●September 2015 PRC Meeting: Review on-line community challenge and discuss criteria ●October 2015: PRC Ad Hoc Committee formed to assist with drafting Council update Data Collection and Analysis City staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission felt it was essential to be able to review and reference the large amounts of data gathered in the first phase of the project. Due to the quantitative and qualitative nature of the data gathered, the Parks and Recreation Commission challenged the project team to provide direct reference back to the data when producing the summary list of potential needs. To meet this challenge, the project team formulated what is now known as the Data and Opportunity Summary Matrix. To assemble the matrix a set of evaluation categories were developed from the main areas of analysis (physical inventory, geographic analysis, demographic trends etc.) and used to measure essential park, facility and programming elements derived from the analysis and community input. Those measurements superimposed a big-picture perspective on the range of potential needs identified throughout the data collection phase. As a means of documenting the data used to support the matrix findings, a project binder was compiled and is directly referenced in the structure of the matrix giving section numbers and specific page numbers within the data binder where the data backing up the findings can be located. For quicker reference of the information compiled in the project binder an virtual binder has been created on the web site. Please access the binder index, which links all the binder documents here: http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/CPA_Parks_MasterPlan_Data%20Sources.pdf The list of potential needs will be used by the project team to draft the initial list of recommendations. (Refer to Section 3, “Technical Assessment and Analysis Results”, (pages 3-19) and Section 4, ”Public Engagement Activities to Date”, (pages 19-29) of Attachment A). Summary of Public Outreach Staff and the consultant along with input from the PRC crafted a robust public outreach strategy that included a variety of engagement tools and activities allowing the community multiple opportunities for providing input and participating in the planning process. There have been numerous opportunities for participation to date, with a variety of formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both on-line and in-person outreach methods. (Refer to Section 4, “Public Engagement Activities to Date” in pages 22-29 of Attachment A). Along with community meetings and on-line survey tools, interactive community workshops provided input at key project milestones. A series of three community meetings occurred last fall, and another community prioritization workshop is planned for this coming fall. Furthermore, the project team and PRC members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmers markets and community events that were less formal than the community meetings and provided a diverse range of community feedback. Community Outreach Methods used to Date: (3) Community workshops (6) Intercept groups (2) Stakeholder meetings Individual stakeholder group meetings o Cubberley tenants o Athletic field users o Middle school athletic program staff o Palo Alto dog owners o Avenidas o Rinconada Pool users o Boost Program (Staff Review) o Athletic field scheduling (Staff Review) On line surveys o Mapita (Interactive Survey) o Community On-line Survey o On-line Community Challenge Survey (Going on now) Boards and Commission meetings o 12 PRC meetings o 2 Council Study Sessions o Public Art Commission meeting Community Survey After reviewing the community survey, the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) formed an Ad Hoc Committee to assist with drafting the survey questions. The Commission was concerned that the first draft of questions didn’t provide enough depth or specificity for community feedback to guide the development of the plan. The Commission also recognized that the on-line survey would provide the greatest opportunity to capture the largest community of responders, along with input sortable by demographics, and wanted to assist with formulating questions that provided actionable responses. Staff and Commission Ad Hoc Committee met multiple times to draft the survey, and held a special meeting with the full Commission to review and approve the survey. Key additions and revisions to the survey included: questions regarding the appropriate uses for 10.5 acre land bank at the golf course; priorities for protecting natural resources and habitat as well as connecting people with nature; barriers to participation in community/recreation programming; priorities for new or enhanced recreation programs; and preferred ways to accommodate recreation for off-leash dogs . The survey generated over 1,100 responses and along with the other forms of community outreach provided a diverse range of community input data (Refer to Section 4”Community Outreach” of the attached report pages 19-29 of Attachment A). Stakeholder Group/Meetings Another key group associated with the development of the master plan is the stakeholder group. Composed of community members that represent special interests (wildlife, youth sports, dog owners, etc.) and community groups, the stakeholder group was assembled to provide a community input source for those members of the community directly connected with the parks and recreation system. The stakeholder group was scheduled to meet four times over the planning process to provide their insight into the development of the plan. The stakeholder group has met twice, once during the analysis and feedback portion of the project in spring of 2014, and most recently on October 1 to receive a project update in preparation for the prioritization phase of the project. They will meet again in the coming months to assist in providing input and refining the prioritization process, and again in early 2016 to review the draft Master Plan. The project team has also met with several members of the stakeholder group individually to discuss their specific connection to the parks and recreation system and their future objectives and challenges. These interviews provided in-depth feedback regarding dog parks, athletic field use, the middle school sports program, and the tenants of Cubberley Community Center. The stakeholder group also assists in promoting the master planning process by distributing information to their organization members and partners (Refer to Section 4 “Community Outreach” Stakeholder Advisory Group page 23 of Attachment A). The Stakeholder Group is comprised of the following representative groups: Friends of the Palo Alto Parks Palo Alto Unified School District Palo Alto Recreation Foundation Canopy Avenidas The Palo Alto Youth Council Stanford University Palo Alto Dog Owners Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Boy Scouts Save the Bay The Audubon Society Palo Alto Parents Club Teen Advisory Board (Youth Representative) Cubberley Advisory Group Palo Alto Unified School District Acterra Public Arts Commission Palo Alto Bike Advisory Committee Art Center Foundation Palo Alto Soccer Club Community Online Prioritization Survey Challenge (Areas of Focus) A list of areas of focus was drafted by the project team to establish a method that would allow the community to participate in the prioritization process. of those needs identified in the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix. The areas of focus were developed to provide a simplified prioritization process the community could provide input. The input provided by this online challenge will directly supply the information used in evaluating the Criteria item “Addresses Community Preferences” discussed below. The areas of focus were reviewed and modified by a Parks and Recreation Ad Hoc committee as well as the full Commission. The Commissions initial response to the areas of focus was to condense it to make it easier for the community to absorb, and to add key community interests that were not represented. In response to the Commission’s concern, the areas of focus were shortened and divided into the three main elements of the Master Plan (1. Park, Trails and Natural Open Space, 2. Recreation Facilities and 3. Recreation Programming). These areas of focus are currently being used in the on-line survey challenging the public to share their relative preferences for where they would like the City to invest limited resources. The on-line survey, which will also be recreated in a community meeting, requires the participant to disperse a finite amount of virtual funds to the areas of focus the participant feels are most important (prioritization). This ranking task of assigning value to the areas of focus occurs multiple times, requiring the participant to consider a variety of options and trade-offs. The on-line survey challenge is currently active. Staff encourages the community and Council to participate in the on-line survey challenge found on the project web page. (Refer to Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity Analysis” Area of Focus section pages 33-34 of Attachment A). Online Survey Challenge: www.paloaltoparksplan.org http://lime.migwebtech.com/index.php/survey/index/sid/663595/lang/en Project Web Page The project web page is the main location to review all the project information gathered to date. As a means of simplifying the web page the project information has been organized to reflect the order of the data project binder created for each of the Park and Recreation Commissioners. A data source index has been added to the page that directly links all the planning documents posted on the project web page into a consolidated and searchable list. This list includes all the analysis data and summaries of that data that were collected in phase one as well as the “Data and Opportunity Summary Matrix”. The Council is encouraged to visit the project web site and to review the matrix and associated data and stay updated with the project status. (Refer to Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity Analysis” pages 30- 33 of Attachment A). Project Web Page: http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/ Project Binder Index: http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/CPA_Parks_MasterPlan_Data%20Sources.pdf Next steps Recommendation and Prioritization The second phase of the master planning process focuses on developing and prioritizing recommendations. This phase started in June of this year with the drafting of the project principles. The creation of the decision and prioritization process will reflect the feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission and Council. The evaluation process created in this phase will provide the basis for determining which potential projects and actions will be included in the final Master Plan Report. Creating a process that is concise and defensible, which leads to clear actions will be the focus in this phase of the project, which is expected to be complete by the beginning of 2016. The Path to Recommendations and Prioritization (steps and description) 1.Draft the Initial List of Recommendations: The consultant (MIG) will generate a list of potential recommended projects and actions based on the data analysis and community input from phase one, as well as compatibility with the principles. The list of potential recommendations and the available background data information for each recommendation will be reviewed and vetted by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as a study session with the Council. 2.Criteria Evaluation of Recommendations: Once the list of potential projects and actions has been generated, each of them will be evaluated by an evaluation panel using the criteria and ranked using a point system. The point evaluation system and the composition of the evaluation panel are under development and will be reviewed and discussed with the Parks and Recreation Commission. Principles The Principles were the focus of discussion at the August 31, 2015 Council Study Session, and represent one of the first evaluation mechanism used when considering potential projects or actions. The Principles are derived from the Community and Stakeholder Engagement process and the Technical Assessment that are parts of the Analysis done if phase one of the master planning process. The principles provide the big picture evaluation of the recommendations that will be in the Master Plan. The principles are also intended to influence projects as they go through design, review and implementation. The scope of individual projects in the Master Plan as they move through review and approval in the future will seek to reflect and incorporate the principles into the design of specific projects. The project team, Commission, and a Commission Ad Hoc Committee have worked closely to refine the principles. The revised principles in the accompanying MIG report are the result of this collaborative effort. Council feedback at the August 31, 2105 study session was especially helpful, and led to further refinement of the principles by adding “Nature” as an eighth principle. (Refer to Section 6 “Master Plan Process to Develop and Prioritize Projects” pages 35-36 of Attachment A). Criteria The project team is developing a set of criteria that will provide guidance into prioritizing recommended projects. Also in a collaborative effort with the Commission, the project team drafted initial criteria for review. A Commission Ad Hoc Committee recommended reducing the number of criteria from seven to five to make the criteria concise enough to provide clear and distinct evaluation of recommendation projects. Providing a measured or weighted value to each criteria for prioritization purposes will be the next item reviewed by staff and the Commission. Currently, there are five identified criteria: 1.Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (park land, facilities, programs) to areas of the city and to users where gaps were identified. 2.Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach. 3.Respond to growth: Add features or programs that modify or expand components of the system to prepare for and address increasing demand. 4.Maximize public resources: Create the most impact for each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. 5.Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. The project team is currently working with the Commission and project stakeholder committee to review and refine the logic model. (Refer to Section 5 “Data Summary and Opportunity Analysis” Applying the Prioritization Criteria and Principles pages 37-40; “Master Plan Process to Develop and Prioritize Projects” 31-and of Attachment A). Timeline Project Schedule Phase one (Data Gathering and Analysis Phase) completed Phase two (Recommendation and Prioritization Phase) Current – Winter 2016 Phase three (Draft and Adoption of the Parks Master Plan) Winter 2016 – Summer 2016 Anticipated adoption of the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recration Master Plan August 2016 Upcoming Council Involvement Council Study Session January 2016 to review potential project list and evaluaton method Council Study Session March 2016 to review the final list of recommendations Council Study Session May 2016 to review the draft of the master plan report Council Study Session June 2016 review draft master plan report (if necessary) Council Adoption of the Parks Master Plan Report August 2016 Resource Impact Funding for this study and planning process was provided by Capital Improvement Program project PE- 13003: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. The objective of this study is to assess the long-term needs for development and improvement of existing parks, open space areas, regional trails and recreation facilities; the acquisition of new park land or expansion of existing park land to meet the on-going needs of the community; meeting the strategic maintenance needs of existing facilities in a cost-effective manner; the prioritization of recommended improvement and acquisition projects; and to provide funding strategies (public and private) for the improvements and acquisitions suggested by the report. The intent of this planning is to utilize limited Capital Improvement Fund and other resources wisely and effectively, and to leverage these resources with grants or private funding whenever possible. Obviously, the intent of the report is to make recommendations that could call for new investments in the future. Due to the indepth nature of the Master Plan process along with additional meetings required for the Parks and Recreation Commission, community and Council the project team is currently analyzing the project budget and scope and anticipates bringing a request for additional funding to complete the final report. Policy Implications The proposed Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 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. Environmental Review This is a planning study and therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15262 of the CEQA guidelines. Eventually, as projects and recommendations of the Master Plan are implemented as capital improvement projects, an environmental assessment will be completed in conformance with the provisions of CEQA. PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN COUNCIL UPDATE REVISION 3 10/15/15 ATTACHMENT B CONTENTS   1. INTRODUCTION: NEED, PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN ........................ 1  2. ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................................... 3  3. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS RESULTS ....................................................... 3  4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH .................................................................................................... 21 5. DATA SUMMARY AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. 31  6. MASTER PLAN PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS .......................... 36    FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Greer Park ..................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Foothills Park ................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Cubberley Community Center ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Park Walksheds Map ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6: Exercise and Fitness Analysis Map ............................................................................. 19 Figure 7: Community Engagement Across the Master Plan Process ......................................... 21 Figure 8: Current Content Feature on paloaltoparksplan.org ..................................................... 24 Figure 9: What is Most Important When You Choose Recreation Programs .............................. 25 Figure 10: Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park ......................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Routes to Respondents’ Closest Parks ..................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Visual Preference Survey Results ............................................................................. 28 Figure 13: Data Binder and Summary Matrix .............................................................................. 31 Figure 14: Screen Capture of a Portion of the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix ........... 33 Figure 15: Developing and Prioritizing Projects in the Master Plan Process .............................. 36 Table 1: Plan Elements and Components .................................................................................. 32 Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 1 1. INTRODUCTION: NEED, PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN This report has been prepared by the MIG team in response to City Council direction at the August 31 study session, as an attachment to the updated Staff Report prepared by the city team. It provides the context for how the principles and criteria discussed at the study session emerged, distilling and providing a summary of the findings to date, as directed by Council. The full reports referenced in this document are available online at http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/ in the Project Updates library. As noted in the staff report, Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. To build on and continue the legacy of a strong parks system, the City is developing a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) that will reflect Palo Alto’s strong commitment to providing high-quality outdoor spaces and recreational activities for our community. The last comprehensive, citywide study of current and projected community recreation and park facility needs was completed in 1965. The new Master Plan will provide clear guidance for managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and future populations; appropriately balance recreation, open space and conservation; and provide adequate funding to meet on-going needs. The Master Plan will provide recommendations about future renovations and capital improvements for parks, trails, natural open space and recreation facilities. It will also include recommendations for how to meet changing needs and evolving demands for future recreation, programming, environmental and maintenance investments and establish a prioritized schedule of park renovations and facility improvements for the next 20 years. The planning process to develop the Master Plan includes the following tracks, as shown in Figure 1.  Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Proactive engagement of the public and a broad range of stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements.  Technical Assessment and Analysis: A comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreational facilities and programs; an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and recreation trends; and an analysis of community recreation needs.  Developing and Prioritizing Projects: Preparation of recommendations; identification of capital projects, needed renovations and other improvements; and prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (10- year) and long- term (20-year) ranges.  Plan Review and Adoption: Public review and approval process to adopt the plan. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 2 Figure 1: Planning Process For clarity, the following terms are used:  MIG team or consultant team refers to MIG, Inc., and its staff members, under contract to assist Palo Alto with developing the Master Plan  Project team refers to the joint City/MIG working team, including the project management teams from both entities.  City team refers to the cross-departmental City team leading the Master Plan effort internally. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 3 2. ELEMENTS OF THE PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION SYSTEM To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s system of resources, the project team defined three elements that comprise the citywide network of parks, natural open spaces, trails and recreation facilities and programs:  Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces: The public parks, trails and natural open spaces, ranging from small neighborhood parks to urban plazas to the city’s expansive preserves.  Recreation Facilities: The places and buildings or other structures that are the setting for programs, classes, sports, events and other formal or informal activities.  Recreation Programs: The programs, classes and special events coordinated by Recreation Services and partner organizations. By defining these elements, the project team created a common language to articulate Palo Alto’s community assets, providing consistency, clarity and structure that will carry forward into the Master Plan. 3. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS RESULTS To ensure a comprehensive, data-driven Master Plan, the project team conducted a significant amount of assessment and analysis. The result is a detailed understanding of the current system of parks, trails, natural open space, recreation facilities and recreation services. The project team also evaluated needs and opportunities, including forecasting changes and trends that may influence future demand and preferences. Each work product underwent a thorough review process, first by the City team, and then by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). Each analysis contributed to the next step in understanding and evaluating the system. This section provides brief descriptions of the analysis conducted and what we learned at each step. For more detail, the project website contains the full documents summarized here. Inventory and Base Map The first step of the Master Plan process was to identify all existing parks, trails and natural open spaces, as well as recreation facilities. This effort included a detailed inventory listing the name, location, ownership, size (in acres) and defining features of all city-owned parks, facilities and open space preserves. Recreation facilities were inventoried, including their physical location where they are integrated in parks. The MIG team also prepared a GIS base map linked to the inventory tables, depicting the City-owned sites, school district sites and other recreation resources. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 4 What we learned:  Palo Alto owns over 173 acres of park space distributed throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open space preserves.  City parks are diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging facilities.  The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns several facilities that provide important community recreation sites and facilities. One of these is the Cubberley Community Center, owned by PAUSD and operated by the City. How we used this information:  The inventory data was used to guide the site analysis visits, and provided the basis for several community engagement tools (including the online map-based survey) Site Analysis Visits and Existing Conditions Maps The MIG team visited each park, facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing conditions. Following this fieldwork, the MIG team prepared an existing conditions map for each site, which includes site history, a summary of features and a description of opportunities and constraints. Each map also incorporates site-specific public input generated through the community engagement process described in Section 4. This set of maps presents detailed information about each park, preserve and facility, and will become an Appendix in the Master Plan. Three examples of these products (on the following pages) depict Greer Park (a park), Foothills Park (a preserve and natural open space) and Cubberley Community Center (a major recreation facility). What we learned:  Due to the era when they were built, many parks don’t have flexible spaces that allow different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collection of spaces designed for a single activity. With design interventions, many existing parks have the potential to support more use and activity.  Native species and drought-tolerant plants are not present or well integrated in many parks, though the preserves are rich with native species. Mown turf grass is a predominant feature in most parks.  The parks are highly developed with maintained landscapes across their entire acreage. Native species and less manicured landscapes are not incorporated.  The preserves include an extensive network of trails, a variety of wildlife habitats, large expanses of conservation land, and some recreation facilities.  Though there are designated dog parks, these tend to be small and isolated from other park uses.  The community centers vary greatly in their age and condition, but are being used for a broad range of activities.  The city owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangle and diamond sports fields located throughout the city. Some are in parks, others are adjacent to community centers, and others in field complexes. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 5 Figure 2: Greer Park Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 6 Back of Greer Park Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 7 Figure 3: Foothills Park Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 8 Back of Foothills Park Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 9 Figure 4: Cubberley Community Center Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 10 Back of Cubberley Community Center Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 11  There are more than 30 play areas in the city. While there are several unique play experiences (e.g., Magical Bridge, the Mitchell Park “gopher hole” playground), most play is focused on manufactured equipment and the play experience is not very diverse. How we used this information:  The qualitative and quantitative information about each site was used to shape community engagement questions such as the intercept boards described in Section 4. In addition, the findings were used to guide the selection of images for the visual preference exercise conducted at the three workshops that occurred in fall 2014.  The Existing Conditions maps document opportunities and constraints, and will be used as the basis for developing the concept diagrams for each site in the system. These illustrative diagrams will illustrate how the Master Plan recommendations apply to each site, and will be an important reference for implementation. Planning Environment Summary The project team worked collaboratively to identify previous plans and studies that could relate to the Master Plan effort, as well as on-going planning efforts such as Our Palo Alto and the Public Art Master Plan. For the completed or adopted plans, the MIG team summarized guiding documents, related plans and programs, and City policies and practices. The MIG team then evaluated facility and program gaps in past planning efforts for consideration in the Master Plan process. For those efforts underway, the project team identified points of coordination with the Master Plan, such as coordinating engagement activities and sharing data with Our Palo Alto, and setting up a separate meeting with the Public Art Master Plan project manager for coordination. What we learned:  The Master Plan has the potential to help advance the recommendations and policies of many existing adopted plans, and is especially timely for alignment with concurrent planning processes such as Our Palo Alto 2035, the Public Arts Master Plan and the Urban Forest Master Plan.  The Master Plan can consider the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and help prioritize which ones will also increase access to parks, natural open space and recreation facilities. How we used this information:  Throughout the planning process, this summary document has served its intended purpose: to provide an annotated reference to Palo Alto’s guiding policies and plan documents; so that the planning team can ensure that the Master Plan is in alignment with their direction. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 12 Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis The MIG team evaluated the existing demographic profile in Palo Alto, including household characteristics and transportation behavior, to identify patterns and trends that could influence the community engagement process and recreation preferences. In addition, this analysis evaluated trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family and the shape and form of cities for their potential to affect the direction of the Master Plan. The document was most recently updated on September 3, 2015 to ensure consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update and to reflect the most recent population data. The Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis includes policy conclusions that will be reflected in the Master Plan, as well as eight policy questions posed for further exploration. These questions helped shape the community engagement. What we learned:  The city has grown steadily since the 1970’s and has a large share of long-term residents.  While the average age of residents is increasing, the city has a sizable population of children under 18 years of age.  The city has a significant share of commuters who travel by bike (11%).  National and regional recreation trends emphasize an outdoor lifestyle, physical and mental health, diverse options for older adults at multiple stages of life, universal design and access for people of all abilities, and a movement to connect children with nature. How we used this information:  The planning team used the trend analysis section to identify areas of potential increased demand, and incorporated these trends into the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix described in Section 5.  The policy conclusions document direction that is being incorporated into the recommendations currently under development.  The planning team developed community engagement questions to help answer the eight policy questions raised in this document, including specific questions in the online community survey. Sustainability Review The Sustainability Review identified opportunities to increase sustainable practices associated with the operation and management of parks and open space. Drawing on best practices from other cities and agencies, the MIG team’s fieldwork and inventory findings and staff input, the Sustainability Review evaluated the City’s current policies, programs and practices and identified opportunities across 13 indicators. The City’s Chief Sustainability Officer reviewed this document along with the City team and the PRC. Findings from the Sustainability Review will be carried forward into the Master Plan recommendations. What we learned:  Despite the absence of formal sustainability goals or policies for the Community Services Division, there are a variety of programs and practices in place that further the Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 13 City’s sustainability goals and that shape the sustainability policies included in the Master Plan.  Staff already reduces water use in parks and golf courses through a variety of programs and has implemented additional reductions to comply with drought-related restrictions. How we used this information:  The planning team is incorporating the findings of the Sustainability Review into the recommendations currently being developed for the Master Plan, including writing guiding policy for sustainable practices already in place. Recreation Program Analysis The Recreation Program Analysis was completed in two parts. In Part I, the project team inventoried programming offered by the Community Services Department, as well as the recreation activities provided throughout Palo Alto by various agencies, organizations, businesses and other community providers. In Part II, the MIG team worked with Community Services staff to export data from the City’s registration system. This system collects data over time that allows Recreation Services to evaluate individual classes as well as categories of classes. The registration system was updated in 2014. The data analyzed was 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 minimum number of participants needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class. These goals are set according to the department’s cost recovery policy and the individual class budget. To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to meet demand, the project team reviewed and analyzed data on reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and waitlists, and considered the observations of staff and consultants. Results of this analysis were used to review opportunities with the PRC, as described in the accompanying staff report. In addition, key findings are called out that identify potential opportunities, inform policy choices and provide possible Master Plan recommendations. What we learned:  The highest participation in City programs is in sports (adult and youth), aquatic (youth and teen) and day camps.  Middle-school athletics programs are largely over capacity. 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.  Demand for some classes and programs vary greatly by time of day.  Facility constraints and a shortage of instructors and coaches prevent the expansion of most sports programs. In contrast, outdoor and open space programs can be more easily expanded because of their setting.  Academic support programs offered to youth and teens are typically operating under capacity. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 14  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. Many of these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings associated with these divisions. How we used this information:  The planning team used the capacity analysis to evaluate demand and need, factoring it into the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix described in Section 5. Geographic Analysis The MIG team developed a geographic analysis of the parks, trails, and natural open space system to evaluate its walkability and accessibility. To conduct the analysis, the MIG team developed a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model of the surrounding streets, sidewalks, trails and pathways, using ESRI Network Analyst to identify “walksheds” or catchment areas for each park. This approach reflects the way people move through the city. The desired travel distances used were ¼ and ½ mile, reflecting research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and 10 minutes. The MIG team also factored in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating feedback reported through the public engagement process about specific streets and intersections people report as being difficult to cross. Many communities also analyze park systems using a function-based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve multiple functions. Feedback from the community through the engagement process indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking for the park system to deliver five categories of activities on a widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified functionally. For the purposes of analysis, the project team called these “essential park activities” to denote that they should be provided throughout the park system, providing a close-to-home opportunity for every resident to enjoy each of these activities. The project team then defined criteria to determine whether these “essential park activities” are available.  Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans want their parks to provide a place to relax and enjoy the outdoors as a primary function. This activity is supported by most parks, which usually include a quiet and calm place to walk or sit. However, some Palo Alto parks were identified as not supporting this activity because of their proximity to a highway or a loud/busy street, their dedication to and heavy use for competitive sports, or based on comments made by the public on the online interactive map (and verified in a site visit).  Play for Children. Parks that provide a playground, play area or unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) support this activity.  Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses throwing, catching, shooting, kicking and hitting a ball, and includes both self-directed and competitive (league-based) play. Parks that have a large open turf area or that incorporate formal sports fields and courts support this activity.  Exercise and Fitness. Exercise and fitness in a park setting generally occurs by walking or running (top recreation activities in Palo Alto, as well as nationally), or by Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 15 swimming. Those parks with perimeter or looped paths, extensive trail systems, a pool or fitness stations support this activity.  Gathering. The Palo Alto community sees the park system as an important provider of space for family, friends and the larger community to gather for picnics, social events and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters and features such as amphitheaters support this activity. In addition to geographic analysis using the GIS-based model, the project team evaluated natural open space and recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the community. These include:  The experience and preservation of nature;  Equitable access to natural open spaces (preserves);  Recreation with dogs; and  Distribution of indoor recreation space. Figure 5 shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo Alto. Figure 6 depicts the Exercise and Fitness analysis map as one example of the activity-based analysis process. What we learned:  Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within a ¼ and ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway near Highway 101 and south of El Camino Real near commercial and institutional land uses.  Fewer neighborhoods are within a ½ mile service area of every essential activity.  Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are more common south of the Oregon Expressway.  Service areas for dog parks are almost entirely located south of the Oregon Expressway. How we used this information:  The planning team used the trend analysis section to identify areas with gaps in service, factoring it into the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix described in Section 5. Utilizing Analysis Results The series of analyses conducted are foundational to the development of Palo Alto’s data-driven and community-responsive Master Plan. Each of the analyses was designed based on staff and community input (described in more detail in the following section) to identify opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. The site-specific, geographic and programmatic gaps identified through this process were evaluated and deliberated on by the PRC, through the process described in Section 5 of this report. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 16 Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 17 Figure 5: Park Walksheds Map Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 18 Back of Figure 5 Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 19 Figure 6: Exercise and Fitness Analysis Map Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 20 Back of Figure 6 Map Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 21 4. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Process Overview The project team integrated community and stakeholder engagement into the entire planning process, as seen in Figure 7. Figure 7: Community Engagement Across the Master Plan Process The Public Engagement Plan, developed early in the process, articulated the goals and strategies for creating a Master Plan that aligns with local needs, preferences and priorities. The project team also met with the “Our Palo Alto” team to ensure the coordination of the efforts. As articulated in the Public Engagement Plan, the community engagement goals are to:  Increase community awareness of the project;  Inform the community about the challenges and opportunities of the project;  Provide easy access to project information and opportunities for participation;  Offer a range of communication and engagement tools to match interests and preferences;  Ensure the final Master Plan reflects community priorities, preferences and values; and  Get community buy in to support plan adoption and its short-, mid- and long-term implementation. To achieve these goals, the Public Engagement Plan laid out a robust, layered outreach strategy that included a variety of engagement tools and activities so Palo Alto residents and other interested community members could participate in a manner convenient and comfortable Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 22 for them. There have been numerous opportunities for participation to date, with a variety of formats, times and levels of interaction offered as well as both online and face-to-face methods.  Interactive community workshops provided input at key project milestones, with a series of three occurring last fall and a prioritization workshop planned for this coming fall.  A series of online surveys gauged community values and priorities, including: o an interactive map-based survey; o a comprehensive community survey; o a community prioritization challenge (currently available); and o a future exercise to comment on the draft plan.  A stakeholder group convened periodically has advised the project team.  Interviews with experts on staff and in the community helped inform topics that emerged from the outreach.  Consultations with the PRC and other appointed commissions deepened understanding.  City Council updates and study sessions kept the Council members informed. What we learned: A number of key findings emerged from the many outreach tools method, each of which is described in greater detail on the subsequent pages of this section. The following topics and findings were referenced multiple times by the community, staff, partners and decision makers through multiple outreach methods. These have been critical in shaping the analysis described in Section 3 above, and the principles and criteria described in Section 6. In addition, these themes and findings provide direction for the shaping of the Master Plan policies and recommended actions, and in some cases have application at the site level.  Respondents value, support and appreciate their parks system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system.  Strategic enhancements and improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics, and to continue to provide world-class experiences to residents.  Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities.  Providing accessible and safe active transportation routes to natural open spaces, community centers and parks is a high priority.  Nature is very important to residents. There is widespread support for the continued protection, enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife habitat.  Residents also want to feel connected to nature in their urban parks. There is interest in adding nature play elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional parks.  Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails and bicycle and pedestrian paths to parks and places to relax are preferred over exercise equipment or additional classes.  There is widespread interest in bringing community gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas of the city to improve access to these amenities for all neighborhoods. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 23  Residents strongly support improved and additional restrooms in parks. In addition, there is clear preference for features and amenities that support comfort, convenience and longer stays at parks, including water fountains and places to sit.  The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal design and access and there is interest in adding inclusive play elements to more parks.  Current policies that prioritize facility availability for Palo Alto residents are widely supported, and stakeholders generally agree that Palo Alto is (and should be) focused on providing services to local residents, rather than providing regional attractions.  Residents would like to see enhancements to parks throughout the city including more types of play experiences and environments. There is also support for smaller, more locally focused events and programs (e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks throughout the city.  Many existing recreation buildings have been repurposed and do not suit current needs well. Newer indoor facilities have greater flexibility but do not have specialized features to support some programs (e.g., outdoor arts programs or lifeguard training).  Local and regional partnerships (particularly with the school district) are extremely important and should be continued and strengthened. How we used this information:  The planning team identified patterns and trends that cut across all the engagement activities and results, and crafted the Master Plan Principles described in Section 6 to articulate a vision for the future.  Park and program-specific findings are currently being considered by the planning team as in the development of the Master Plan recommendation. Public Engagement Activities to Date The project team, with support from the PRC, has successfully collected and analyzed input from hundreds of residents and stakeholders through a variety of methods. These are described on the following pages. Project Webpage One of the first steps was developing a Master Plan project webpage hosted on the City’s website with a project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org). Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 24 Figure 8: The current content feature on paloaltoparksplan.org is the community prioritization challenge Public Information Updates The project team disseminated a series of public information updates through the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming meetings, online participation opportunities and project status. The contact list grows with each engagement opportunity. Stakeholder Advisory Group The Stakeholder Advisory Group works to boost participation within its networks and constituent groups in the Master Plan process. The group includes representatives from local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers and landowners, community service providers and others. To respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s input at strategic times during the project. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 25 The first meeting was held on June 25, 2014 to fine-tune the engagement process and obtain initial input on issues and opportunities. The second meeting was held on October 1, 2015, to discuss findings to date and brief the Stakeholder Advisory Group in preparation for two final meetings. The next meeting will focus on prioritization, and the final meeting will focus on the draft Master Plan. Intercept Events During the summer of 2014, the project team and PRC members conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors outdoors at parks, farmers markets and community events. This approach is effective at engaging all age groups, especially families with children, and allows for informal and educational discussions with the public. The intercept format also facilitates interaction with people who do not typically attend public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a lack of awareness. The project team selected intercept locations to reach a cross- section of Palo Altans:  Rinconada Park, June 28, 2014  Downtown Farmers Market, July 19, 2014  Cogswell Plaza, July 24, 2014 (Summer Concert)  California Street Farmers Market, August 9, 2014  Cogswell Plaza, August 14, 2014 (Summer Concert)  Mitchell Park, August 16, 2014 (Twilight Concert) More than 200 people provided input and learned about the park system and the Master Plan effort. They also provided important feedback about their values and motivations as related to parks, natural open space and recreation, such as what is most important when they choose recreation programs, summarized in Figure 9. Figure 9: What is most important to you when choosing recreation programs, classes and events? Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 26 Online Map-based Survey During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online, interactive, map-based survey using MIG’s Mapita application. This tool allows community members to respond to a series of questions and provide geographically tagged comments on specific parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout the city. A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort generated a rich data set about how people use the park system, how they travel to the places they go, and what their experience is like, including site-specific data. The MIG team brought the data into GIS, and it was used to inform the geographic analysis described in Section 3. Figure 10 and 11 are graphics from the summary document (available on the project webpage), illustrating the richness of information collected at the site and system-wide level. Figure 10: Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 27 Figure 11: Routes to Respondents’ Closest Park (darker lines indicate more intensely-used routes) Community Input Workshops In fall 2014, the project team conducted two interactive workshops in different areas of Palo Alto. The project team added a third workshop when the San Francisco Giants made it to the World Series and games conflicted with the first two workshops, which had been planned for months. In total, about 65 community members attended this series of workshops, held on October 28, 29 and December 2, 2014. Participants took part in a visual preference survey about the character and design of parks using real-time keypad polling. Facilitated small groups provided the opportunity for people to have an in-depth discussion of what features they would like to protect, preserve, improve or add to Palo Alto. The MIG team collected polling data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on comment cards. For example, Figure 12 shows the level of support (from the three workshops) for a landscape with integrated natural plantings. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 28 Figure 12: Visual Preference Survey Results for a Landscape with Natural Plantings Integrated (combined for 3 workshops) Online Community Survey Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the MIG team in close consultation with the PRC and the City team. This tool collected data on community priorities and preferences to inform the development of recommendations and actions. The survey was available online and in hard copy, in both English and Spanish, from mid-November to mid- December 2015. The MIG team developed an initial summary of survey findings for review with the PRC and then completed additional data analysis to provide more detail on specific topics, based on feedback from the PRC. Follow-up Stakeholder Interviews After the geographic and program analysis were completed, the project team identified issues for which additional feedback from stakeholders would be beneficial to understanding needs and identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014 and March 2015, members of the project team conducted 16 follow-up stakeholder interviews to gather additional data and explore issues in depth. The interviewees included staff, volunteers, partner staff and users across a variety of topics:  Community Gardening  Aquatics Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 29  Cubberley Community Center tenants  Junior Museum and Zoo  Palo Alto Art Center  Children’s Library  Palo Alto Children’s Theatre  Middle School Athletics  Palo Alto Dog Owners  Avenidas  Palo Alto Youth Council  Boost drop-in programming Results were brought into the Data and Opportunities Summary matrix process as described in Section 5, and considered by the PRC. Parks and Recreation Commission The PRC has been involved throughout the Master Plan effort, from the initial scope development and consultant selection through every step of the process. This commission’s involvement has been critical to understanding the full range of issues in the community and in shaping further community engagement. The details of the PRC’s hands-on involvement in defining and considering data and opportunities is described in the accompanying staff report. City Council Decision maker involvement is also an important part of engaging the community in the Master Plan process. At the beginning of the Master Plan process the project team made a presentation to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study session on March 24, 2014. This presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the planning process as well as preliminary ideas about the community engagement and how the analysis and plan will be used. This report, as well as the August 31 and November 2 Study Sessions, serve as Council updates on the progress of the Master Plan process. In Process and Future Engagement Activities Engagement activities will continue through the end of the process with opportunities to shape prioritization, close the loop with stakeholders and facilitate review of the draft plan by the community, the PRC and the City Council. Community Prioritization Challenge The Community Prioritization Challenge is a trade-off exercise, designed to be compatible with the planned Community Prioritization Workshop. The Challenge is live now, available to access through the Master Plan website. As of October 6, there were 270 complete responses. Data will be analyzed once the Challenge is closed. Community Prioritization Workshop Following up on the Community Prioritization Challenge, the project team will convene an interactive workshop that will also feed into the prioritization process. Building on the findings of the online exercise, this in-person workshop will take advantage of the opportunity for community members to explore trade-offs together. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 30 Stakeholder Advisory Group As noted, the Stakeholder Advisory Group will meet at least twice more. This group will work with a more detailed view of the park system, reflecting their more nuanced understanding of activities in Palo Alto. Park and Recreation Commission The project team will continue to work closely with the PRC in developing content for the Master Plan. Each regular meeting of the PRC includes an update on the current status of the plan and a review opportunity for the latest pieces developed by the project team. Upcoming topics include the review of a preliminary list of recommended actions, the results of the prioritization discussions and detailed review and input into the prioritization of actions. These steps precede the review of a full draft plan, which will be released first to the PRC and then to the public. City Council This report is part of the project team’s commitment to utilizing the feedback City Council has provided to advance the project toward an adoptable and implementable final document. The detail provided here is intended to clarify the extensive planning process and allow the project team to move forward with clear feedback on the critical prioritization process. Following this step, the next City Council check-in will be at the release of the public draft Master Plan, to introduce the full document and explain how the Council’s input was utilized to shape the direction of the document. During the formal review process, Council will have several opportunities to provide general and detailed feedback on the plan document as it is refined and moved toward adoption. Public Comment on Plan The project team will create an online feedback form to collect comments from the public on the draft Master Plan. As comments are made, they will be logged to track the source of the comment, specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration, and aggregated feedback to identify any patterns. Comments will be discussed with staff and the PRC to determine what action to take for each comment. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 31 5. DATA SUMMARY AND OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS As the major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis (described in Section 3) and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement (described in Section 4) were completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the accumulated data as it relates to each element of the Master Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together in preparation for the critical track of Developing and Prioritizing Projects. The process for this review, designed by the project team with the input of the PRC, created a detailed reference matrix (with supporting documentation) to refer to as the process moved toward recommended actions. Data Binders To assist both the project team and the PRC in referencing and using the large amount of data developed during the process, the City team created a tabbed binder with each of the completed documents, numbered for quick reference. These binders were produced for each of the PRC members and for the members of the project team. An outline of the deliverables for the Master Plan process became the table of contents for the binder. As additional materials have been developed, they have been added to the binders. Figure 13 shows the binder and accompanying matrix (which is poster size). Once the binders were developed, all working documents, such as the Summary Matrix described in this section, have used the numbered references to sources corresponding to the reference numbers used in the table of contents contained in the binders. To facilitate broader distribution of the data binders (and reduce paper use), the City team is developing a “digital binder” for the project website, which consists of a table of contents with hotlinks to each section. This can be downloaded directly from the following link: http://paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/CPA_Parks_MasterPlan_Data%20Sources.pdf Figure 13: Data Binder and Summary Matrix Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 32 Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix With the full set of reference materials in the data binders, the PRC needed a process to evaluate opportunities based on the collected data. The project team developed a matrix format that took each of the Master Plan elements (Parks, Trails and Natural Open Space; Recreation Facilities; Recreation Programs) and broke them down further into constituent “components”. Table 1: Plan Elements and Components Master Plan Elements Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces Recreation Facilities Recreation Programs Co m p o n e n t s Walkability and Equity of Park and Preserve Access Off-Leash Dog Areas Adult Aquatics Activity Access: Play for Children Community Gardens Adult Fitness Activity Access: Exercise and Fitness Basketball Courts Adult Special Interest Classes Activity Access: Throw/Catch/Shoot/Kick/Hit Tennis Courts Adult Sports Activity Access: Gather Together Rectangular Sports Fields Day Camps Activity Access: Relax and Enjoy the Outdoors Diamond Sports Fields Middle School Athletics Experience Nature Gymnasiums Open Space/Outdoor Recreation Preservation of Nature Swimming Pools Youth and Teen Aquatics Trail Connections Community Centers Youth and Teen Sports Availability of Restrooms Special Purpose Buildings in Parks Youth and Teen Special Interest Classes Site Amenities and Experience Other Indoor Program Facilities Youth and Teen Sports Camps Universal Accessibility Picnic shelters (covered) Special Events Event venues Therapeutic Recreation Senior Programs For each of these components, findings across both the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks were summarized in a rating or short statement across nine topics:  Current Service/Inventory  Level of Control  Geographic Analysis  Capacity/Bookings  Perception of Quality  Expressed Need  Demographic Trends  Barriers to Access/Participation  Projected Demand Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 33 Where ever possible, the data was summarized with a defined rating (typically high, medium or low). Each of these ratings was tied to a data source (or sources) and a set of thresholds defined in the Data and Needs Summary (which is the document in the data binder and available on the project website). For several of the topics, a short statement is provided instead of a rating due to the type of information collected. The general source materials for each topic are clearly citied (as included in the Data Binders) and where a specific finding is particularly informative the page number(s) are cited. The full matrix was provided to each PRC and project team member in a large format print to provide a quick reference to the relevant data for each component of the system. Figure 14: Screen Capture of a Portion of the Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined, more accessible way. The matrix continues to be a reference point that helps justify why the Master Plan is exploring particular directions. The working draft of the matrix can be downloaded from the project website at: http://paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/PTOSR_Matrix_MASTER_052215.pdf Opportunity Analysis The final column of the matrix for each component is a summary of the opportunity to enhance Palo Alto’s system through the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element and component. These opportunities represent potential actions, and each of these opportunities would be a good addition to the system. However, due to the limited land, staff, funding and other resources in the community, these opportunities still need to be prioritized. Areas of Focus As the development of recommendations has progressed, informed by the opportunity analysis and the development of the principles and criteria, the project team developed a list of areas of focus that represent the categories of recommendations that are forming. These areas of focus Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 34 collapse the many opportunities into a set of twelve areas that cut across the elements of the Master Plan. Each area of focus includes a title, a short description and an example. Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city Ensuring that parks and programs are distributed as evenly as possible across Palo Alto. For example, adding recreation activities into geographically under-served areas, improving access to parks for cyclists and pedestrians and finding new locations for recreation opportunities such as community gardening and swimming. Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the community Maintaining a mix of programmable space for indoor sports (including gyms) and fitness as well as gatherings, classes, theater, arts and community programs. For example, updating key facilities at Cubberley. Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming Improving visibility of parks in the community and providing the amenities that make more frequent or longer visits to parks comfortable. Improvements may include creating a sense of arrival using art or signs; providing drinking water, a variety of seating options, shade and restrooms. Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields Increasing the playable time at existing sports fields. For example, adding lights, improving natural turf and drainage. Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks Exploring new, unique and dynamic features and activities to support a diverse and fun system. For example, adding new types of play experiences, creating flexible gathering spaces that can be used for picnics as well as performance art, etc. Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs Providing programming, information or features that support physical and mental well-being. For example, trails, drop-in activities/classes in parks, signs illustrating exercises that can be completed using existing features (walls, benches, etc.), as well as providing quiet places for relaxing in nature. Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs Supporting recreation with dogs in a variety of ways. For example, using existing fenced features as off-leash areas at particular times or enlarging off-leash facilities to accommodate more dogs. Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks Preserving, enhancing and providing access to nature in parks and open spaces. For example, protecting eco-systems, increasing native plantings and wildlife habitat and creating access to natural elements such as creeks. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 35 Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities Actively reducing and removing physical, programmatic, language and financial barriers so that all ages, abilities and cultures can enjoy parks and programs. For example, adapting existing programming for people with disabilities or investing in targeted programs to reduce user fees. Offering more of existing programs, classes, events Increase the capacity in popular and emerging programs/classes by realigning resources and replicating programs. For example, adding more summer camps or recruiting/training additional coaches to offer more middle school sports. Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities Following input from the community and trends, develop and implement new recreation classes, activities and events. For example regularly trying new programs as one-time or one year pilots. Expanding the system Take a proactive approach to adding more park and open space lands, trail connections and facilities to Palo Alto’s system. For example, dedicating publicly owned spaces as park land or investing in a fund for future park and recreation facility purchases. Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 36 6. MASTER PLAN PROCESS TO DEVELOP AND PRIORITIZE PROJECTS As described in the previous section and the accompanying staff report, the project team worked closely with the PRC to define the full range of opportunities to enhance Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open spaces, recreation facilities and recreation programs. As illustrated in Figure 15, the development of these opportunities into actions began in the fall of 2015 and will continue to be refined into a set of recommendations included in the Master Plan. As this report illustrates, there is rich set of data and analysis from which to draw actions and recommendations for the Master Plan. Actions and recommendations will include site and facility improvements, program changes and enhancements, and systemwide policies and practices, all focused on achieving Palo Alto’s vision, as articulated in the Master Plan Principles. The subsequent prioritization of recommendations (informed in part by the Community Prioritization Challenge) will provide guidance to staff and decision-makers in how to sequence the implementation of projects and improvements. Figure 15: Developing and Prioritizing Projects in the Master Plan Process In addition, the City team, PRC and Council need a method for evaluating new ideas and proposals that are brought forward after the Master Plan is adopted. Because Palo Alto is largely built out and has finite staff and fiscal resources, the prioritization process needs to be defensible and definitive. Decision-makers must have confidence that they are making best use Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 37 Master Plan Principles  Playful  Healthy  Sustainable  Inclusive  Accessible  Flexible  Balanced  Nature of Palo Alto’s resources, and the public must have confidence that decisions are transparent and aligned with community priorities. Inherent in the planning process are trade-offs and opportunity costs. As noted above, the City of Palo Alto is a constrained system. As such, the City will have to choose which of the opportunities identified in this planning process to implement. The principles and criteria developed during the Master Plan process are intended to facilitate prioritization and decision- making both in the development of the Master Plan, and following its adoption. Each is described below. Master Plan Principles The project team developed a set of Master Plan principles that describe the community’s vision and will guide the way projects are implemented. The project team distilled community input and considered the themes emerging from the data summary and opportunities analysis process described in Section 5 to develop draft principles that describe the community’s vision. These were refined with the PRC, and Nature as a principle was added based on Council direction at the August 31 study session. The following eight principles provide the foundation for the Master Plan, articulating Palo Alto’s vision and guiding project and program implementation.  Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.  Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and cohesion of the community.  Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social resources for a system that endures for the long-term.  Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community, all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income.  Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-round and to get to by all modes of travel.  Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional, emerging and future uses.  Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience or place, and includes both historic elements and cutting-edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces, and self-directed and programmed activities.  Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors, and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with nature. Prioritization Criteria The prioritization criteria are designed to help staff, PRC and Council make choices about which projects will be the most strategic investments for the Palo Alto community, in accordance with Parks Master Plan: Council Update (10/15/15) 38 the Master Plan principles. These criteria are designed to be used to help determine which actions and recommendations are included in the Master Plan, as well as the sequencing and timing of implementation. The project team has been working with the PRC for several months on developing and refining these criteria. Currently, there are five identified criteria:  Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (park land, facilities, programs) to areas of the city and to users where gaps were identified.  Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs identified through citywide outreach.  Respond to growth: Add features or programs, modify or expand components of the system to prepare for and address increasing demand.  Leverage public resources: Create the most benefit possible for each dollar spent on capital and operating costs.  Realize multiple benefits: Advance the principles of this Master Plan as well as the goals, projects and directions of other adopted City efforts. Next Steps A clear process for evaluating potential recommendations and actions and a means of documenting decisions will help staff and the PRC be confident that, when projects are implemented, they will be consistent with the Master Plan and based on the best available information. The project team has been working on an evaluation process and tool. The intent is that this process will be used to evaluate all potential recommendations and actions for inclusion in the Master Plan. It will also serve as a tool for staff and the PRC to evaluate ideas that are suggested in the future, after the Master Plan is adopted. The project team drafted and tested the evaluation process using three different potential recommendations to ensure it works as intended and is applicable to each of the three Master Plan components. After the test evaluation, the process and tool was refined and forwarded to the PRC for their consideration. The PRC is reviewing and refining the proposed process, and will use it to prepare the Master Plan recommendations. The evaluation process and draft recommendations will be shared with Council in the coming months.