Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-26 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting January 26, 2016 AGENDA City Hall Chambers 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 December 8, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting – Chair Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair – Action – Chair Reckdahl – (10 min) 3. Discussion and feedback on off leash dog parks in Palo Alto – Discussion – Daren Anderson/Ad hoc Committee (40 min) ATTACHMENT 4. Review and update on the CIP budget - Discussion – Daren Anderson (25 min) ATTACHMENT 5. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - Peter Jensen – Discussion – (60 min) ATTACHMENT 6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion (15min) V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - Commission Retreat February 5th, Foothill Park 9am – 1pm VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2016 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 December 8, 2015 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Anne Cribbs, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed 13 Lauing, David Moss, Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: 15 Others Present: Eric Filseth 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 17 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 18 19 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20 21 Chair Reckdahl: Does anyone have any changes? 22 23 Daren Anderson: I just had one comment on the agenda. It had been my intent to bring a 24 discussion item under Capital Improvement Projects, and I missed the window. I 25 apologize. While I'll have a brief presentation this evening, the discussion will have to 26 wait until the January meeting. I'll return at that time, and we can ask our questions and 27 have a thoughtful discussion on the topic. 28 29 Chair Reckdahl: There's no way to make it a discussion item at this point? 30 31 Rob de Geus: I think we can discuss it but just more limited. It is an ad hoc committee, 32 and it's an ad hoc committee update. We would have preferred to have it listed 33 specifically on the agenda. The ad hoc committee has met, and we've had some 34 discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't posted that way. We just want to be sensitive to that. 35 Some limited discussion, a broader discussion in January which is fine with the timeline, 36 we believe. 37 38 Draft Minutes 1 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: I don't think there's going to be any deep conversations about it. If 39 people have questions, we want them to be able to ask questions. 40 41 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 42 43 Chair Reckdahl: I have no speaker cards, so we'll move on. 44 45 IV. BUSINESS: 46 47 1. Welcome New Commissioners. 48 49 Chair Reckdahl: The first piece of business is Welcome New Commissioners. Did you 50 want to say something? 51 52 Rob de Geus: I'll say something. I'll introduce myself first of all. I'm Rob de Geus; I'm 53 the director of Community Services. We have three commissions within Community 54 Services. The Parks and Rec Commission is one of them. We have the Public Art 55 Commission, and we have the Human Relations Commission. I have a favorite; no, I 56 don't really. I've been with the Parks and Rec Commission for a long time and appreciate 57 what the Commission does and how they support staff in design of parks and policies 58 around parks and recreation. It's extremely helpful to the staff. Welcome aboard and 59 congratulations. I'll also have these guys introduce themselves, because you'll see them a 60 lot. They're at almost every meeting. This is Peter Jensen right here. 61 62 Peter Jensen: Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the City of Palo Alto. I actually 63 work in a different department than Daren and Rob do; I'm in Public Works, mostly 64 focusing on Capital Improvement Projects of renovation of parkland and City landscape 65 space. You will see me a lot. Along with them, I don't really consider myself the lead of 66 the project because the project is so big, for the Parks Master Plan. That is probably the 67 most important project that the PRC is working on this year as far as its vast size and 68 what it has entailed in it. Nice to have you on the Commission. 69 70 Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, I'm with Open Space, Parks and Golf 71 which is with Community Services. I'm fortunate to work closely with the Commission 72 on a lot of projects for many years, and looking forward to doing so with our new 73 Commissioners and this whole Commission going forward. 74 75 Catherine Bourquin: I'm Catherin Bourquin. If you need any assistance, please call me. 76 I'm sure you all have my email address and phone number. I've spoken to a few of you. 77 Nice to meet you guys. 78 79 Draft Minutes 2 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: Catherine helps us stay organized. She did prepare some binders for the 80 three new Commissioners. It includes some information about protocols and roles of the 81 Commission, the Brown Act around that, how agendas get set up, those types of things. 82 There's a variety of things in there for you. It's a big binder, so you can add things to it. 83 It's going to take a little bit of time to get up to speed on some of the projects, particularly 84 the Parks Master Plan which is not just a Parks Master Plan but it's Parks, Natural Open 85 Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. It hasn't been done in decades; it's a 86 very, very big endeavor. Staff and the Commission has been working on this for well 87 over a year. There's a lot of information to go over. I invite the three new 88 Commissioners to come and meet with myself and some of the staff maybe before the 89 holidays if that works, if not soon after, so we can just talk for some time about some of 90 the big projects that we've been working on, particularly the Parks Master Plan, and help 91 you get caught up. We can also do a tour of facilities or other things if you're interested 92 in doing that. 93 94 Chair Reckdahl: When Abbie and I started, you brought us around and showed us the 95 facilities. That was very nice. It helped me get an idea of what we're worried about. 96 There will be a lot of stuff; just ask questions. We can answer them now or answer them 97 later. We will be having a retreat in February usually. There we'll go through all the 98 items, and that will give you a nice overview. Between now and then, you'll be 99 frantically swimming to keep up. February, you'll have a much better idea of what's 100 going on. 101 102 Mr. de Geus: Chair Reckdahl, it might be nice to hear from the three new 103 Commissioners and how they did in their interview and why they chose to join the 104 Commission. 105 106 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Moss, do you want to start? 107 108 Commissioner Moss: Sure. I've been a volunteer on a number of different activities, Boy 109 Scouts and AYSO and other activities, Gunn High School Sports Boosters and Gunn 110 Foundation Scholarship. I've always had a little bit of that in my activities, but I have 111 been here for 40 years doing program or business analyst. Also, our family has always 112 enjoyed the open spaces. We go practically every week to one of those three open 113 spaces. We really have a vested interested. 114 115 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs. 116 117 Commissioner Cribbs: I'm Anne Cribbs, and I am a longtime resident of Palo Alto. My 118 children all went to Palo Alto schools. I worked for the Recreation Department in the 119 mid-'80s and went on to work in Palo Alto. I head up the Bay Area Sports Organizing 120 Committee which seeks to bring national and international sporting events to the San 121 Draft Minutes 3 DRAFT Francisco Bay Area. Since we're not having the Olympic Games here anytime soon now, 122 I am looking forward to working on the Park and Recreation Commission. I absolutely 123 love sports and believe in the value of sports for children and for adults and for senior 124 citizens, and love Palo Alto as well and think we live in an absolutely great, wonderful 125 place. I'm absolutely so happy to be here, especially when we're starting, at least I feel 126 like we're starting, on this Park Plan. Thank you. 127 128 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Cowie. 129 130 Commissioner Cowie: My name is Jim Cowie. I've lived in Palo Alto for 15 years. For 131 most of those years, I served as a basketball coach for my three daughters who are now 132 too old to have dad coaching them anymore. I feel like I have a lot of free time that I can 133 contribute to the community in other ways. I took on a role with the School District on 134 the Oversight Committee for the bonds a couple of years back and felt like I could do 135 more. Like the other new Commissioners, I'm passionate about open space and 136 recreation opportunities, sports for kids. I am a consistent user of the facilities that we 137 have here in Palo Alto and am excited about the opportunity to help the City do 138 everything it can to preserve what we've got and make what we've got even better. 139 140 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Speaking of binders, are they going to get copies of the 141 Parks Master Plan binders? 142 143 Mr. Jensen: Yes. We'll be working on that, and we'll have that for them at the next 144 meeting or perhaps sooner. Yes, they will. 145 146 Chair Reckdahl: Are there any updates for us? We haven't had any updates. My binder's 147 been sitting on the shelf for the last few meetings. 148 149 Mr. Jensen: Yes, there are updates to the binder now. I've started to collected those 150 together, and we will add those to the binders next time. There's some updated plans that 151 need to go in there as well as some of the sections that we have material for now that you 152 didn't have before. 153 154 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 155 156 2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 27, 2015, Parks and Recreation 157 Commission Meeting. 158 159 Approval of the draft October 27, 2015 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Hetterly 160 and seconded by Commissioner Lauing. Passed 4-0, Cowie, Cribbs, Moss abstaining 161 162 Draft Minutes 4 DRAFT 3. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 163 Plan. 164 165 Chair Reckdahl: Peter Jensen, take it away. 166 167 Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 168 City of Palo Alto, here to continue our ongoing discussion of the Parks Master Plan. 169 Tonight we'll be discussing three specific areas, two at length, and then we'll review a 170 plan at the end that was updated. We'll be talking about firstly the evaluation process and 171 the ranking and the scoring of those things as far as our list goes of potential project and 172 program ideas. Then we'll be looking and introducing the list of project and program 173 ideas, which I'll go through in the second phase of this presentation and bring it up on 174 your monitors. We'll talk about how it can be filtered and reviewed in different ways. 175 The final thing, as I alluded to before, we'll be talking about a change to one of the plans 176 in our geographic study. We've added some information to that, most importantly in the 177 brown. If you want to look at it now, sitting in front of you is the City land that's owned 178 which includes parking lots and other things that weren't on the plan before. We'll get 179 into more detail of that as it goes along. First though, I do want to start out with the 180 evaluation process and the criteria and how it's ranked and scored. We're going to go 181 through this process. I have some examples to talk about. Then we'll talk about and have 182 a little discussion about this first thing after that. Then we'll move into the list and have a 183 discussion about that. Without further ado. Just to talk about the purpose of the plan, to 184 bring everyone up to speed and briefly give a description, since we do have some new 185 Commissioners here tonight. The Parks Master Plan, which also includes programming 186 and facilities, has put together the idea to guide decision-making for future development 187 of the parks, trails, open space and recreation system. We have a great park and 188 recreation system now. We want to make sure we have that in the future and, where we 189 can, enhance that, enhancing it in a way based on data collected in the first phase of this 190 project, so we make good decisions and choices when we do decide to use capital funds 191 to enhance or renovate our park and recreation system. This next slide represents the 192 process that we've been moving along to get to the final Parks Master Plan. We are at the 193 criteria and prioritization phase, which you see is getting down closer to the end. Of 194 course, the majority of the first phase of the project was doing site analysis and data 195 collection of our current system as well as a lot of community feedback and input, that 196 went along into this. Just recently over the last few months, we've been working on the 197 framework to develop this list of projects and the way it can be prioritized. The first step 198 of that was creating a list of master principles, which you see here. These principles 199 provide a vision of what Palo Alto would like to see in its park and recreation facilities, 200 programs and its parks. They are drawn from data and analysis and community output 201 from the first phase of the project. I did bring, for everyone who knows what it is and for 202 those of you who don't, the matrix of the opportunity summary that was put together and 203 that basically starts to break down all the data into a matrix that you can start to 204 Draft Minutes 5 DRAFT understand it a little better. You'll understand what I'm saying by this. If you don't have 205 a project binder, it is very thick and packed with a lot of information. This data matrix 206 was used to compile information as well as to relate back to where that information was 207 from when conclusions are being drawn. From that came the initial principles which was 208 worked on by the Parks and Recreation Commission for a few months to get them where 209 they are now. From our initial Study Session with the Council, actually our second one, 210 one has been added. I don't think we discussed this in the last meeting. Is the word 211 "nature" there? That was felt by the Council as well as members of the community that it 212 should stand alone as its own principle. Another thing developed over the last few 213 months was prioritization criteria. This criteria is what we're going to get in more depth 214 tonight, because this is the meat of how we're going to prioritize our list of projects. In 215 the package, if you've had a chance to look through it, you'll see that most of the pages 216 are this very extensive list of potential project and program ideas. We're at the stage now 217 of how do we rank or score and get a prioritized list of what we want to do here. It's 218 going to be done using these criteria. Again, these criteria were developed with the 219 Commission over the last few months and represent key areas of focus that we want to 220 consider while evaluating the potential projects. That brings us then to recommendations, 221 and that's kind of where we are tonight. We are introducing the list of these 222 recommendations. The final steps in developing the Master Plan involve refining, 223 prioritizing and documenting the recommendations generated throughout the process. A 224 list of potential project and program ideas have been developed for review. This review 225 will go on for the next meeting at least, because the list is so extensive. That is kind of 226 the second part of our topic tonight, the list itself. We want to introduce it tonight, talk 227 about it a little bit, and then give you the time between now and next meeting to have the 228 list and review it. At the next meeting, we'll talk about it more in-depth. This is 229 something else that we've been working on, refining over the last few months, the 230 potential project and program ideas and the steps of prioritization and how they're going 231 to be ranked and scored. This is more a flow diagram of how that will be. We are mostly 232 going to be talking about this center circle here and the filtering of the list and then the 233 prioritization of that. How do we do this? We have our list, and we have all these 234 projects that we want to put together. I'm going to go through a few examples tonight. 235 Each example represents a different, I guess, area of specificity. This one being one that 236 is about a park and renovation to a park. The second example deals with an issue that 237 we've dealt with a lot; that's having a dog park and where that should go and how that is 238 ranked. The third one is an actual one about programs. We'll look at a facility upgrade 239 with a park improvement and then a program improvement. This first one is a connection 240 to Adobe Creek from Mitchell Park. That example comes from the list of projects that 241 we have. What happens here in this sequence of how we got to this point and are going 242 to get through to the criteria to judge this is, first of all, our consultant MIG has put 243 together our list of recommended projects from the opportunities and community 244 feedback. That's where this example comes from. They've composed and compiled a list 245 of that. Staff has taken a look at it over the last month and been reviewing that with them 246 Draft Minutes 6 DRAFT to get you to the list that we have today. This represents one of those projects from the 247 list. How it got to the list is in the steps, looking at again the matrix and the community 248 feedback that we have received, then applying the principles to the project. The 249 principles give us an understanding of the overall areas of scope or vision that we would 250 like to see involved in all the projects. We would like for each project to fulfill as many 251 of the principles as possible. This initial review goes through, and you can see there's 252 checkmarks next to the ones that were felt were covered by this project. The principles 253 come back later in the project at the end when we actually have a real specific project. 254 We look at this list again and then start to talk about what are the principles that are 255 missing and how can those things be incorporated into the scope of the project to make 256 the project better and more enhanced. That's also based on feasibility. Not all those 257 things, of course, can be done just probably due to budget and costs. They do play a role 258 at the beginning and also, I think, a more important role at the end. The other that's done 259 for each of these projects is it draws again from our matrix. The project team or City 260 Staff will assess the idea based on available data. The opportunity summary describes 261 what the planning team knows about the site. The process uses the same measures the 262 PRC and project team used to develop the opportunity matrix. A sample of the project 263 information is shown in the next slide. For each one of these potential projects, they 264 looked at the areas of the matrix that we have, and it recognizes what's in that matrix for 265 each specific project. It goes through our upper heading which is in the dark green 266 section of this layout. Then it describes in each one how they fulfill that or how they're 267 associated with that specific column. This first sample I'm using because it gets to this 268 point. In Step 3a is where you look at the principle and you look at the data driven from 269 the matrix. At that point, a decision is made if there's enough information to have a real 270 project. In this specific project, where it's calling out to re-establish the natural bank of 271 the stream or a natural area next to the creek itself, that needs a feasibility study. The 272 project that will be first recommended will be to do a feasibility study to see how that can 273 be done. That won't happen to the majority of the projects, but a few of the projects will, 274 so I do want to bring that up as being a step that is considered in the process of this. For 275 our purposes here, the example, we go on to just rank the project. This is where really 276 the conversation tonight is about this. Using the criteria, we've set up a sample scoring 277 card that each project will go through. Each project will be scored in the whole list. 278 Currently our list is 386 projects. It's 143 ideas, but some of those ideas can be applied to 279 different parks, different facilities which gives you the 386 total. All 386 projects will go 280 through this criteria ranking. It's an evaluation set up with numbers in our case. In your 281 packet I put one through five as it being scored. Further discussion after that felt that the 282 zero should be applied to, because some of the projects may not hit one of our criteria. 283 Allowing that to be marked as a zero is something that should have been considered in 284 there. Further discuss too is the point system. That's what we can have further tonight, is 285 a zero through five point system adequate enough to evaluate the projects. There was 286 also some conversation that I had with MIG, the consultant, about using fraction of points 287 too, a half point, a quarter point, to give a varying degree of points. It could eliminate 288 Draft Minutes 7 DRAFT some of the logjam if you had a bunch that were scored the same. How would we then 289 decipher between those? We can get a more accurate description of that. We'll talk 290 about that a little bit more as we go along. This is the score card that will be used. The 291 consultant is going to go through the list initially and score it. Staff is then going to work 292 with them to review that list. The list will be brought back in the next few months as a 293 ranked, prioritized list that we'll have further discussion about. That's the idea that's 294 recommended right now. Again, we can have discussion on that too and how that is set 295 up. That's basically what we're shooting to do. For this project, you can see the total, if 296 you start, add up to the scores of those things. Again, zero being the lowest and five 297 being the highest. This project scores a 19. That is significant when we get to this end of 298 this, because that's how you start to prioritize this list, ranked upon their score. With the 299 maximum amount of five points, the maximum score a project can get is 25 points. 300 That's the process that we'll go through to rank each of these. This slide starts to talk 301 about the principles. What you have then is your project, going back and looking at what 302 principles were not checked off in the initial review and how we can incorporate those 303 principles into the scope of the project to make it a much better project. I would also say 304 too that for our Parks Master Plan, the scoring and evaluation of projects is going to be 305 more significant because we have a full list of all these projects that we want to have. 306 The same criteria, though, and the scoring is being proposed to be used in the future as 307 well. When new projects pop up, this would be the process that those new projects would 308 also go through to be ranked and scored and judged and set against the list that we're 309 going to generate now. This, I guess, process of evaluation is not just for the Master 310 Plan, but it's for continuous set up or structure of evaluating projects in the future that do 311 come up. The second example is having an off-leash dog park in the north section of the 312 City where we are lacking it now. Again, it goes through and reviews the principles set 313 up with that. I think we all agree that developing more dog parks or a better dog park is 314 definitely a project that's high on the list that we do hear a lot about. This is definitely 315 something that's going to be considered. Again, the consideration that runs through our 316 opportunities matrix would consider these for each of those headings and is the 317 background information for why the project was made a project. This one is then scored. 318 You can see that the question of do we have adequate information, which we didn't have 319 in the last project, we needed a feasibility study for the development of the creek side. 320 For this one we do have enough available information, so we move past that stuff and 321 then go into the judging of its criteria. In this case, the criteria totals to be 17 as the 322 score. Again, you'd go back through and look at the principles that were not checked off 323 and try to develop them into the actual scope of a specific project. Example Number 3 is 324 a program. This has to do with the Boost yoga program, expand the Boost drop-in 325 program beyond the indoor facilities in the system to include programs held on lawns in 326 Palo Alto parks. Yoga is a good program to start with this, but this idea could expand to 327 additional programming types. This is a way to move out of our limited facilities space 328 and have programming in the park that is for drop-ins. These are things that have, again, 329 been cited by the community as well as from the analysis of the data we have of our park 330 Draft Minutes 8 DRAFT and program system. It's run again through the Master Plan principles. You can see here 331 that health, walkability and balanced are the ones checked for this; there are a few that 332 aren't. Again, this is an example of how that information is tied back to the information 333 from our opportunities matrix and where the information and background information 334 came for making it a project. Going through its scoring system, this one gives us a score 335 of 21. This goes through, again, the principles and reassigning them to the project to 336 enhance the scope. We go through this whole list. We just ranked three as our examples. 337 From that, we get a grand total of points. From those points, you can see that the Boost 338 yoga in the park hits more criteria and ranks higher than the other two projects. What 339 that means is that on the compiled list of prioritized projects that we get, it'll be ranked 340 from the highest scoring to the lowest scoring. That will give us a good, solid foundation 341 of considering those projects. Of course, there will be a scrutinizing by staff as well as 342 the Parks and Rec Commission as well as Council, that will review the list and how it is 343 prioritized and what is on that list. This will establish our initial draft list to review and 344 provide backup data and information that, I think, supports how they are prioritized and 345 ranked. The use of the scoring. It provides an indication for which projects should 346 advance in the budget and capital planning process. The results can be filtered to 347 compare competing projects or program ideas that would utilize the same space and 348 resources. We can talk about how that is done with our bigger list. It provides a clear 349 and defensible ranking system. The process is designed to continue to be used for 350 evaluating new project or program ideas that come up in the future. These are the main, 351 core ideas of developing this evaluation process. For tonight's purposes, I know that you 352 just got the package last week, so your initial review of it. I do also want to continue this 353 discussion at our next meeting as well. This is definitely a very important process in this 354 whole thing. The things that I think staff and the consulting team is looking for as far as 355 information and guidance kind of go along with the next discussion points. Does the 356 point ranking system provide a clear and concise method of prioritizing projects? Does 357 the zero through five point scoring scale for each criteria work for ranking the proposed 358 projects and program? I also added in this one that this would include do we want to use 359 half or quarter points to help broaden the range of scoring. Are the criteria used for the 360 method enough for prioritization? Finally, if the Commission would like to form an ad 361 hoc committee that works with the staff and project team to help develop the list before it 362 comes back to continue the process of discussion of the prioritization, that's something 363 we'll consider tonight. 364 365 Chair Reckdahl: How is cost and value going to be worked in here? I see down in the 366 next circle we have some iteration that includes that. Even if it isn't perfect, but it has 367 very low cost and very high value, you think that that should make it percolate up earlier. 368 369 Mr. Jensen: That goes along into our potential list. That is going to be—it's not currently 370 now. That's something the consultant is working. There are additional, I guess, columns 371 in our list. One of them being budget or funding. Right now, from our discussion and we 372 Draft Minutes 9 DRAFT can talk about that here in a minute, they're going to do it as a dollar sign. We haven't set 373 what those limits of each dollar sign mean. If it has one dollar sign, meaning that it's less 374 funding to do. If it has two, three, four—I don't know what our range of that's going to 375 be, but we will be considering that as one of the items on the list. 376 377 Chair Reckdahl: That will still be in the prioritization circle? 378 379 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 380 381 Rob de Geus: I was just going to add that there's a lot to take in there. It looked 382 confusing. It's a work in progress. We have to, somewhat like a funnel, get to a 383 prioritization of projects and programs. There's going to be many more, as you see in the 384 list, than we're going to be able to do in a short period of time. How do we do that? This 385 is sort of the process that we're trying to create with you all about that process. I think 386 that's important to say, that it's still a work in progress. The examples that were listed up 387 here was sort of for illustration purposes; they weren't actual point system that we had 388 fully developed. In fact, a point system the way we've been talking about it would need 389 to be a group of stakeholders, the Commission, staff and others, that would all score 390 together to develop sort of an average on those five criteria. I wanted to certainly 391 mention that. The other point I wanted to make was about the dollar amount. This was 392 something that the Commission has discussed before and, I think, intentionally did not 393 want the dollar amount to be a deciding factor of whether a project should be a priority or 394 not a priority. We think it's important that it's on the list so we have an understanding of 395 sort of order of magnitude. Some of these thing are big, particularly expanding the 396 system where we might think about adding parkland, purchasing land. It was a conscious 397 decision not to have cost be a factor there. It's a reality check that we have to deal with 398 but not a factor in terms of prioritization. I wanted to mention that. 399 400 Mr. Jensen: When the list is prioritized, there is a sequencing step that does happen after 401 which does review. That's about the short-term, mid-term and long-term and how these 402 projects all fit into those different areas. Those will consider budget and the cost of the 403 project, will consider how it balances the system. It either balances a specific park so we 404 have passive and active areas or we have a dog park at the north—actually that's the third, 405 geographic distribution that's also considered in that, where you look at how our facilities 406 are broadcast throughout the City. We'd like to have a dog park in the north. Those three 407 things are considered when sequencing when these things will happen in which 408 timeframes. I will open it up for discussion on this topic now. 409 410 Chair Reckdahl: Before we start with the Commissioners, we have one public speaker. 411 Howard Hoffman. 412 413 Draft Minutes 10 DRAFT Howard Hoffman: Thank you. Welcome to the new Commissioners. I'm Howard 414 Hoffman, and I represent Palo Alto Dog Owners. We have more than 300 members. The 415 reason I've been coming to a lot of these meetings for a long time is that the City of Palo 416 Alto really is lacking in facilities for dog recreation. We have a dog leash law in Palo 417 Alto; you can get cited and fined for having your dog off leash. Interesting about the 418 yoga versus dog parks, how that just worked out in that example. There's all kinds of 419 commercial places to do yoga all over Palo Alto. I left my yoga class early this evening, 420 after only 30 minutes of the 75-minute class, to be here. I appreciate yoga. I started my 421 yoga in the City yoga program. You can do yoga anywhere, but you can't do recreation 422 in Palo Alto with your dog off leash except in fenced areas. I did take an early look at the 423 Master Plan and where it was going. It's a little hard to decipher at this point; I guess it's 424 still a work in progress. I just want to say that I'm thankful that there are some provisions 425 in there for some new places for dog recreation, but I'm not sure they are enough. The 426 walkable is one thing that our dog owners really like, having places they can walk. Right 427 now, they walk to their local park, and they walk to their local school, and they take a 428 chance of getting a ticket by doing off-leash recreation. We would like legal places so 429 people like me don't have to run from the dog catcher. It's really not a fair situation. In 430 your deliberations, we hope you'll take that into consideration. Thank you very much. 431 432 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Howard. I think the scoring up there was just an example. 433 I don't think that was meant to be final scoring. It was just an arbitrary example. We do 434 value dog parks, and we will do our best to bake them into the plan. 435 436 Mr. de Geus: I wanted to add something, if it's okay, Chair Reckdahl. Howard made me 437 think of it. As we've been thinking about how would we look at something like this when 438 it's all scored, in my view and I'm interested to hear what you think, to have all the 439 projects and programs together with a score and evaluate it that way probably isn't very 440 effective, in my view. I think that having it categorized by the elements, in other words 441 we look at all recreation programs and how well they scored, because I think we want to 442 invest in all of these things in one way or another, open space, trails, recreation programs. 443 There's not a lot of value in yoga classes against dog parks. That wouldn't be a good way 444 to look at it. That's one thing that I think would be important in terms of categorizing the 445 scoring in that way. I thought I'd mention that. Looking forward to hearing your 446 feedback. 447 448 Chair Reckdahl: We'll open up for Commissioner questions. Anything? 449 450 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you for saying that. That was the first note that I was 451 going to say, how we can subgroup the different categories, programming, nature, land, 452 facilities, buildings, etc. Very helpful. I thought that was a perfect example, the yoga 453 versus dogs. With regard to the money comment, when these projects are eventually 454 plotted out onto the immediate, five-year, ten-year, fifteen-year or hundred-year line, 455 Draft Minutes 11 DRAFT today's dollar is different than a project that would be ... It's almost impossible to affix a 456 physical dollar amount, because a project today might cost something very different 457 based on the circumstance of whatever is happening when it's being implemented seven 458 years from now. I wanted to say that in particular. I do agree with breaking the score 459 down a little bit. I know it might become a little more cumbersome than five through 460 zero. Where you can have the quarter point, half point, I think that would be very helpful 461 because of just the mass of all the information being discerned. Lastly, how you take all 462 of those points, I guess, is what I'm struggling with. You have a 19.6, how do you then 463 prioritize? There's got to be a subjective thing attached to each project too. For instance, 464 knowing how many people come to the Commission meetings or write letters with regard 465 to a certain subject. That might not have the same value point; it might look lower. In 466 the example, dog parks looked lower than yoga by a four-point margin, but there might 467 be more community interest for dog parks. Do you know what I mean? It just kind of 468 feels like the number can't be the only thing to represent the project. There's a lot of 469 subjectivity. Am I articulating? 470 471 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, I completely understand. It is going to be challenging. We have to 472 take in some insights from a number of different angles. The matrix over there is an 473 important part of that. For the new Commissioners, what it really represents is 11 or 12 474 different sources of information that we went out and sought from the community, focus 475 groups to surveys to intercepts and a variety of other things including staff input and 476 Commission input. That's going to be a very important part of testing projects and 477 programs. Is it something we really heard is a gap, for instance, from the community? 478 Those types of things. We'll have to provide our own sort of perspective as well as staff 479 that are close to this and are working on it all the time, communicating with the public 480 every day and hearing things. Commissioners too who are very close to this and thinking 481 about the park system and recreation. In some cases, as Peter mentioned, we may find 482 that we're short on information. We don't have enough information, and we have to go 483 back out or we have to do a targeted request about a specific project or program to see if 484 we got it right. It's going to be challenging. 485 486 Chair Reckdahl: Other questions? Commissioner Lauing. 487 488 Commissioner Lauing: Could you get back to the question list that you have for us 489 tonight? I appreciate the presentation which helped on top of the thick packet. I have a 490 number of questions. When we're talking about the prioritization criteria after the areas 491 of focus and the principles, we see how that all fits together. It strikes me that these 492 prioritization criteria might need to be weighted. As we look at what's going on here, 493 filling existing gaps, addressing community preferences and responding to growth, in the 494 ad hoc those were prioritized as more important than leveraging public resources, which 495 is almost an apple pie kind of thing, because we definitely want to do that in all cases. 496 Multiple benefits is a goal, but we also said we can't restrict it to that. It strikes me that 497 Draft Minutes 12 DRAFT slightly modifying your system, if you wanted to stay with this, then I would suggest that 498 maybe those first three get five and the last two only get two or one and zero. Zero to 499 five and then zero to one or zero to two, so that it's not overwhelming the vote in that 500 case. I'm not enamored with fractions. What these are trying to do is just get order of 501 magnitude valuations as we just said a couple of times here. I don't think that helps, to 502 get it down to the decimal points. I think we need to get that sorted out before we're 503 ready to look at all the different things that have to be decided in terms of the specific 504 projects. The other thing that concerns me about that is the whole thing seems to be a bit 505 tactical rather than big picture with respect to the timeline and with respect to what's most 506 important. You guys know that eventually it has to get very tactical when you're putting 507 in turf fields. I'm glad you raised the timeline issue which was really important to me. 508 This is a 25-year program. If at some point in the future we need three more swimming 509 pools, it's going to get scored a lot differently if we're going to do that in 15 years than if 510 we're going to get it in 2 years. The scoring has to be, I think, within a context of some 511 sort of timeline. We might want to be starting that eventually. I'm not saying we should 512 be here tonight, but eventually we should be coming up with sort of strategic direction 513 over the next 25 years of what do we need. If we feel that lacrosse is overtaking baseball, 514 that's even tactical. If indoor sports are starting to overtake outdoor sports, that ought to 515 be at the frontend of this analysis to give direction to Council about what this scoring 516 means. It's already been kind of referenced, so I'll just put a small point on that. 517 Programming stuff that is prioritized at any score, is very low cost and can be done by 518 staff is not a capital improvement project. If we're going to put up a gymnasium, that 519 might be really important, and whether it gets a lower score or a higher score, it has to do 520 with the longer term. I'm missing the timeline here, and I'm missing kind of a strategic 521 overlay of directionally where do we want to go beyond things that are maybe slightly 522 fuzzy like the principles, valuable but slightly fuzzy. Maybe at some point we have to 523 get, in certain areas, here's what the Commission thinks are sort of the top ten things in 524 parks or recreation or whatever when we get to the end of this. I do think that there is 525 some sort of quantitative value that has to go on this if we're going to benefit 5,000 526 swimmers versus three dog owners. I particularly use that crazy example. The former 527 might get a little bit more consideration because of the quantitative benefit. Those are 528 sort of my kind of big picture questions. I'm not sure exactly; maybe you guys can tell us 529 why you don't want to do the first prioritization rather than MIG. You know the City; 530 clearly they're going to be giving us input on best practices and trends. Some of the 531 things that are already in here, I'm not even sure actually why they're in here, because 532 they didn't poll very well, like food carts. There are a lot of those things in here. We 533 want to make very sure that we don't do things because we can do them. I'll go back to 534 one of our very important projects, the acreage in the Baylands. To the extent that we 535 can find other ways to just not do anything with that and leave that resource there for the 536 future, that would be good. If it looks like we want more fields and we can put them 537 there, we want to make sure that we're not just scoring more fields really high and we 538 jump right to the Baylands. Just as an example, again, of the judgment that has to go into 539 Draft Minutes 13 DRAFT the prioritization on the part of staff and others. Those are my kind of overall, general 540 comments. 541 542 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Hetterly. 543 544 Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with all those comments. I like the idea of (inaudible) 545 the rankings by element. Just to start with the principles. The addition of nature, I think 546 that it should have added to it, not just incorporating nature for the benefit of people, but 547 also respecting and enhancing ecosystems. I think that was one of the big pieces Council 548 was trying to get at in adding that. For the criteria, I absolutely think we should weight 549 the first three criteria more than the other criteria. We're serving the community, so if we 550 have identified gaps in our services and clear preferences, those should rank highly. 551 What was the third one? Response to growth. The same thing. I think that's a key part 552 of planning. For existing gaps, I think we have to define that a little more clearly. As it's 553 written here, it says gaps in areas of the City and user groups. I think gaps shouldn't 554 necessarily be limited by geography or demographics. It also has to include unmet needs 555 and preferences. I think there's some overlaps between the gaps and the community 556 preferences piece. For example, gyms is certainly a gap, but the location of it is not 557 really critically important for ranking purposes. It's not like we want to have a gym in 558 south Palo Alto and Midtown and north Palo Alto necessarily. The distribution isn't as 559 important. Community preference, I want to be sure that that reflects not just the 560 prioritization survey but all of the input that we've received from the public. I want to 561 know what the status is of the prioritization challenge and whether the number and nature 562 of ideas that are in here reflect that. When is that going to come back to us? 563 564 Chair Reckdahl: Do you know that answer, Peter? Are we still running it? Is it still 565 online? 566 567 Mr. Jensen: It's still online. We haven't promoted it in about a month, so nothing has 568 really happened to it. It was in the mid-300s the last time we had. We've been 569 transitioning and getting the Council brought up to speed, so we've just left it there. It is 570 hanging there. The end of January is when we will close that. At the first of January, we 571 will promote it again and spark some more interest to get more voting to happen. That 572 way it will help to feed the criteria of community input; it will also use all the analysis 573 from community input before in that section as well. 574 575 Chair Reckdahl: I think that a lot of people do have breaks over the holidays, and they 576 have more time. Promoting it before the holidays may be a good way of getting people 577 who have just been too busy to do it. 578 579 Commissioner Hetterly: Moving on to realizing multiple benefits, that criteria. As it's 580 written, it suggests that the multiple benefits we care about are overlap with other City 581 Draft Minutes 14 DRAFT efforts. I think really the primary multiple benefit we're looking for is multiple 582 community benefits. I think if you wanted, we could maybe add a criteria about overlap 583 with other City efforts, but I don't think they're the same. I think it's apples and oranges, 584 and they shouldn't be together. Do you want comments on the idea list? 585 586 Mr. Jensen: I will do those in a second. 587 588 Chair Reckdahl: Other Commissioners have any comments or questions? 589 590 Commissioner Cowie: I apologize if I cover areas that the Commission has already 591 covered in prior discussions. There are a couple of things that, in my first pass, were not 592 entirely intuitive to me. When we have separate criteria for address community 593 preferences and respond to growth, they both seem to me roughly equivalent to demand. 594 I'm not sure that we don't have a fair amount of redundancy when we score those as 595 separate categories. I'm a little confused by the leverage public resources piece, because I 596 assume the ultimate decision-making body will take into account the return on investment 597 of whatever the project is. That seems like a rough equivalent of ROI, just by the 598 definition. I guess on a related point to that, I understand we're not really intended to 599 factor in cost as a swing either way. It's not intuitive to me why that would be the case. 600 If that's already been debated and settled, fine. I just thought I'd raise that I didn't 601 understand why that would be. In terms of making a recommendation, it seems to me we 602 have to take into account the cost. I think this is related to what Commissioner Lauing 603 said earlier. It seems to me actionability or some rough equivalent of that, which is 604 related to the timeline, how quickly can you get something done, how painlessly can you 605 get something done, ought to be a factor. We ought to take into account, exactly as he 606 said, a longer-term strategy. If there are things that we can do that are not controversial, 607 even if the impact is relatively small, but we can do them quickly for no expense or 608 perhaps even to save money, why wouldn't we just do them? I'm a little concerned that if 609 we literally follow the score card as we have it now, a project like that might come out 610 with a score of 4, but it has no downside and it's free. I'd hate to see that fall to the 611 bottom of the list for years. I just wanted to reiterate the point about—I suppose this 612 factors into the ROI equation as well—I think we need to factor in how many people are 613 going to benefit from the project somewhere in the scoring. That was all I had. Thank 614 you. 615 616 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Moss. 617 618 Commissioner Moss: I agree with many of the comments. We've got like 50 years worth 619 of projects on this list. The timeframe is really a factor. What we prioritize today may 620 not be the same priority we give them in two years or five years from now. It's going to 621 be a moving list, I suspect. The prioritization we give today may change in the future. I 622 don't know how often you're going to come back and revise the priorities, but it's 623 Draft Minutes 15 DRAFT something to think about. Several people have mentioned the size of the stakeholders 624 groups. You have dozens and dozens of stakeholder groups. Dog owners is just one of 625 them. It would be nice to have an idea of how many people are affected. Also, this is the 626 first time I've seen this list of 370, and obviously I could see more added from my own 627 personal experience. How do we update this list over time and maybe push some new 628 things on and push some old things off? I don't know. I don't want to get into exactly 629 which ones I want to add, but it should be factored in that the list might change. I don't 630 know with the Brown Act how much influence my personal experience will have on this. 631 I guess the purpose of the scoring and the criteria is to minimize that as much as possible, 632 the personal views of us as individuals. It's something I'm curious about. When 633 somebody said that some things could be done for free right now, even if they're lower 634 priority, I think the search area of looking for new parkland, if somebody tomorrow 635 donated something or we could buy a piece of property tomorrow that just came on the 636 market, never been on the market, we might jump on it even though it's lower down on 637 the priority list. The last thing is that you're going to get this list of high priorities and 638 lower priorities and lowest priorities. There may be some juggling among the higher 639 priorities by us. I just want to know how that's going to happen, how that fits in. That's 640 it. 641 642 Chair Reckdahl: Peter, do you want to talk at all about changing prioritization? You 643 broke it up into three. We're going to talk about first just the prioritization. What was the 644 middle section that we're talking about? 645 646 Mr. Jensen: We're going to talk about the list. 647 648 Chair Reckdahl: The list is next? 649 650 Mr. Jensen: Yep. 651 652 Chair Reckdahl: What's the last? 653 654 Mr. Jensen: The last is just a review of this updated plan that we looked at last time, 655 which is not going to take very long. 656 657 Chair Reckdahl: Peter, do you want to answer David's question about your thought 658 process about how things are going to be juggled around? 659 660 Mr. Jensen: Prioritizing the list is definitely the first step in the process. There definitely 661 will be multiple chances as it comes before different commissions, definitely the Parks 662 and Rec Commission, to have the conversation and a discussion about that and how the 663 projects are evaluated and ranked. That's just going to be a discussion of the projects on 664 the list and getting down into the list and having a constructive discussion about it that 665 Draft Minutes 16 DRAFT gets us to the point where we all feel comfortable of how the ranking is. We'll take more 666 feedback; we will be requesting further feedback from MIG, our consultant, about that 667 and how they feel that that should be done. If there is other feedback from the 668 Commission of how they would like to structure that, then that's something that is open 669 for discussion as well. 670 671 Commissioner Hetterly: Can I just clarify? The rankings are intended to inform but not 672 determine the recommendations. The rankings, whatever that process is, will produce 673 lists and then there will be a follow-on process that imposes the kind of big picture 674 judgment. 675 676 Mr. Jensen: Right. 677 678 Mr. de Geus: The way I would see this working—it may be specific to David's 679 question—it won't be one ranking exercise and we're done. With one ranking exercise, 680 we'll have a certain picture, but it'll still be fuzzy. We'll take the highest level and have to 681 have another look at all of those. We look at the criteria and say how do we evaluate 682 these higher priorities against the filling of gaps and these other criteria. We might have 683 to go through two or three times before we really get to a recommendation. 684 685 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs. 686 687 Commissioner Cribbs: I think all my questions have been answered. I think there were 688 some very good comments among all of the Commissioners. A couple of things that are 689 of interest to me and a little bit of concern are the fact that we really want to understand 690 how many groups we're representing and are able to have input into the whole process. 691 Obviously, there's a lot of input and it's been going on for a long time. Secondly, the cost 692 piece. When we talked about the fact that cost wasn't factored into this, I'm really 693 interested in knowing what the cost is before we go very much further on. Not as a 694 limiting factor, but just understanding the opportunities that exist with the cost or if it's 695 something that we can get done for no cost and who our partners might be. Finally, I 696 love the idea of the top priorities and a timeline. I think that's really important for 697 everybody to feel like things are getting accomplished. 698 699 Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. I have a couple of comments here. A lot of these are 700 similar to what other people said. I do think there's going to be a lot of apples and 701 oranges when we're comparing these. I do think Rob's point about dividing them up into 702 categories will improve the comparison. Sometimes you just can't compare two things 703 that are drastically different. By definition we want balance, so we want to take things 704 from all the categories. Even if we ranked them on a single category anyway, we 705 wouldn't necessarily just take the top. I'm a little overwhelmed by looking at this list. I 706 agree with David that there's a lot that you could add to it. When I look at it, there's a lot 707 Draft Minutes 17 DRAFT of things that could be missing. That's going to make it even more imposing. I'm a little 708 worried about being swamped with data and being able to sort through this. That's the 709 process. Another thing that is hard for comparison is, at least in my opinion, we 710 eventually will have to start expanding the system, if the population growth continues the 711 way it is. Putting money aside to fund future expansion does not compare well when you 712 start ranking it, because it doesn't do much for you. If I have only a certain amount of 713 money right now and I want to put some of that aside or build a new building or build a 714 new playground, that immediate effect is going to grade much higher than putting 715 something away for future expansion in 10, 15 years. I don't know how that's going to 716 come out. I suspect that if you ranked all these things, expansion would be at the bottom. 717 If you just blindly rank everything, that means that we're kind of painting ourselves 718 further into the corner than we are right now. We should take that into account as we are 719 scoring these things, that there may be some overriding things that the scoring doesn't 720 reflect. You did say that the scoring is not the end-all and be-all. Community input, I 721 think, is quite high; it should be ranked higher. Some of these people mentioned that they 722 should be weighted. If the community really wants something, then we should be 723 receptive to that if we think it's a good use of resources. Realizing multiple benefits 724 doesn't do a lot for me. If a project does multiple benefits, that to me doesn't mean 725 anything unless it does them well. If something serves this group and serves this group 726 but doesn't do a good job of serving either of those groups, it may not be the best. The 727 thing that's attractive about doing multiple things is you get better value. You build one 728 field and one season you can use for one sport and the next season you can use it for the 729 same sport, so for the same cost you get double the benefit. That's where multiple 730 benefits weigh highly. Just the fact that it has multiple benefits doesn't necessarily mean 731 that it should score highly. It really comes down to value again. If this realize multiple 732 benefits is—by value, I don't necessarily mean just money, I mean also land. In some 733 ways land is more scarce in Palo Alto than money. If we only have a certain area and we 734 can do a lot of things well with that area, that is high value. I still am torn about the way 735 we're prioritizing them and the fact that value comes in fairly late in the process. It's in 736 the process, so I think we can go as is. It still makes me a little nervous that we may end 737 up spending a lot of time looking at things that don't have high value. Eventually when 738 we get down to the second blue circle, in that iteration we may throw things out that 739 looked really fun but didn't have a lot of value. That's part of the prioritization. We're 740 going to do a lot of work regardless, and lot of it's going to get thrown out. I'm not 741 objecting to it; it makes me a little uncomfortable. That's all the comments I have, so let's 742 move on to the—did you want to respond, Rob? 743 744 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, because there were a lot of questions and comments. Maybe we can 745 talk a little bit about the questions. I don't know that I caught them all. I can try and talk 746 about the questions a little bit and try and respond to those. I'll just start with the last one 747 on the question of value. I wasn't quite sure what you were saying there, Chair Reckdahl. 748 The criteria is intended to be sort of the highest value of the programs, that fills a gap, 749 Draft Minutes 18 DRAFT that we know the community wants or is a high community preference. The values are 750 built into that, because that's what we heard from the community. Maybe I just 751 misunderstood what you were trying to say. 752 753 Chair Reckdahl: Realize multiple benefits, to me, in itself—you could have something 754 that would be mediocre and have lower scores in the first four, but it does do multiple 755 benefits and you get a five for that. All of a sudden, that's now in the contender where it 756 really should just be a lukewarm idea. If it doesn't do the things that it does well, I don't 757 see why you should be rewarded by doing a lot of things mediocre. 758 759 Mr. de Geus: That I completely understand. I like woodworking, and a tool that tries to 760 do three different things usually can't do any of them very well. I totally get that. We 761 could probably reword that. You're right. If it's multiple benefits, it needs to be really 762 multiple community benefits that are of high value. I think that's what I'm hearing. 763 764 Chair Reckdahl: When we iterate, I think that will come out. After we do one round of 765 this, we may find out that some of the things that percolate to the top are not what we 766 want percolating to the top, and we'll have to reassess the scoring. Probably the best way 767 to assess whether the scoring is accurate or not is do it and see whether we think the 768 things that are percolating to the top are what we want. 769 770 Mr. de Geus: That may be the best way we learn how this works. 771 772 Mr. Jensen: That's one of the reasons of having MIG take a first pass at it. It does allow 773 a little bit more expedited process, just because of the manpower that they can put behind 774 getting those numbers together than staff. Staff will definitely be involved in that process 775 of reviewing what they've come up with. I do think that it is a good idea to get them 776 ranked and then start to look at them. That will start to tell us some things about how it's 777 prioritized, how it's being evaluated, and if the rankings are coming out the way we think 778 that they should. 779 780 Mr. de Geus: I just wanted to follow up on a couple of other things. Commissioner 781 Cowie mentioned the difference between Criteria 1 and 2, fills existing gaps versus 782 addresses community preferences. I think we did see a distinction between the two, 783 particularly to staff who are very close to the park system, the trail system and even the 784 Commission. We may know of a need that is very specific, but that the community is 785 just not really aware of, because they're more passive users. It would be different than 786 what we heard in community surveys and focus groups, which is really the community 787 preference which came up a lot. That's the difference there. You had mentioned 788 actionability and if it's actionable quickly, should it get a higher score. That's kind of an 789 interesting one. We have to think about that, because it makes a lot of sense to do that, 790 but it has to score high though. Nothing's free, certainly it'll take staff time. Any time 791 Draft Minutes 19 DRAFT staff is working on something, they're not working on something else. If it scored low, it 792 doesn't cost anything but takes staff time, it still may not be worth doing. I think that's 793 important. Commissioner Moss asked about the personal experience versus public 794 benefit. That's a good question. Maybe other Commissioners want to weigh in here. It's 795 a really difficult question, because you were appointed to this Commission in part 796 because of your personal experience, I think, and your history here and your 797 understanding of the parks and recreation system. That has to play a role, and it should. 798 Ultimately, I think, you're trying to find out what is in the public's best interest as a 799 whole. You're applying your experience to that goal. If that helps. It's very difficult to 800 know what is in the public's best interest, as Council Member Filseth can certainly attest 801 to. It's going to be very challenging with 68,000 people in the community. That's the 802 goal. Commissioner Cribbs asked the question about—actually several people mentioned 803 it—how many people are impacted by the particular program or project and shouldn't that 804 be in the criteria. I believe that was the thinking around addresses community 805 preferences and fills existing gaps, at least in there. As we would go through ranking 806 these, that's one of the things that I would be thinking about, how many people are 807 impacted by this, is it filling a significant gap, are people not accessing a program or a 808 park or something. It's interesting having new eyes on this, because maybe that's not as 809 clear as I thought maybe it is. We can look at that again. That's, I think, a really 810 important point. How many people will benefit from investing in that sooner than later is 811 a really important part of the ranking system that should be built in. Do you have 812 anything to add? 813 814 Commissioner Hetterly: I'd like to just add a clarification to Commissioner Cowie. I 815 think that you asked about a redundancy between growth and preferences. Did I hear that 816 wrong? 817 818 Commissioner Cowie: Actually it was the second and third items that I thought were 819 overlapping somewhat. 820 821 Commissioner Hetterly: I think the way we saw it as this was taking shape was 822 preferences was what does the community currently want, what is our unmet need now. 823 Growth was looking at demographic changes and what we expect to happen in the future 824 that your neighbor might not expect to need in the future. 825 826 Commissioner Cowie: It's maybe current demand versus future demand. 827 828 Commissioner Hetterly: yeah. 829 830 Commissioner Cowie: I understand. Thank you. That's a helpful distinction. 831 832 Draft Minutes 20 DRAFT Commissioner Lauing: Can I just add one other clarification, maybe for the new people? 833 We talk about community input. We have to remember that these are impressions from a 834 few hundred people compared to the 68,000—is that what you just quoted that are in the 835 City? We need to keep reminding ourselves and eventually Council there have been no 836 scientific studies done in any of this gathering. It's good data, but it's essentially 837 subjective data based on those folks that have voted. We can't really apply that to 838 numbers of people that would benefit from X or Y or Z program, but they're valuable 839 indicators. We always have to keep reminding ourselves of that. We can't go to Council 840 and say the community has voted. And the press, the press needs to understand that as 841 well. 842 843 Council Member Filseth: I just want to comment on something that Keith said a little 844 while ago. Obviously something that requires a huge amount of resource or money is 845 going to be hard to do. I think if one of the answers that comes out of this effort is we 846 need X, Y, Z thing and it's going to cost $20 or $30 million, it's probably going to be a 847 while until we get it. If that is the answer, we need it, then I think this group shouldn't 848 shy away from that. If this group doesn't do that, then the rest of the City will never 849 know. I think it's important that if the answer is we need X, Y, Z facility in Search Area 850 C, then we need to know so we can start planning for it. 851 852 Commissioner Lauing: That's why we have to stay at kind of the strategic level as 853 opposed to scoring all these projects which could take a gazillion years and we just have 854 projects scored and we're still leaving out the big picture items. 855 856 Male: (inaudible) 857 858 Commissioner Lauing: We should do it and justify it and say the whys and the 859 wherefores of that. 860 861 Chair Reckdahl: Peter, do you want to go through the table? 862 863 Mr. Jensen: Yes. This next section of the presentation is discussing the list of potential 864 project and program ideas. It is long and, as we discussed and has been mentioned a few 865 times, definitely has the opportunity to grow. This is again a draft list looking at the 866 community input as well as the data found in the opportunities matrix. I'd like to go 867 through the actual digital list so we can look at how it is broken and filtered, and then I or 868 Catherine will email you the list in the next few days, and then you'll have the list to go 869 through over the next few weeks before the next meeting. 870 871 Mr. de Geus: We're not going through the list. I think we're going to orient to the list. 872 873 Draft Minutes 21 DRAFT Mr. Jensen: Right, we're not going to go through the list one-by-one right now. The list 874 is composed and broken into our 12 areas of focus. The list that you got in your package 875 was divided in two different ways. You got two lists that are all the same. One broken 876 down into site-specific and one broken down into the area of focus, so you could see how 877 they were grouped. The original list was just a list composed so there is no ranking of 878 how the list was put together. Projects or ideas that could be spanned through multiple 879 facilities or parks are all grouped together. If we recognize that we need community 880 gardens, then in a section there's three or four different site locations where community 881 gardens could go. The list then has these little pull-down tabs. You can see what's 882 happening over here is this is for each section and we're looking at—I wish I had a closer 883 monitor to see what section that is. Hang on one second. Let me pull this up here. The 884 areas of focus, you can go and check all the boxes of the areas of focus that you wanted 885 to look at. If you wanted to look at one—I cannot see this list up here. There is a way to 886 ... Whatever one that I did select up there, then it regroups it into that. You can start to 887 divide them in separate ways. Each one of these pull-down arrows works the same way 888 for each one of the columns. Each column, of course, has a group of items that you can 889 filter and divide the list to start looking. If you wanted to look at everything that was 890 planned for Rinconada Park, then you could go into the site one. All the parks and 891 facilities are in there, and you can check them out. The easiest way I found to do that is 892 to—right now, they're all selected to show you the full list—click the top box which is 893 blank, they all go blank, and then go through and start checking the ones you want or just 894 the one you want. It's the easiest way to navigate through there. This list has been pared 895 down a little bit. Column 4, the funding or budget needs of each project, is not included 896 in this because that has not been figured out yet. That will become a column in this to be 897 able to go through and filter the ones that cost the most to the ones that cost the least, so 898 we can look at it in that way. It also starts to look at elements themselves that were from 899 the matrix. We have the three main elements: the parks, trails, open space; facilities is 900 the second one; and programs as the third. You can start to group and look at all the 901 programs together at one time. I think we talked about this before in our examples, that 902 it's very difficult to try to weight or judge between yoga and a dog park. This allows you 903 to look at and rank the programs or rank the facility upgrades or enhancements and look 904 at it in that way. It definitely does help a lot to start to break down the list and look at it 905 in these different ways. Yes, when you start to look at the list of 360 ideas, which could 906 become more, it's not the easiest thing to try to decipher. Again, I think what we're 907 looking for is for the Commission to spend the next month looking at the list and coming 908 back to us in January and us talking more about the list, how it's made, what we think is 909 missing on the list, what needs to be added, what different ways that we can filter. 910 Maybe there's more rows or columns that we want to add. This is kind of the homework 911 that we're giving the Commission to do before the next meeting, so we can have a more 912 detailed conversation about this list and what has gone into it. 913 914 Draft Minutes 22 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: One thing that jumped out at me when I looked through is a lot of things 915 were just best practices. When you remodel a park, adding bottle fillers and making it 916 ADA compliant. There's signage, integrate nature, rainwater swales. Would we go in 917 and retrofit any park outside of its remodel period? I would think instead we would want 918 to lump all those characteristics into some guidelines for remodeling and say, "as we go 919 through the five-year process of remodeling parks, look at all these things." Adding 920 rainwater swales, do we really want to rank that against yoga or dog parks? To me, 921 they're apples and oranges again. The best practices kind of muddy this list and make it 922 hard to pull out what you really want to separate, what you want to rank. 923 924 Commissioner Lauing: You're not going to go back to Johnson Park which has all these 925 things and do them now if Johnson Park's not up for its normal cycle. Right? 926 927 Mr. Jensen: Right. 928 929 Commissioner Lauing: I'm not sure why they actually even should be on here, because 930 you know you're going to do those. 931 932 Mr. Jensen: We should decipher between the list that we're looking at here is things that 933 are new. There is also a list of things that exist in the parks now or facilities that we have 934 now that are in a schedule to be maintained or renovated, that don't show up on a new 935 list. Things that will continue to keep happening. Yes, if there are things on this list that 936 are prioritized high for, let's say, Johnson Park. It's up in five years from now to do a 937 renovation there, like we did Scott Park and Monroe Park that we're working on now. 938 We would look at including the new items off this list into that scope of work and 939 expanding it to include new as well as upkeep and maintenance items. 940 941 Commissioner Lauing: Why are these even listed as projects then? Why wouldn't that 942 just be considerations when the normal cycle comes up for Johnson Park? 943 944 Mr. Jensen: Because in our current list of those things that you're mentioning, the water 945 bottle fillers, retaining water on site, those are not in the parks currently, so they're not in 946 a list of a project, they're not in the scope of our projects. These would be new things to 947 consider doing that. 948 949 Commissioner Hetterly: They're here so that we can advise about whether or not we 950 want to recommend to Council that those get added to the regular list of things that get 951 considered when you do a (crosstalk). 952 953 Commissioner Lauing: When Johnson Park gets done. 954 955 Draft Minutes 23 DRAFT Daren Anderson: Another way of looking at it could be, you could consider having it be 956 a policy as opposed to a project or a program. The policy would apply, as you said, 957 broadly. The next time you renovate any park, do these five things, whatever they may 958 be. 959 960 Mr. Jensen: I would say too the policies is another list we're going to look at. Of course, 961 it's not going to be as extensive as this list because we aren't going to think up 300 962 policies. It is going to be a list that we'll generate, that we'll be looking at over the next 963 few meetings, that we'll discuss of which ones we do want to recommend as far as going 964 into the Master Plan. That is actually another step from this. It's interesting to note that 965 staff's initial review of the list, we did remove a few things on there that were just direct 966 policy. It didn't really specifically call out a project, but more of an overall policy that we 967 eliminated from the list because again we have to generate another list of actual policies 968 that we want to carry forward. 969 970 Mr. Anderson: I could tack on one thing to the list. This may be helpful as you review 971 them. As you look through all the projects and programs that MIG had pulled together, 972 we thought it would be helpful if you also saw the lists that live elsewhere, that is in our 973 existing capital budget. You'll see that called out as CIP project. These are existing ones. 974 You're not saying, "Where is this? It lives in a separate document. You're going to have 975 to look elsewhere." We added it all to this. The other one is called the—you'll see it 976 down there—IBRC, Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee project that may not be in the 977 existing CIP book, may not be in this document, and lives on a second one. This pulls 978 them altogether and gives you one shot to see did we capture everything, are we missing 979 things, or is this right one. 980 981 Commissioner Moss: You have a whole lot of Capital Improvement Projects. Many of 982 them are already in progress. What are you asking us to do about those? They're already 983 being done. 984 985 Mr. Anderson: I think part of it is to help you again see is there a hole. If you weren't 986 savvy to that or aware of what those CIPs are, it could lead you to believe, "Wait a 987 minute. When is this going to happen?" Part of it's to paint the full picture. The second 988 part is some of these CIPs are outlying years. They'll probably need to go through this 989 process. They'll probably need to be prioritized via the Master Plan. Almost to your 990 point when you said, "We create a master list. At some point, don't we renew that?" Just 991 like our CIP process, we do it every year. We plan out five years, but every year we look 992 at it again and everything gets shuffled up. I can't see a way that we wouldn't have to do 993 that with this Master Plan list too. There's a lot more discussion that has to happen 994 around that. I can't envision how you wouldn't continually update it when you've got 386 995 programs and projects. 996 997 Draft Minutes 24 DRAFT Mr. Jensen: What arises from this list as far as future or new projects go, if we do have a 998 CIP for a specific park and then on this list there's something new that can be considered 999 as well, then that is something that we would consider in the discussion next year with 1000 the CIPs. We have X park and from our Parks Master Plan now we see that there's a 1001 project or something new that we would like to add to that. Is it feasible as far as budget 1002 goes to add it now into that project thing? That will definitely be considered in the 1003 projects. Even though they may exist now, we have the opportunity to enhance or 1004 expand them depending upon what we find in this list or in the prioritization (inaudible). 1005 1006 Commissioner Hetterly: Do you want comments about the list? 1007 1008 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 1009 1010 Commissioner Hetterly: I think first of all the program descriptions need to be more fully 1011 articulated, and they need samples that you provided that were more specific, less vague 1012 and include more language about why that's on the list. Is the implication from your 1013 examples that you're going to have a similar workup for every single project on this list? 1014 None of the items in your examples are actually in here. Are we likely to see things like 1015 those? Should we expect to see what you presented on the screen today or is this really 1016 what we're working with in terms of rankings and explaining what the projects and 1017 programs are? That's my first question. 1018 1019 Mr. Jensen: MIG will go through and compile all the information that ranks the projects. 1020 There will not be an individual sheet made for every one that calls out each individual 1021 line of the matrix. We're relying on them to put that together and ranking them in that 1022 respect. 1023 1024 Commissioner Hetterly: I guess in terms of level of detail, let me use the yoga example. 1025 You do have some things in here about expanding Boost, but there are no specifics about 1026 what particular parts of Boost. Yoga is not the only program that's offered through 1027 Boost, right? Do you want us to be engaging in that level of detail of specific 1028 programming or are you wanting us not to do that? Whether we generally want to 1029 support expanding Boost or do we want specific areas of Boost, that level of detail would 1030 be helpful to have some guidance. Also, I think the locations that are designated for 1031 several of these didn't make any sense to me. I would like to see a little more explanation 1032 of why those sites were selected. For example, for dog parks you picked—I don't 1033 know—five or six locations there. What was it that led MIG to recommend those sites as 1034 opposed to other sites? I think that's information that we need to know because it may be 1035 that we think a different one should be on the list. There's several places that that comes 1036 up. All over this, I'm saying "why" next to the locations. As Commissioner Lauing 1037 mentioned, there are also several items in here that received very low rankings from the 1038 public when we surveyed them directly about that particular issue. I'm not sure whether 1039 Draft Minutes 25 DRAFT they belong on the list at all. It's not the comprehensive list of every idea that was 1040 proposed; it's already gone through a filtering process. It made me concerned that having 1041 gone through one filtering process already, there were several items that, in my opinion, 1042 should have fallen out based on what we have already learned. I'd like a little more 1043 working of the details in that regard. I guess I have several of those. I don't know if it's 1044 helpful for you to have me point them out. I could send them in an email. I don't want to 1045 take the whole night tonight to go through my particular edits. Also, I think there are 1046 several things that need to be added. 1047 1048 Mr. de Geus: Just feedback to Commissioner Hetterly. I had a similar reaction to 1049 reading it. There's a lot there. I think most of us did. It still needs quite a bit of work. I 1050 would actually describe this list as a rough draft. What we need to do is develop the list 1051 so that we can actually rank them. There's not enough information to fully rank. That is 1052 what we need from the Commission. It is work to go through it and ask the questions. 1053 Some of them are obvious, that we heard that through the outreach process. I get it. 1054 Those where you think "I didn't hear that. Where did that come from?" note it and then 1055 go to the next one. Go through that kind of process. Things like you need more 1056 specificity, you need to understand why that is on there. If there's things that you think 1057 ought to be on there and it's not listed anywhere, then add that so that can be evaluated. 1058 The idea is by the end of January hopefully we'll have a much better list. It might be 1059 smaller but much more specific, that can actually be gone through the process of the 1060 ranking that we talked about. By that time, hopefully our ranking process will have 1061 tightened and you're more comfortable with and we're more comfortable with. 1062 1063 Commissioner Hetterly: Would you like us to do that individually and send it in to you? 1064 Do you want us to cover them all in a Commission meeting? What's your preference? 1065 1066 Mr. de Geus: My preference is to take the time to do it individually, just because it's so 1067 long and it does require some real time just to sit with it. We can collect all of that data 1068 and then merge it all. Where there's conflict between feedback, we'll highlight that, point 1069 that out and then we'll have a discussion about those areas. 1070 1071 Mr. Jensen: I think for ease of collecting that data, I will add a row onto the end that will 1072 say "Commissioner remarks." In that you can type whatever you would like into those 1073 things. We'll collect them all, submit them to MIG and start to massage and rework the 1074 list per those comments. 1075 1076 Commissioner Hetterly: Do it electronically on the ... 1077 1078 Mr. Jensen: Yes, do it electronically on the thing. Type it and then email it either back to 1079 Catherine or myself. We'll collect the comments that way initially. 1080 1081 Draft Minutes 26 DRAFT Commissioner Lauing: I'm still not quite with the process here. What is it that you really 1082 want? You don't want us to go through all of these and score them, right? 1083 1084 Mr. de Geus: Not score them. 1085 1086 Commissioner Lauing: You want us to go through them and say which ones shouldn't be 1087 here or should be here? 1088 1089 Mr. Jensen: You have questions about, yes. Items on the list, if you feel that they 1090 shouldn't be there, weren't from information that we thought we'd heard in the past, you're 1091 not sure how they got onto the list, those are the questions that we're looking for. If 1092 there's things that don't appear on the list, those are the things that we're looking for. 1093 1094 Commissioner Lauing: When you get to a park, it just randomly opened to page 19 1095 which is Hoover and there's 13 things on there. You want comments on those 13 things 1096 or do you just want comments on Hoover Park is a good priority for now? 1097 1098 Mr. de Geus: They're all things that we've heard from the public through the variety of 1099 outreach that we've done. What we're looking for is for you to look through this list to 1100 make sure that it's understandable, that it reflects what you think we heard, if it's a 1101 specific enough project or program or is it more of a policy that was suggested. There's 1102 some things in here I think that were more like best practice, policy that ought to be 1103 withdrawn from a project list and be somewhere else. It's that kind of feedback we need. 1104 1105 Commissioner Lauing: Does that mean that you want to go from a rough draft to a draft 1106 before we get it or shall we use what we've got now? 1107 1108 Mr. de Geus: You should use what we've got now, this rough draft, so we can improve it. 1109 We're doing the same thing as the Commission. 1110 1111 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs. 1112 1113 Commissioner Cribbs: On an earlier screen there was something about other cities that 1114 you had contacted for best practices or ideas. Are you at liberty to talk about which cities 1115 those were? 1116 1117 Mr. Jensen: That is actually through the consultant, MIG. One of their areas of focus is 1118 Master Plans. There's not many landscape architectural firms that do just Master Plans. 1119 They are taking their experience from the Master Planning they do all over the United 1120 States, and they do a lot of them, and then applying it to our particular situation and 1121 changing it per what they've heard from us. They're looking at that information that 1122 they're gathering from other reports that they're doing and applying it to us. The list is 1123 Draft Minutes 27 DRAFT quite long. At some point they did present some samples of Master Plans that they had 1124 done for other cities for the Commission to review to get an idea of what that was. That's 1125 something that we can talk offline and start to give some examples of that. 1126 1127 Mr. de Geus: I would just add to that. They are in close contact with the National 1128 Recreation and Parks Association and the California Recreation and Parks Association. 1129 They collect a lot of data from cities, best practices. They're feeding a lot of information 1130 to MIG and to staff. 1131 1132 Commissioner Cribbs: I have another really silly question. That wasn't a silly question; 1133 this might be a silly question. Are you able to, just from your gut or from your instinct, 1134 create a top 20 or 30 list of programs or athletic fields or open space that you think would 1135 be great? 1136 1137 Mr. de Geus: Yeah, I think I can do that. I think Daren can and Peter can as well. We're 1138 talking with the consultant all the time about this as they bring things forward. We push 1139 back all the time and say, "That's not what we're hearing. That's not what the public 1140 wants here." 1141 1142 Commissioner Cribbs: I think that would be really interesting to be able to see that. 1143 Maybe I'm just the only one, but it just would be interesting to see how that would go 1144 against or be compared with this incredibly long, very specific list of things. 1145 1146 Mr. de Geus: I think it's an important piece of input, significant piece of input. We're 1147 probably the closest to the park system and the public to some extent. We fully 1148 appreciate and recognize that we are limited too in our perspective. We need to hear 1149 from a lot of sources, Commission, public, Council and staff as well. I appreciate that. 1150 1151 Mr. Jensen: I think the list goes a step further than just putting the list together, because 1152 it does discuss some overarching things, dog parks, community gardens, nature in parks, 1153 athletic fields. Those things that we've heard from the community. We have data 1154 analysis on it that we've done by looking at our current system, but not really attached or 1155 applied to a specific park yet. We have general ideas of things that we'd like to do, but 1156 this list starts to recognize the space that we actually can do it in, which I think is one step 1157 more accurate than just having the idea. 1158 1159 Chair Reckdahl: When I looked through list, I thought "There's a lot of chaff here." 1160 There's a lot of stuff that I've never heard of. Art for dog parks, I don't think any of the 1161 dog people are asking for art; I think they're asking for dog parks. I think a lot of this 1162 came from MIG, and they have some ideas that they think are good, but I don't 1163 necessarily think they're all good. Turf for fields, AYSO, I don't think they want artificial 1164 turf on their fields; I think they want grass. They listed a whole bunch of small fields that 1165 Draft Minutes 28 DRAFT are used for AYSO and add artificial turf. I don't think that's something that the public 1166 wants. As Jennifer mentioned, I'll compile a list of things that I just don't think should be 1167 on the list. You always can cast a net really wide and do a lot of work and sort out the 1168 stuff, or you can cast your net smaller. I think we should be casting our net smaller than 1169 we have here. That's an iteration. They also mentioned about camping. The camping in 1170 Foothills Park, I thought, was a decent program that they've suggested. They also said 1171 Arastradero. If I have a tent, can I go into Arastradero and nature? 1172 1173 Mr. Anderson: No, neither Baylands nor Arastradero have camping available. 1174 1175 Chair Reckdahl: Should we be taking that out? There was one line for Baylands and one 1176 for Arastradero. 1177 1178 Mr. Anderson: That was in my initial four pages of notes for MIG as well. Their counter 1179 was it's a very popular program to learn camping, was their idea. If we expand that to 1180 these other areas, it could be very valuable. Almost like a class as opposed to a regular 1181 camping set up. It'd be more of a one-time program or class. 1182 1183 Chair Reckdahl: It would be ranger led? 1184 1185 Mr. Anderson: Something like that. 1186 1187 Chair Reckdahl: If a ranger wanted to bring people into Arastradero, is that permitted? 1188 1189 Mr. Anderson: We'd have to change the rules. Right now there's no overnight camping 1190 allowed there. 1191 1192 Chair Reckdahl: Even by permit? 1193 1194 Mr. Anderson: Perhaps on a permit basis through the Director's approval, something like 1195 that would be permissible. 1196 1197 Chair Reckdahl: Baylands, I don't see any place you'd even want to camp in the 1198 Baylands. Maybe if Byxbee was done, then maybe that would have some flat areas 1199 where you could camp. Anyway, that was another thing that I looked at and I said, "That 1200 doesn't seem to agree with what I think is in the top 100." 1201 1202 Mr. de Geus: That's exactly the kind of feedback we need, so we can cull down this list. 1203 1204 Commissioner Knopper: To Keith's point and other Commissioners' points, some of the 1205 lack of detail. You just clarified it's a camp class versus real camping where you'd need 1206 real facilities and garbage and bathrooms. Just overall, the first couple of times I looked 1207 Draft Minutes 29 DRAFT at this list, I was like, "I don't understand what I'm looking at." It took me a few minutes 1208 to go, "I get it." From a formatting perspective, there just wasn't enough room to give 1209 enough detail to make an informed comment. Now I know that I'll just put my comment. 1210 1211 Chair Reckdahl: I mentioned this earlier. After thinking about it, I really think we 1212 should have a separate list for best practices or guidelines for remodeling. There we can 1213 do the same scoring and same prioritization and say where does swales compare to bird 1214 habitat or whatever, and do those on just a generic. Right now, they have all these that 1215 list the bird habitat and have all these parks. There's a half page right there. That's why 1216 this thing is so thick. I think we're making it harder than it has to be. I think we should 1217 break it apart and say guidelines for general remodeling and, if there's some special 1218 features that we want to attach to specific parks, have that in this list. We shouldn't have 1219 general bottle filling stations on this list. I think that's just too detailed. Those are my 1220 comments. 1221 1222 Commissioner Moss: I think it's important to have this master list. Maybe we can 1223 shorten it, but have all the original list somewhere safe so that we can refer back to it in 1224 the future. If somebody in the public says, "Where is my ... I recommended this; why 1225 isn't it on the list," we can point to it. 1226 1227 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, for reference. I don't think we want to go through and score 1228 everything that's on this list, because we'd spend a lot of time that most likely will be 1229 wasted. 1230 1231 Mr. de Geus: I complete agree. That's great feedback. Regarding the bird habitat, what 1232 we want to see is increasing sort of bird habitat, if that's the topic, at a specific park is 1233 recommended because that park has a unique set of qualities and characteristics that it's 1234 going to be of value there. If that's the reason, then it should be defined in that way, so 1235 that we can (inaudible) it. We gave that feedback to MIG as well. 1236 1237 Mr. Jensen: I think on some of those things, you didn't get a list of 1 through 386. At the 1238 end MIG started to pull from the Urban Forest Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. 1239 You'll see a big block of things that are related to policies or programs that want to be 1240 accomplished in the Urban Forest Master Plan that have a reflection on parks. They're in 1241 there as well. Some of those are a lot more specific, and they kind of stand out on the 1242 list. Just to give you an orientation of that in there. 1243 1244 Chair Reckdahl: Peter, do you want to walk through the maps? Is that the next step? 1245 1246 Mr. Jensen: Yes. MIG had produced this geographic map last time. It is virtually the 1247 same map that we looked at before. What the map is, the light blue sections that are in 1248 here represent areas of town that don't have an accessible outdoor, open space within a 1249 Draft Minutes 30 DRAFT half mile and a quarter mile depending upon driving and walking. These blue areas are 1250 lacking park space or open space. What has been added onto this is the brown sections, 1251 which include all property owned by the City. A lot of those are parking lot areas that 1252 weren't shown on the plan before. What we'd hoped to find is that in some of these blue 1253 areas there would be a distinctive area of brown that the City owns, so we could say that 1254 maybe we want to consider changing that parking lot into a park to meet our park 1255 requirements there. Unfortunately, as you can see, that doesn't happen, but that is added 1256 to it. What mostly this is looking at is if we were ever going to consider purchasing or 1257 someone donated land, these would be the main areas that we would concentrate on 1258 doing that. They're the areas lacking open park space for the community around them. 1259 As you can see, there is an interesting correlation between the areas that are lacking space 1260 and schools. It seems to be schools located in some of those areas that are lacking park 1261 space. How do we have dialog with the School District in the future to maybe help 1262 relieve some of that space? A lot of these schools are already being used as open park 1263 space, that we should recognize as being that way. If there is a part of town that doesn't 1264 even have a school located in it, maybe that has a higher priority of acquiring parkland to 1265 fulfill that need. That's this updated plan, which is now showing all the land owned by 1266 the City on it as well in brown. The green is of course parks. 1267 1268 Commissioner Hetterly: Peter, does the City have any substantial easements that would 1269 be worth considering for the same purpose? If so, it would be great to have them on the 1270 map as well. 1271 1272 Mr. Jensen: I will discuss that with them more. I'm not quite sure how that was 1273 highlighted on the plan. I don't think there was anything that was significant. You can 1274 see over by Seale Park there's the easement that we looked at before. I'm not quite sure it 1275 has a name. Daren, what is it called over there? It's by Greer Park. 1276 1277 Mr. Anderson: (inaudible). 1278 1279 Mr. Jensen: That shows the easement way on there. It would probably be good to update 1280 the map to show, maybe in a different color, what the easements are, so they're not just 1281 property owned lands. Most of them are just little straight lines that could be a trail. We 1282 can work on that. 1283 1284 Chair Reckdahl: There's also that utility, we talked about this before, at Colorado and 1285 West Bayshore that may not be easy to convert into parkland but is at least possible. I 1286 had one question for Daren. Esther Clark, are there restrictions? If we wanted to put a 1287 playground in Esther Park, can we or is that designated open space where you can't put 1288 structures on it? 1289 1290 Mr. Anderson: It is designated open space. 1291 Draft Minutes 31 DRAFT 1292 Chair Reckdahl: That was one of the things also in the list, doing stuff for Esther Park. 1293 It's similar to Arastradero, where you can't put buildings. 1294 1295 Mr. Anderson: I wouldn't quite go that far. I don't think it has the same stipulations as 1296 Arastradero necessarily, but the dedication does say to be used for open space purposes. 1297 It differs a little bit from urban parks. I think it's a good question, what exactly is 1298 appropriate there or not. I think it probably needs some more fleshing out. 1299 1300 Chair Reckdahl: That is one area that is not served by a traditional park. We have Esther 1301 Clark; that's a very nice open space. If you want your kids to play in a playground, 1302 there's nothing over there. 1303 1304 Commissioner Lauing: Peter, what's the brown on Rinconada? Is that parking lots or the 1305 zoo or both? 1306 1307 Mr. Jensen: The zoo and Lucie Stern on the left side of the page, and the Art Center and 1308 the library on the other side. 1309 1310 Commissioner Moss: Is the Stanford Industrial Park owned by Stanford and, therefore, 1311 we can't do things on it? That whole park to the south of Page Mill is all owned by 1312 Stanford, isn't it? All the way to Bol Park and including Gunn High School, which you 1313 have there. The light brown is not Palo Alto land or—what's the difference between the 1314 white and the brown? 1315 1316 Mr. Jensen: The browns are, I think, School District land. 1317 1318 Commissioner Moss: No, I meant the land that Stanford is lighter brown than the School 1319 District. I can see Gunn High School. Stanford land is a different color than the School 1320 District. I was thinking that area around the Stanford Industrial Park should be the same 1321 color as the rest of Stanford. 1322 1323 Commissioner Hetterly: I think the Stanford Research Park is owned by Palo Alto and 1324 leased by Stanford. 1325 1326 Commissioner Moss: I didn't realize that. 1327 1328 Chair Reckdahl: I think the difference is that Stanford owns the Industrial Park; they 1329 lease it out to the various companies for a long-year lease, but Stanford actually owns the 1330 land still. It's not incorporated. The Industrial Park is part of Palo Alto; it's in the City 1331 Limits. The top or whatever, the light tan that's Stanford, that is not part of Palo Alto. 1332 Draft Minutes 32 DRAFT That's not incorporated. I think that's the difference. I think it's correct as is. White is 1333 private property still. 1334 1335 Mr. Jensen: The white is representing those things that fall within the boundary of Palo 1336 Alto. Even though that land may be owned by Stanford, it's still in our City Limits. The 1337 tan color of Stanford is their sole priority of land outside of our City Limits. That's all I 1338 have for this evening. I do want to thank the Commission again. Your feedback is really 1339 valuable in this process and putting it together. As you can see from tonight, you've 1340 provided a lot of feedback that is good, that is going to guide this process and make it a 1341 lot better. We do thank you for that. We will be incorporating your comments into the 1342 list as we develop the criteria more and talk about it next month. With that, I'll end my 1343 presentation for the night. 1344 1345 Commissioner Lauing: One question that was asked, do we want to do an ad hoc 1346 committee. We actually have an ad hoc. Are there things on this that we want to talk 1347 about in ad hoc before the next meeting? For example, reviewing the scoring system 1348 based on comments tonight. 1349 1350 Mr. Jensen: The ad hoc is a—if you'd like to proceed with having an ad hoc, the ad hoc 1351 would be focused on the criteria and making sure the scoring and judging and more 1352 conversations about that. That ad hoc group can also include the review of the list as well 1353 or that could be another ad hoc or we just leave that to the full Commission and just come 1354 back again. Up to you and how you want to tackle that. For some things, of course, I 1355 think for the criteria and the list itself as well, it would be nice to have an ad hoc group so 1356 we can convene and get feedback from the Commission sooner than once a month, which 1357 would help move the project along. I also wouldn't mind having just a Parks Master Plan 1358 ad hoc that wasn't specifically tied to a certain topic, so we didn't have to keep having 1359 new ones over and over again. We'd just have a core group of the Commission working 1360 on the project until we're done with it. That's something for you to discuss further, of 1361 course. I don't know if Rob has any recommendations on that. 1362 1363 Mr. de Geus: I think we discussed that at the inception of the Master Plan. Because it's 1364 such a big and broad scope of a plan, the Commission wasn't comfortable with that. 1365 That's what I recall. Rather to have the whole Commission involved because also there's 1366 so many elements that need to be worked on, there was enough opportunity for numerous 1367 ad hoc committees to work on specific areas that needed additional work. It's just really 1368 up to the Commission how you want to handle that. 1369 1370 Commissioner Hetterly: I think we should clarify to the new Commissioners that ad hoc 1371 committees, they are not decision-making bodies. They're just trying to take the 1372 temperature of the Commission and weigh in as things are being sorted out. Everything 1373 that's considered in an ad hoc committee is then presented to the full Commission. 1374 Draft Minutes 33 DRAFT 1375 Mr. de Geus: We often do our best work that way. You have a smaller number of 1376 Commissioners working with Staff. Something like the criteria, where we can actually 1377 discuss different options about scoring, run a couple of programs through to see how it 1378 works, and then change language and then staff will write it up and bring it to the full 1379 Commission and say, "Here's what the ad hoc came up with, with staff. What do you 1380 think?" It just makes for a little more productive Commission meeting, but it does 1381 require another meeting outside of the regular monthly meeting. It can be very, very 1382 helpful, I find. 1383 1384 Chair Reckdahl: In general, I'd like to avoid it because this is a big thing. At this point, 1385 this list is so rough that I think it would be useful for an ad hoc to get one iteration just so 1386 we don't waste too many meetings on this. When I look at this and see how far it is from 1387 being useful, I think it would be August by the time we're done with this thing. I would 1388 be open to having an ad hoc iteration. If we're going to do that, we should do it before 1389 the next meeting. As this converges, I think we want the whole Commission to be taking 1390 a look at that. 1391 1392 Commissioner Lauing: Even before the list issue, this issue of should there be weighting, 1393 should we drop of some of these criteria entirely, should we add quantitative impact on 1394 people, that's something we might be able to distill everything that happened here and 1395 come back with a recommendation and why, and then have another discussion about it. 1396 1397 Chair Reckdahl: As long as we present it like that, I'd be happy with that. What do you 1398 think? 1399 1400 Mr. de Geus: Staff recommendation is actually an ad hoc committee on the process and 1401 criteria and scoring and how we would manage that given the information and 1402 presentation today. Not an ad hoc committee on the list. I can appreciate what you're 1403 saying. I had trouble with it too. When I first took a look at it, I had to go to it like three 1404 different times. What helped me was to actually set aside just a couple of hours and go 1405 through it. You begin to get a rhythm and go through and add your comments. You can 1406 do it in a couple of hours. I would appreciate hearing from all the Commissioners on the 1407 list. 1408 1409 Chair Reckdahl: I think all seven should be sending Peter our assessments. When we 1410 give those assessments to MIG and they come back ... 1411 1412 Mr. de Geus: I see what you mean. 1413 1414 Chair Reckdahl: ... I think we need another beat on the head with MIG before we have 1415 something that's going to be useful for another meeting. 1416 Draft Minutes 34 DRAFT 1417 Commissioner Hetterly: It may be worthwhile to wait and see what comes out if 1418 everybody submits their comments and then you have another draft. If we see that and 1419 find that it still needs substantial work, then we do an ad hoc at that point. 1420 1421 Chair Reckdahl: I'd be happy with that. 1422 1423 Mr. de Geus: That would be good. 1424 1425 Commissioner Moss: How do ad hoc committees work? How many is minimum in an 1426 ad hoc committee? 1427 1428 Commissioner Lauing: (crosstalk) one. Max is three. 1429 1430 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, we can't have a quorum. There's no decision-making being done. 1431 Once you have four people, that's part of the Brown Act. I'm sure that they have that in 1432 the binders. Once you have four, you can't talk shop unless it's a public meeting. You 1433 can have two or three people sit down with staff and go through things and give some 1434 feedback to staff, and that's not considered a public meeting. It doesn't require a public 1435 meeting. 1436 1437 Commissioner Hetterly: I'll move that we establish an ad hoc committee to work with 1438 staff on the process. 1439 1440 Commissioner Lauing: Don't we already have one that we've been working on this exact 1441 same process? It already exists. I don't think we have to ... 1442 1443 Female: (inaudible) 1444 1445 Commissioner Lauing: We can reconstitute it if we want to. 1446 1447 Mr. de Geus: I think that's why we brought it up. We know we have new 1448 Commissioners. We ought to do that. 1449 1450 Commissioner Knopper: Who was on it? I've lost track. 1451 1452 Chair Reckdahl: It was us three. We didn't lose anyone off of it. We could keep it 1453 unless we want to—personally I think it's most efficient to just keep the three of us and 1454 do an iteration if needed. 1455 1456 Mr. de Geus: That would be great. 1457 1458 Draft Minutes 35 DRAFT Chair Reckdahl: The new Commissioners are going to be ... 1459 1460 Mr. de Geus: They’re going to get their green binder, so they'll have enough to read. 1461 The binder is all of the data on the matrix and the background. There will be a lot there. 1462 1463 Commissioner Hetterly: I would be happy to give up my spot if any of the new members 1464 would like to participate on the ad hoc. Not because it's a horrible group to work with. 1465 1466 Commissioner Moss: I can do it, if you want. Up to you. If you want to do it, fine. I'm 1467 sort of a deer in the headlights right now. If you don't want to do it, I'll do it. 1468 1469 Chair Reckdahl: I think my preference would be to keep Jennifer on it for this next 1470 month while you come up to speed. We can reevaluate the assessment. Are you happy 1471 staying on it? 1472 1473 Commissioner Hetterly: That's fine. 1474 1475 Chair Reckdahl: I think Jen's history in it would help to be efficient with the iteration if 1476 needed. Peter will be sending via email the updated spreadsheet. We'll go through that 1477 spreadsheet. Either type your response via text or put them in the comments and mail it 1478 back. They will digest that and find out if they get indigestion or not. 1479 1480 Commissioner Moss: Are you going to send us a soft copy of the spreadsheet? 1481 1482 Mr. Jensen: Yeah. I'm going to email you a copy. Usually how I do that—this is 1483 another Brown Act thing—I do blind cc you all so you can't reply to all. Replying to all, 1484 you're not supposed to do. If that doesn't happen, if you do see a list, just note that you're 1485 not supposed to reply to all. 1486 1487 Chair Reckdahl: Reply to all is not a good thing to do. 1488 1489 Mr. de Geus: We'll have to put some type of deadline on that, fairly early, just so we can 1490 get it back to MIG so we can merge the list again so we're ready for our January meeting. 1491 1492 Chair Reckdahl: Mail it out and give your requested due date. 1493 1494 Mr. de Geus: We will. 1495 1496 Chair Reckdahl: Any closing questions, comments? 1497 1498 Commissioner Moss: What was that about January 11th? I thought this was every third 1499 Thursday. 1500 Draft Minutes 36 DRAFT 1501 Mr. Anderson: That's the Council meeting. 1502 1503 Chair Reckdahl: Are we going back to Council on the 11th? 1504 1505 Mr. de Geus: On January 11th we have a Study Session with the City Council on this 1506 plan. I hope you all have that on your calendar; it would be great to have Commission 1507 presence and participation at that meeting. 1508 1509 Chair Reckdahl: The updated memo, when is that due? 1510 1511 Mr. de Geus: I know it's due to our City Manager by next Wednesday. After all the 1512 internal reviews are done, we can get that out to the Commission. 1513 1514 Chair Reckdahl: Do you need any more Commission input to that? 1515 1516 Mr. Jensen: I don't believe so. 1517 1518 Mr. de Geus: I don't think so. We got a lot. We had tried to get a Study Session earlier, 1519 a month ago. We were right there with the report and MIG's report and the Commission's 1520 input at that time. It's just been on hold really for the new date. 1521 1522 4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1523 1524 Chair Reckdahl: The next item is the ad hoc. The first one would be the CIP. 1525 1526 Daren Anderson: Thank you so much. Again, I'm Daren Anderson with Open Space, 1527 Parks and Golf. I want to just share with you ... 1528 1529 Chair Reckdahl: Can you give a two-minute introduction of what a CIP is for the new 1530 Commissioners? 1531 1532 Mr. Anderson: I'd like to give you just an update about our capital budget. We call them 1533 CIPs, Capital Improvement Projects. Typically they're projects that cost $50,000 or 1534 more. They go into a five-year budget cycle. I'll get into some of the examples in just a 1535 minute that will help kind of give you context for what they look like, what we've 1536 recently accomplished. Then we'll get into a little bit more of what we're looking at 1537 going forward. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have further regarding CIPs. 1538 Let me just start with what we have accomplished in 2015. El Camino Park, we had the 1539 ribbon cutting today. It was a great, great achievement, finally seeing the completion of 1540 that park and reopening it to the public. We actually reopened it on target. We shot for 1541 November; we hit November. November 20th was the soft opening. The public came in. 1542 Draft Minutes 37 DRAFT The second the temporary fencing came down, people just started seeping in, enjoying 1543 the park which made staff very happy to see that. Of course, the grand opening today. 1544 Scott Park, you can see from the photo another ribbon cutting. That was completed and 1545 the park reopened to the public on July 30th of the year. We have the new playground, 1546 the new picnic area, a basketball court and our City's first bocce ball court. It's up and 1547 running and doing really well. We also provided free bocce balls at that site, and they're 1548 well used. The Magical Bridge Playground was opened on April 18th, 2015. Hopkins 1549 Park was another Capital Improvement Project. This one was opened also in April 2015. 1550 This CIP is a little different. The previous ones you've seen were to reconstruct a park. 1551 Sometimes they're studies. In this particular example it's a feasibility study looking at the 1552 Boardwalk that stems off the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center. It's been closed 1553 for quite some time, because it was in structural poor repair. The feasibility study came 1554 back, gave us some information. One piece of the information was if you carry out these, 1555 I guess for lack of a better term, low-cost repairs, you can open up the first 200 feet. In 1556 the example in the photo, you can see the arrow indicates where our own staff and 1557 Rangers went underneath and fixed up what we could and were able to open up that. 1558 Great to have that CIP accomplished. This is another example of an accomplished CIP, 1559 but this is a different one. It's an ongoing CIP. This one is tennis court resurfacing. 1560 You'll see this one when you look at a capital budget book repeats year after year, same 1561 monetary value. That's because it's on a cycle of replacement or fixing. In this last fiscal 1562 year we redid Hopkins, Terman and Weisshaar. That's in a nutshell some of what we 1563 accomplished in 2015. We probably have five other ongoing CIPs. Some of them are for 1564 benches, signs and fences. Others for lakes and ponds. Though you don't see one project 1565 that you can say, "Look at this. We accomplished this." It's a lot of little pieces here and 1566 there. It's also a tremendous amount of staff time that goes into accomplishing those little 1567 pieces. Oftentimes they augment or supplement a project like El Camino Park. There 1568 was a tremendous amount of funding, but still there were shortfalls or things that were 1569 missed. One small example was $35,000 in trash receptacles and recycling containers. 1570 That came out of one of those recurring CIPs; that's where the benches, signs and fences 1571 come in. Another park project where we go over budget and there's not enough for a 1572 sign, and we lean on one of our ongoing CIPs that does signage. These are projects 1573 underway in 2015, not yet completed. Monroe Park is under construction right now. 1574 We're looking at early February for completing that. We've got the Byxbee Park Interim 1575 Plan. That was a CIP where the plan was completed, but the actual renovations have 1576 started but aren't completed yet. We've got about 90 percent of the trails constructed. 1577 The area is being hydroseeded right now. The next steps will be constructing the habitat 1578 islands, installing the seating areas and putting in the interpretive signage. Stanford-Palo 1579 Alto turf replacement is underway right now. We just got the contract signed, and we 1580 should be starting construction in a few weeks. It'll be a 45-day construction window for 1581 that project. That's replacing the synthetic turf fields at that site. That's what we've 1582 accomplished, and now we're looking at this next CIP cycle. We update it every year. I 1583 mentioned it's done in five years. This current cycle we're going to be working on is the 1584 Draft Minutes 38 DRAFT FY '17 to FY '21 cycle. Only the first year in that cycle is funded. This FY '17 that we're 1585 just kind of finalizing now will be the one that's funded. The rest are more of a plan that 1586 says, "In '18 through '21, where do we think we're going to accomplish? What does it 1587 look like? What does it cost?" We build that out. Each year, that kind of gets updated. 1588 Is that still right for 2018 or do we lack the capacity to implement it? Are there other 1589 priorities that supersede it? That's kind of how we re-envision that CIP plan every year. 1590 What I'd like to do is just walk you through some of the things that we've highlighted. 1591 The following list that you see on your screen, these are proposed projects not in the 1592 existing CIP; they're new. Most of them are coming from either the City's—I mentioned 1593 the IBRC, Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee. Most of these projects are coming 1594 from that or some other staff need that we've identified that hasn't been captured yet. It's 1595 a new CIP. I'll just briefly cover some of these. In FY '17, we've got a few. The 1596 Children's Theatre black box, this is a particular room also known as the Castle Theatre. 1597 It needs some repairs. It was never built up to Code; it lacks insulation. To make it work 1598 and function properly, it needs a Capital Improvement Project. The Magical Bridge 1599 replacement, I'm not referring to the playground but the actual bridge that leads across the 1600 creek to the playground is in need of replacement. The Cubberley tennis courts, they're 1601 probably one of our poorer conditioned tennis courts. The nice part about this project is 1602 it looks like we'll have funds outside of our general fund revenue. There's a special fund 1603 for Cubberley that will help fund this particular one. We're looking at a one-year increase 1604 to one of those existing, ongoing projects, the trails CIP. Up at Foothills Park there's a 1605 trail called Los Trancos that's got some substantial issues that need to be addressed 1606 fundamentally, not through some of our existing funding. It's a one-time bump that we're 1607 hoping can address that and fix it on a long-term basis. The Baylands Comprehensive 1608 Conservation Plan, this one is already in the plan. It's already in our existing budget for 1609 2017. A comprehensive conservation plan, as backdrop, is to look at the habitat, the 1610 wildlife, the vegetation and give a guide to staff that manages, in this case, the Baylands 1611 Preserve and say this is how you best take care of this. This is how you prioritize your 1612 volunteer efforts and your restoration and where you allow recreation. Just recently, in 1613 conversations with other groups and within our department, we thought we should be 1614 augmenting that with a few things. We can expand the funding and the scope just 1615 slightly to include a Baylands Interpretive Master Plan. While we're looking at all these 1616 other elements, it really lends itself to say, "We're looking at your wildlife. We're 1617 looking at your vegetation, your recreation." Now is the perfect time to say, "Is the 1618 interpretive messaging supporting that? Is it comprehensive? Is it thematic? Are they 1619 done piecemeal?" We believe if we just add a little bit of money we could get that done 1620 at the same time. Likewise, there's a public arts component. There's a lot of projects 1621 happening in and around the Baylands. Just one example is Ming's is going to be used by 1622 Mercedes, it will be taken over as a Mercedes dealership. They're obligated to have some 1623 piece of public art there. Rather than having it done piecemeal, that Ming's would do a 1624 little piece, the golf course would do a little piece, does it make more sense, as we're 1625 looking at the entire Baylands, to say let's have a Public Arts Master Plan tied into there 1626 Draft Minutes 39 DRAFT too, just for the Baylands. That's another CIP where we'd ask for some. We also are 1627 looking for an ongoing increase into that CIP trails project. Unlike the one-time bump 1628 that I mentioned for Los Trancos Trail, this would be an ongoing slight increase to 1629 increase the level of service. We've gotten some feedback that the trails and open space 1630 haven't been maintained to the standard that the City would like to see. To do so, we 1631 need a little extra money. What that would actually look like is the trail contractor that 1632 comes out and services those trails does it twice a year now. We'd get a third service out 1633 there, so it's be three brushing trail services with that increase. The same for the benches, 1634 signs and fences CIP, another kind of ongoing CIP that we'd like to bump up 1635 incrementally just a little to help address and keep up with demand. As I mentioned, it 1636 gets drawn on often. El Camino Park was a recent example where $35,000 was sucked 1637 off into one project. We'd like to fund an ongoing restroom CIP. This had been in place 1638 before, and it was defunded as we started the Master Plan process. Rather than choosing 1639 locations for restrooms somewhat arbitrarily, it made sense to defund it, wait until the 1640 Master Plan presented a bunch of options. Is it still a priority? In this preliminary phase 1641 where we're at with the Master Plan, we clearly see that park restrooms are a very high 1642 priority. It made sense to us to go ahead and refund that CIP. We have a couple of ideas 1643 for things, but really the Parks Master Plan could help fill that out. What had been done 1644 previously was there was $200,000, I believe, every year or every other year, and you 1645 could do a park restroom. Something like that is what we're going to be proposing for 1646 park restrooms. In FY '19, we're looking at a Foothills-Arastradero-Esther Clark 1647 Comprehensive Conservation Plan much like that Baylands one I mentioned. This would 1648 apply to the Foothills, Arastradero and Esther Clark collectively. We envision something 1649 like that is going to take about a year and a half. It is demanding. We specifically 1650 staggered the Baylands one so it wouldn't overlap with our efforts on this Park Master 1651 Plan, because it's so staff intensive. I'm sure each one of these, the Baylands and then 1652 this FY '19 Foothills-Arastradero-Esther Clark one, will be similar. Very heavy public 1653 outreach, very staff intensive project. FY '20 Foothills Interpretive Center displays, this 1654 would hopefully be something that we learn from that aforementioned in the prior year 1655 comprehensive conservation plan for that site, where it informs us and tells us what 1656 should the interpretive displays be at the Foothills Interpretive Center. This will be a 1657 follow-up CIP to fund that and implement it. In FY '21, we looked at Foothills Park 1658 irrigation. This is one where it's reached the end of its lifespan. It's slated out for 25 1659 years; it was 25 years ago from that date that it was previously installed. This CIP would 1660 fund its replacement. Likewise ... 1661 1662 Chair Reckdahl: This is irrigation for the meadow or is this elsewhere in the park? 1663 1664 Mr. Anderson: No. The only irrigated spots we've got in Foothills are the upper and 1665 lower turf. This is near the entrance and down in front of the Interpretive Center, about 1666 15 acres of turf. With that also the Sunfish Island Bridge replacement. This is the little 1667 island in Boronda. The bridge is antiquated and needs to be replaced. Also in FY '21, 1668 Draft Minutes 40 DRAFT Pearson-Arastradero, there was a myriad of items, the fences, the gates, the bridges, were 1669 all in this infrastructure backlog listed in 2021. We want to pull them together as one 1670 CIP. We'd also like to lump in a seasonal trail improvement element to that Capital 1671 Improvement Project. There are a number of trails that are closed every winter, and we 1672 believe with minimal upgrades, that is probably rocking and maybe a little reshaping, you 1673 wouldn't have to close them as often if at all, if we can do it right. That's some of the 1674 things we're looking at. This, is again, a draft; it's not complete. There will be more 1675 projects probably. At some point soon, we'll have to kind of filter them down. I didn't 1676 mention this yet, but it's also a very competitive year to be proposing projects. The City 1677 Council has a number of priorities such as the police building and fire stations that are 1678 going to consume a lot of the available funding. At the same time, we feel we've got 1679 some important projects that we'd like to move forward and see if we can get them done. 1680 The CIP schedule. November and December is typically when staff is pulling these ideas 1681 and consulting with our ad hoc committee from the Commission to vet them, make sure 1682 we're on track. We recently met with the ad hoc committee with our Commission to 1683 discuss these. In mid-December, our CIP submissions are due; we have to put them in. 1684 In January, they go through a review committee. The City review committee is 1685 predominantly department heads. They help filter down what can make it kind of 1686 realistically to the budget. In February, it goes to the City Manager. In early May, it 1687 goes to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation 1688 Commission's role is to make sure that the projects are consistent with the 1689 Comprehensive Plan. This is typically when we ask a representative or two from the 1690 Commission to attend and just kind of listen and observe. Lastly, in May it'll go to the 1691 Finance Committee, and in June it would be adopted by the Council. Again, I'll bring 1692 this back to the Commission in January as a discussion item, and we can get into some 1693 more details. That concludes my presentation. 1694 1695 Chair Reckdahl: Do people have questions either about the process or about the 1696 individual projects? Do you want to say anything, Ed? 1697 1698 Commissioner Lauing: No. Keith and I met with Daren and Rob to kick it off, a little bit 1699 later than last year, but we'll pick up the pace and get it done. For the new 1700 Commissioners, the year '17 starts July 1st of '16. 1701 1702 Chair Reckdahl: The Foothills fire plan, that is in the operating budget now? 1703 1704 Mr. Anderson: That's correct. A former CIP that's been moved to operating. 1705 1706 Chair Reckdahl: The bike bridge, do you have a date of when they're going to start 1707 construction? 1708 1709 Mr. Anderson: I don't. I can look into it and get back to you. 1710 Draft Minutes 41 DRAFT 1711 Chair Reckdahl: Do you know where we are in the process? 1712 1713 Mr. Anderson: I don't. It's not a Community Services managed project. 1714 1715 Commissioner Knopper: Can I ask a question on an update on a project? 1716 1717 Chair Reckdahl: Sure. 1718 1719 Commissioner Knopper: The hydrologic study at Buckeye Creek on the 7.7 acres, I 1720 haven't asked about it in a while. I was just wondering if you could give me some 1721 context, where we are. 1722 1723 Mr. Anderson: Great question. It's a high priority for our staff. We've been working 1724 closely with Public Works to finalize the scope. The more we started working with the 1725 scope, the more we saw we needed to bump it up and make it very robust. We're just 1726 finalizing that now. I hope within the next two weeks to have it out to bid. We're 1727 anxious to get going, to get a hydrologist firm on and start analyzing this, especially to be 1728 timed with El Nino so they can see the impacts of the rain on this creek and how it 1729 impacts both Foothills, our shop area and the 7.7 acres. 1730 1731 Commissioner Knopper: A quick follow-up. When they start, how long is their process? 1732 How long would it be before you would potentially have results. 1733 1734 Mr. Anderson: I think some of it will depend on the consultation with the hydrologist. 1735 Right in the beginning as we go out to bid and they submit their bids, we'll get to see how 1736 long they need. I'm not in a position to answer what length of time is enough. Do they 1737 need to physically see it, will testimony from prior creek studies be enough? We don't 1738 have one on Buckeye Creek proper in Foothills Park; we have studies of adjacent creeks 1739 in Arastradero. Is some of that usable? I'm not quite sure. We are hoping that in one 1740 calendar year it would be completely done, I'd be back to the Commission to discuss the 1741 findings and make a recommendation for Council. 1742 1743 Rob de Geus: I just wanted to add, if you're interested, the City Council is having a 1744 special meeting tomorrow evening, a second meeting this week. There is a Study Session 1745 on the infrastructure plan update on the IBRC report. As Daren mentioned, there is some 1746 really large commitments that have been made and important commitments. The police 1747 building is at the top of that list, the fire station, bicycle bridge, bike-pedestrian Master 1748 Plan, still Byxbee park and completing that project. There's a lot of demands on the 1749 capital budget. I think once we finish the Master Plan, we'll have a much better idea of 1750 what we want to include in future five-year plans. There is that staff report that's online. 1751 If you're interested, you can attend that meeting tomorrow evening. 1752 Draft Minutes 42 DRAFT 1753 Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Moss. 1754 1755 Commissioner Moss: I heard that there was an urban forest meeting tomorrow. If I go to 1756 that, how much input—I guess I can't give any input. Is that correct? I can just listen. 1757 1758 Mr. de Geus: You can always give input as an individual citizen, as long as you make 1759 that clear, that it's not input from the body of the Commission. 1760 1761 Commissioner Moss: I've been interested in that all along. 1762 1763 Mr. de Geus: That's something that you would want to state, that this is an individual 1764 perspective that I'm sharing. You certainly are able to do that. 1765 1766 Chair Reckdahl: Other ad hocs. Do you want to talk dog parks at all? 1767 1768 Commissioner Hetterly: Yep. I think that was supposed to be on the agenda this month. 1769 I don't know why it got bumped. It'll move to next month I guess. 1770 1771 Chair Reckdahl: It got bumped to January. 1772 1773 Commissioner Hetterly: That's all I know. 1774 1775 Mr. Anderson: We're seeking City Manager advice and guidance on a couple of the ad 1776 hoc recommendations. We need that input before we can move forward. We'll have that 1777 by January, for sure. 1778 1779 Commissioner Hetterly: That'll be as an action item, right? 1780 1781 Mr. Anderson: That could be. I think I'd like to convene one more time with the ad hoc 1782 post-meeting with the City Manager and talk that through. 1783 1784 Chair Reckdahl: We're done with ad hocs. 1785 1786 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1787 1788 Chair Reckdahl: Rob? 1789 1790 Rob de Geus: I have a few that I would like to share. We had a successful tree lighting 1791 event last Friday. I don't know if you had a chance to attend. It's the fifth time we did 1792 that at Lytton Plaza. The lights went on, very happy about that. That looks nice. This 1793 weekend on Saturday, we're having an event called Frozen, after the movie Frozen still 1794 Draft Minutes 43 DRAFT very popular, at Mitchell Park Community Center and Library, sort of celebrating the 1795 first year of being open at that center. The library staff and recreation staff and Children's 1796 Theatre have got a whole lot of programs planned for that day. I think 11:00 to 1:00 is 1797 when most of the activity happens there. If you're interested in that. We also have a New 1798 Year's Senior Brunch for seniors in our community. We've been running that event for 1799 many years now. It gets great attendance. We can always use volunteers and help with 1800 that. It's on the last day of the year. A countdown that happens at midday. I also wanted 1801 to mention tomorrow evening the infrastructure Study Session. There's also another item 1802 on the agenda, that is the discussion by Council on the natural environment—I think 1803 that's what it's called—element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Council will be 1804 reviewing the vision and goals of that particular element. That will then inform the 1805 Citizen Advisory Committee that's working on the update to the Comprehensive Plan. 1806 That might be of interest to the Commission as well. The last thing I wanted to mention 1807 is I've made some decisions on some hiring, which is really exciting. Thank you to 1808 Commissioner Lauing who spent a day with us in the interviews. We have a new 1809 Assistant Director; she started today. Her name's Kristen O'Kane. She comes from the 1810 Santa Clara Water District. Very bright and brings a depth of knowledge in 1811 environmental studies I think will be very helpful for our Master Planning process and 1812 some of our comprehensive conservation plans that we're invested in making happen. 1813 Look forward to introducing her to the Commission. She'll be the key liaison to the 1814 Commission going forward. We also hired a Superintendant of Recreation, which is a 1815 position that was removed from the budget for a number of years. The Council 1816 generously added it back last year, which we're very appreciative of. We've gone through 1817 that process and hired someone. Her name is Stephanie Douglas. She comes from 1818 Milpitas. A great individual, and I look forward to introducing her to you all as well. 1819 That's what I had. 1820 1821 Chair Reckdahl: They both sit over by you? 1822 1823 Mr. de Geus: I'm sorry? 1824 1825 Chair Reckdahl: Their offices are in Lucie Stern? 1826 1827 Mr. de Geus: Kristen O'Kane will be at the Lucie Stern Community Center. Stephanie 1828 Douglas will be at the Cubberley Community Center. There's so much going on at 1829 Cubberley right now and the future of Cubberley and the Master Planning of that site, 1830 we're going to have her stationed there initially. 1831 1832 Commissioner Lauing: You have one more opening still? 1833 1834 Mr. de Geus: There's another promotion that we made. A long time Ranger, Curt Dunn, 1835 28 years, has been promoted to Senior Supervising Ranger for Foothills Park. A terrific 1836 Draft Minutes 44 DRAFT individual. He did outstanding in the interview process. Daren's been mentoring him for 1837 some time. It's a thrill to see him step up in that way. He's now a new manager. We now 1838 have a vacant Ranger position that we need to fill. Was that what you were referring to? 1839 1840 Commissioner Lauing: I thought you had another supervisor? 1841 1842 Commissioner Hetterly: Superintendant. 1843 1844 Commissioner Lauing: Superintendant, excuse me. 1845 1846 Mr. de Geus: The Superintendant of Parks has been vacant for a year. We finally feel 1847 like we have a good pool of candidates for that. We'll be interviewing later this month, 1848 hopefully before the end of the calendar year, so we can make some movement on that. 1849 Daren would appreciate that. That reminds me there's a lot of recruiting and hiring 1850 happening. The Project Safety Net Director position is also in play right now. We've had 1851 first interviews. Second interviews are tomorrow. There's three applicants left. It's a 1852 long process, largely because there's so many stakeholders involved and need to be part 1853 of the process of hiring that person. Those interviews happen tomorrow. The final 1854 candidates will meet with Dr. Max McGee from the School District and City Manager 1855 Jim Keene. Hopefully we'll have a decision by the end of the calendar year also, if we 1856 can. 1857 1858 Chair Reckdahl: I have a couple of things to add. You mentioned the Baylands 1859 Boardwalk. A big king tide is coming Christmas. I think the 23rd, 24th, 25th are the big 1860 days for the king tide. The Boardwalk will be under water. If you want to see that, that 1861 would be ... It's always impressive. I think it's like 10:00 a.m. to noon roughly on those 1862 days. A question for Peter. The infant mortality of the items in Magical Bridge. How 1863 are they holding up? We have a lot of new items there that we haven't had in parks 1864 before. 1865 1866 Peter Jensen: Daren can answer some of this too, because he's been working on it as 1867 well. In general, I would say that the playground is actually holding up very, very well 1868 for the thousands of users that come to it every week. I think the weakness is that some 1869 of the synthetic turf isn't doing as good as we wanted it to. We are looking at different 1870 options of repairing or replacing that. Generally though, the equipment is all very good. 1871 I think the demand of keeping the area clean, just because of the amount of use, required 1872 more attention than was first given to it. In general, I think the playground is doing very, 1873 very well. It is holding up very, very well. It's good to see that happening. I will also 1874 add that this week the Magical Bridge Playground won a parks design award for its 1875 inclusive and cutting edge design for inclusivity. That was very exciting as well. 1876 1877 Draft Minutes 45 DRAFT Mr. de Geus: I'm not sure if I've shared this with the Commission. It's been really 1878 interesting opening up this playground, the Magical Bridge Playground. The new 1879 Commissioners have been there. It's a universally accessible playground that people of 1880 all abilities can play. It's one of the best in the country, so it's getting a lot of attention, 1881 not only nationally but internationally. What we've experienced is, one, the maintenance 1882 is a big job because it gets so many visitors. There's 150 people there every day or at any 1883 time almost. Another thing that we're experiencing is there are so many people there and 1884 most of the kids that are playing there are actually able-bodied kids. I spoke to a couple 1885 of parents that have kids with disabilities, and they go there and its overwhelming. They 1886 actually can't get access to some of the play equipment. It's really a challenge and a 1887 problem. This is a new area and we need to work on it. The Friends of the Magical 1888 Bridge who raised the money to build the playground have been tremendous support of 1889 the playground and are there a lot and have started an ambassador program where they 1890 have actually children learn about people with different abilities. They get T-shirts and a 1891 little bit of training. They look out for kids that may need some help or make sure they 1892 get access to certain play equipment. There is a programming element to this particular 1893 playground that needs attention and focus and some resources. We're working with the 1894 Friends to see how we can keep them in play and helping support that playground with a 1895 volunteer program or some other thing. Pretty interesting. Great addition to the system, 1896 but there's some challenges that we're learning about. 1897 1898 Commissioner Moss: That's our neighborhood park. It's an incredible number of people. 1899 Talking to some of the parents who have autistic children, you can't tell that they're 1900 autistic. They bring along their siblings who don't have a problem. Having the 1901 combination of all those is pretty incredible. It's really amazing. 1902 1903 Chair Reckdahl: I'm always mobbed when I go there. It's very impressive. Let's move 1904 on. 1905 1906 Commissioner Hetterly: I have a couple of calendar items, since we got our important 1907 dates calendar. I just thought to add on January 11th along with the Master Plan Council 1908 Study Session, Council will be reviewing the Community Services and Facilities element 1909 of the Comprehensive Plan as revised by the Community Advisory Committee. I guess 1910 the last action by the Community Advisory Committee will be next week, 1911 December 16th. That's a subcommittee for that element, then Council will review it on 1912 January 11th, when I saw it last. January 19th, there is a joint Council session with the 1913 Community Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and Council on the Comprehensive 1914 Plan Draft Environmental Impact Review. 1915 1916 Chair Reckdahl: Anything else? Okay. 1917 1918 Draft Minutes 46 DRAFT VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 26, 2016 MEETING 1919 1920 Chair Reckdahl: Next month we have dog parks, either a discussion item or action item, 1921 hopefully action item. Commissioner Hetterly and I, after El Camino Park, went over 1922 and checked out the area. It does look very promising. It's a slippery slope whenever 1923 you start—it's very rough. We don't expect it to be polished, but I think it would be a 1924 good learning experience for the City. Dog parks next month. 1925 1926 Commissioner Lauing: The Boardwalk? 1927 1928 Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, Boardwalk is coming in January. Are we coming back with the 1929 Master Plan also? We have the Master Plan. 1930 1931 Male: (inaudible). 1932 1933 Chair Reckdahl: Master Plan, dog parks and Boardwalk. 1934 1935 Rob de Geus: I'll have to check in with the Junior Museum and Zoo team to see if they're 1936 ready. I suspect they will be. 1937 1938 Chair Reckdahl: We have CIPs also. CIPs and perhaps Junior Museum. 1939 1940 Mr. de Geus: We also generally select the Chair and Vice Chair at the January meeting. 1941 1942 Chair Reckdahl: Are we planning to do the retreat as our regular February meeting or are 1943 we going to schedule that between meetings? 1944 1945 Commissioner Lauing: My guess is we're going to have to schedule it separately, 1946 because of the workload of the Master Plan. 1947 1948 Chair Reckdahl: We'll talk about then in January. Schedule retreat. 1949 1950 Commissioner Cowie: Could you talk a little bit more about that? So I can get a sense 1951 for it and get a sense for what the calendar looks like. 1952 1953 Chair Reckdahl: The retreat usually occurs typically on a Friday morning. Do we go like 1954 9:00 'til noon, something like that? We just get together. It's basically another meeting, 1955 but we just get together and not talk about new meetings but talk about planning for the 1956 year, talk about what the ad hocs we want, what issues we want to work on. It's an 1957 organizational meeting, big picture and it's both the little picture stuff that we do here 1958 each week. 1959 1960 Draft Minutes 47 DRAFT Commissioner Cowie: Could we schedule it now? I'm just concerned if we wait 'til late 1961 January that it might be challenging to make it work. 1962 1963 Mr. de Geus: We can send out a poll. Friday seemed to work best for most people in the 1964 past couple of years, like a Friday morning. Look for a date in February, see what works 1965 for most people. 1966 1967 Commissioner Cowie: As long as we do that relatively soon, that would be helpful. As 1968 long as I have enough notice, I can probably pull it off. If it's two or three weeks in 1969 advance, it might be tricky. 1970 1971 Mr. de Geus: Fair enough. 1972 1973 Chair Reckdahl: Cat is sending out a poll then. 1974 1975 VII. ADJOURNMENT 1976 1977 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Commissioner 1978 Cribbs at 10:00 p.m. 1979 Draft Minutes 48 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016 SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATE ON DOG PARKS 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 The Commission has been interested in expanding the number of City dog parks for many years. Palo Alto has three dog parks: Greer Park (.12 acres), Hoover Park (.14 acres), and Mitchell Park (.56 acres). 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. 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. 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. 1 a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that current off- leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto are inadequate, and that there is an interest in finding spaces, especially in North Palo Alto, dedicated for small dogs, and larger spaces that allow large dogs to run, especially in North Palo Alto. b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could make baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs digging could have safety impacts 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. 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. 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 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 2 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. Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks At the October 27, 2015 Commission meeting (Attachment A), staff discussed potential near- term dedicated dog parks. Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be implemented quickly and simply, with existing funds, while waiting for the Parks Master Plan to be completed. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee investigated a few options for locations for additional or expanded dog parks that could be implemented in the near term. 1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. Itwould 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 the possibility of using this site as a dog park. 3 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 $9,570.3.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 raised security concerns that no longer make this site viable as a dog park. DISCUSSION The Ad Hoc Committee working on dog parks recommends expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Park, and continuing investigating the possibility of creating a new dog park at El Camino Park. The unfenced, shared-use model, currently being used by the City of Mountain View, and proposed by MIG as a possible recommendation in the Parks Master Plan, is outside the scope of the Ad Hoc’s work. The Ad Hoc recommends further investigation and policy discussion around that option. The February Commission retreat may represent an opportunity for the Commission to figure out the appropriate process for considering the unfenced, shared-use dog park concept, including the role, if any, of an ad hoc committee. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: October 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report and Approved Minutes of discussion on item 3 4 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 1 Greer Park Proposed size: 2.09 acres. Estimate fencing costs: $21,350 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT AJanuary 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 3 Hoover Park Red area: .96 acres; Fencing costs: $4,000 Yellow area: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 A January 26, 2016 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 A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 -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 leastone 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 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 ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Another photo of the potential El Camino Park Dog Park ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Taken from the Approved Minutes of October 27, 2015 3.Discussion on the Shared Use Dog Park Pilot Program. Daren Anderson: Just one second. Let me pull the materials. Chair Reckdahl: Okay. We have some speaker cards. If anyone has not filled out a speaker card for this, please do so now. Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf. I'm here tonight to seek your guidance regarding the shared-use dog parks, basically your feedback on how we're going to meet the community's dog park needs. At the last Commission meeting, I had provided an update on this topic where we covered the vast majority of the background in this staff report. I'll gloss over that and move on to the discussion section. As I mentioned in my previous update, Staff had hosted a community meeting July 30, 2015 to collect feedback specifically on the shared-use concept. The vast majority of the participants were dog owners advocating for dog parks and generally expressed dissatisfaction with the limited hours. Our proposal had Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at these sites, Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center and Hoover Park. The feedback was that morning hours just aren't enough. That's not going to be adequate. To be successful, (a), you've got to make them morning and evening at least, and it's got to be more than one site. One site's inadequate to be successful. There were a small number of participants who attended, who were park neighbors, who said "We don't want a dog park near our house. There's parking issues. There's dog waste issues. There's unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off-leash." There were also some participants who voiced concerns about potential impacts to the fields themselves. These are athletic users saying, "There's incompatibility between having dogs off-leash and a contained athletic facility." One of the meeting participants mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently made a number of their parks off-leash areas. After this public meeting, the ad hoc committee did some additional research. One was to verify what our current recreational use is brokered at those three sites, Greer, Hoover and the Baylands Athletic Center, and determine if we'd have conflict between evening use dog off-leash and athletic use. Unsurprisingly, there was conflicts at all three sites with the exception or at least the least amount of impact for the yellow area in Hoover Park. That outfield area was the least impacted if we had evening and morning off-leash hours, if we did a pilot there. The other kind of follow-up research that staff had done was to reach out to Mountain View, talk to their staff, and see what lessons they learned from their entire experience with these off-leash areas that they recently instituted. My interview of staff brought out some interesting facts. One was that they started this pilot program in June ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 2014, made it permanent in May 2015. Only one of their nine off-leash areas is a dedicated dog park; that's Shoreline Park. The other eight are off-leash areas that is unfenced. Only one of those eight is on an athletic field. The rest are kind of passive sections of a park. The majority of the complaints that they received were about non-observance with their hours and days, that people were bringing their dogs when they weren't really allowed to or outside of the areas that they were allowed to. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children. Mountain View's got a contract with a security firm that performs enforcement on two of their sites. Their staff explained that the success of the program really depended on that enforcement component. They also explained a little bit of the process they went through, that their parks and recreation commission had not advocated for doing a pilot program, but rather said, "You should research and look for dedicated sites." Their Council directed staff to move ahead with the one-year pilot. After the pilot which had some mixed results, some very positive, some against the program, the commission said, "We should extend this pilot for a year with additional enforcement." Their Council disagreed and said please proceed in making it permanent. Staff recently learned some additional news about Menlo Park's experience with shared-use dog parks. Since 2005, the softball field at Nealon Park has been a shared-use site. That is from Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Recently the Menlo Park Recreation Commission identified some concerns about the field conditions at the site. Their City Council concurred and basically said that the joint use was not optimal for either user group and approved a CIP to find a dedicated spot. This November, they're having a public meeting to see if they can relocate what they had as that shared-use site for a dedicated spot somewhere either in that park or another. Some of these challenges that we've encountered, both in our public meeting and some of our outreach to other agencies, led the ad hoc committee to explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be implemented quickly without investing too much money nor waiting necessarily for the Master Plan to be completed. Give me just one second to pull up the ... This was in your staff report. This first site is across from Greer Park; it's called Colorado Avenue Utility Substation. This is the landscaped area just outside it. It's about an acre, .96 acres to be precise. It would require about 600 feet of fencing which would cost about $15,000. There's parking available on the street side, and it's close proximity to neighborhoods. There are a few challenges with this site. The Utilities Department has informed us that they may need this site for future expansion, that is, they're constrained on the land they have and there's a possibility they might need to use this and they're reluctant to give it up. They also had some concerns about security. This is an area where the City gets a tremendous amount of its power. Having people very close to the fence line was potentially an issue for them. Lastly, the Utilities Department pays a significant amount of money to lease that land. There'd be an impact to the General Fund; if we were to take it over for a dog park. They'd no longer be contributing that ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 money. However, we are going to remain diligent in looking to see if this is still an option. CSD will continue to pursue it. This next site is Mitchell Park. The idea is can we expand Mitchell Park. The red polygon is our existing dog park. It is about .56 acres. We, with very minimal costs, could extend the fence line to that green polygon, which takes you from .56 to 1.21 acres. This would only cost about $9,500. The last site we're looking at—these three sites are not exhaustive. These are three that the ad hoc committee and staff could find that seemed to fit the paradigm of not very expensive, could be implemented potentially quickly if we clear some hurdles. This last site is El Camino Park. This is undeveloped area of parkland just outside. Of course, the photo here is not that helpful. Just to the left of that red polygon that you see is the softball field. There's a fence line that separates it. That's kind of the park proper to the left. This undeveloped area is just largely mulch, and there's utilities on site. If we fenced off this little area, you would gain about .77 acres of a dog park at about $15,000 cost. We did reach out to Utilities and found out they didn't have a conflict. We could work around their access needs. However, Planning advised staff that there are plans for a future transit improvement that may incorporate changes to this area. CSD staff is in communication with Planning to see if we can work around that. That concludes my presentation. I defer to the ad hoc committee to see if they have anything they'd like to add. Commissioner Hetterly: Sure. I would just add, what we're really looking for today is feedback from you all on what should be our next step. Should we be continuing to think about a shared-use option, in which case Hoover seems the only place that's really workable in terms of the hours and for trying to set it up for success. As you can see looking at the picture, that does take up a big chunk of the park for some hours of the days. We'd like your thoughts on that. Also, these three sites, as Daren said, we're not looking to preempt the Master Plan process in any way, but we're really trying to find something that we can do in the near term to expand our off-leash dog opportunities. These seem some places where, short of a CIP since they're a much smaller investment, we may be able to open something at least for the interim until we're able to find something more permanent or maybe one of these possibilities could become a permanent option in the future. On this one at El Camino Park in particular, like I said, all of them we're not proposing any improvements aside from fencing and a gate and a poop bag station, maybe a bench. Who knows. They could be interim projects that could be easily removed later for future use. This one, this Planning project, they're talking about extending Quarry Road through to the transit center, which of course will have all sorts of its own issues since that's parkland. It doesn't seem like something that they're going to break ground on in the next six months, so why wouldn't we go ahead and use that space? I'd like any reaction from you all (crosstalk). ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Chair Reckdahl: Who owns the transit center itself? Commissioner Crommie: Do we need community input? Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, we will. I wanted to get one clarification. The transit center there, just to the right of the red line, who controls that? Mr. Anderson: I'll have to look into that and get back to you. Chair Reckdahl: Is that City land do you know? Mr. Anderson: I don't. Chair Reckdahl: We have some speakers here. First, we have Howard Hoffman. Howard, you have two minutes. Howard Hoffman: Pardon me? Chair Reckdahl: You have two minutes. Mr. Hoffman: Thank you very much to the staff and to the Commission for at least recognizing that if we're not going to go ahead with a shared-use facility, that we really need at least some sort of interim dog park improvements until the Master Plan. We're optimistic that that's going to identify multiple locations. Palo Alto dog owners would be happy to see all of these. The people that have dogs running off-leash right now all over Palo Alto are not an asset to the community. It would be an asset to have one or more of these sites enclosed whether it's the shared-use facility at Hoover Park or any of these. We do appreciate that you're working on this and recognize that it's long overdue. We just hope that—we're not going to endorse any one particular option. The one other option that I would like to hold out there, which I didn't see in here, there's the part of Rinconada Park. Of course, the dog use facilities are especially in north Palo Alto. Rinconada Park back by the power substation there, there's an area I think in the Master Plan for that park that was identified for bocce ball perhaps. I think we've got bocce ball somewhere else. It's a small area, but it could be with artificial turf. We don't have any artificial turf parks being discussed here. That does give you another option over dirt or decomposed granite or over grass. Grass needs to be fairly large. I think that some of you are familiar with the Mountain View artificial turf park for dogs, and that's worked out really well. Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Howard. Next we have Amarad Acharia. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Amarad Acharia: Hi. I'm Amarad Acharia. I'd like to appreciate and thank the staff for taking the effort to put this together. The two things I would like to point. Centralized parks, wonderful to have them when there's nothing else available, but they take up the opportunity of intercommunity socialization. I mean, largely I meet my neighbors when I have kids and I take them to the park or if I have a dog and I go with the dog for walking. Those are largely the only times I get to meet my neighbors. Otherwise, I'm just living isolated and have relationships elsewhere. Having parks that are within communities provide that opportunities. It comes with all the other constraints; I understand that. We do have parks, Rinconada for example, for people living on the northern side of town. That does have some room that could be taken advantage of to provide such an opportunity. Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus, you are next. Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I'm going to speak as a resident who owns three dogs right now. One of them is probably not going to last much longer, and then I'll say something about environmental issues wearing my environmental hat. First, I find that dog parks provide a huge service to the community, especially when there is no fence around them. I have to say that it brings the community to the park. It brings people together, and it creates an opportunity for people whose children are already not at home. They don't socialize with their kids; they socialize with their dogs. That is very evident in our neighborhood. There is a need for more dog parks, for sure. I do want to say a few things about the one park at the Baylands that was proposed here. I have concerns about that. I've had other people from the environmental group have concerns about bringing dogs there. One reason is that you'd have to drive there, and it's not really a wonderful idea to drive anywhere these days if we don't have to. If you can provide the service in the City, it's better. The other thing is that unless there is somebody to actually monitor what happens and how people behave and whether they take the dogs then for a walk along the creek, then that could be a huge impact to that creek, especially as now the San Francisquito Creek is supposed to go through a flood control and habitat restoration project. Hopefully it will go through sooner or later. When it does, I don't want to have to look at an existing condition of dogs already there because this project moved forward before the creek was in place. When it goes to any kind of additional analysis, the dogs will already be there. I know it's already been through CEQA, but still I think that that's not a very good selection for a dog park unless there is huge monitoring of how people behave and that they don't go on the levee with dogs off-leash, which they already do anyway, but that just brings more people to do that. I think that the less risk of inviting unauthorized use to a remote location may not be a good analysis unless you have data to support that. That is of concern. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Chair Reckdahl: Your time's up. Ms. Kleinhaus: Also artificial turf, I don't know. You may like that park over there. I find it kind of yech. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Mot Huri, you're up next. Mot Huri: Hi, good evening. We've only moved to Palo Alto about 2 1/2 years ago with a dog. Since he can't come to the meeting, this leash is him representing himself and his friends here. One of the lovely things about Palo Alto is almost everybody has a dog. I would like to thank you all for these wonderful proposals. There's only one potential problem here. I live in Crescent Park. Most of these are concentrated south of Oregon, Hoover, Greer, Mitchell. The one exception is Baylands, and she very articulately mentioned why it wouldn't be the best option. These proposals leave seven communities which would be Crescent Park, Community Center, Saint Francis, Professorville, University South, Leland Manor and Old Palo Alto, with no options to walk to a dog park. The reason we would like to walk is many. One is you get to meet people. I know more people from all over Crescent Park just by running into them and their dogs and our dogs interacting than I would normally had I moved to any other community. The second things is—this also reference to her concern—when you're around people you know, you behave better. I don't know why, but we do that. When we are in a park and there are neighbors and we're all there with our dogs, we are going to pick up and they are going to pick up, because we are being watched. The third thing is the Baylands, besides everything else, all of these communities would have to negotiate Embarcadero during commute hours to get there. We all know Embarcadero is a traffic nightmare with unenforceable speed limits and many other problems, very congested. I would like for you all to think about the possibility, given how many dogs exist here and given the benefits of allowing for areas where dogs and people can meet, I would like you all to think about putting in off-leash, fenced dog areas in all the major parks in the north side. Certainly Rinconada has the space for it, as does Pardee. If you can go ahead and find some space for it in either Johnson and Heritage as well, that would be great. More are better for many reasons. I don't know how close I am to running out on time, but Mitchell is the one good off-leash in Palo Alto, which means it gets lots of people and lots of dogs. There have been dog confrontations. All of that can be eased up if there are multiple alternatives. Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Herb Borock is next. Irene Keene follows him. Herb Borock: The first answer, Chair Reckdahl, is a question about El Camino Park. The land is owned by Stanford University and leased to Palo Alto. I believe the current lease runs to June 30, 2033. We have off-leash dog areas already, ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 except they're not legal. Because they're not legal, they don't get the intensive use you would have with an official, sanctioned dog park. I've been familiar with the area in Hoover Park, the turf area outside of the ball field that's used off-leash illegally. That park also has an official dog park, and there people with dogs use both of those and some use one or use the other. When the most people congregate is the hours when animal control is not working. It limits the number of people, the number of dogs that come there. If you're going to be having more dog parks, they should be in the north area of town, north of Oregon Expressway. They should be on neighborhood parks. El Camino Park and Rinconada Park are district parks. When you tried to have a dog park or a bathroom even in Eleanor Pardee Park, you saw the resistance. The woman from Crescent Park who thinks everyone's got a dog and her neighbors want to go to a neighborhood park and do that, she'll find very quickly that in north Palo Alto there'll be a lot of resistance to having more dog parks. If you want to do something for the community as a whole, then you're going to have to make that kind of decision. You should expect that it'll be more than just people who are in walking distance. People will drive to any of these parks. If you did, for example, try Hoover Park with that area delineated in yellow, you should put a very firm time limit because you'll very quickly find not only the intensive use but also all the damage and concerns that people have mentioned will then happen that are not happening now. Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Our last speaker is Irene Keene. Irene Keene: Hello. I also live in Crescent Park, but I'm on the edge of Community Center, so I'm in north Palo Alto. There are no dog parks anywhere near me. I have to get in my car and drive. We only have three dog parks in Palo Alto. It's crazy, only three. There's only one that's halfway decent which is the one at the big park, Mitchell. The one at Hoover is small; it's dirty; your dog gets filthy there in the summertime; in the wintertime the dog gets muddy because it turns into a mud puddle when there's rain. The other one is at Greer; that's a run. It's really narrow; it's kind of long, but it's also a mud pit. I love the dog park in Mountain View, the one that's got the fake grass. I mean, it's a little over the top, but I'll tell you what. It keeps your dog really clean. When it's wet out, grass gets wet. Your dog is going to be filthy because it gets a little wet on the feet, then he walks in dirt and it's a mess. I will get in my car and drive to Mountain View to keep my dog clean. Then I'm going to shop over there, because there's the nice Safeway there. Sometimes I go to Menlo Park, then I go to the Safeway in Menlo Park. You want people to stay in Palo Alto and spend their money in Palo Alto, get some dog parks in north Palo Alto please. Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. That was the last comment, so now we'll move on to Commissioners. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Commissioner Lauing: Chair Reckdahl? Chair Reckdahl: Yes. Commissioner Lauing: Just a process question. Would it make sense to just go quickly around for questions before we came to conclusions just to make sure everything was answered? Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Do you have any questions? Commissioner Lauing: I do. Chari Reckdahl: Fire away. Commissioner Lauing: I'd actually like to ask questions about the permanent ones first, the permanent options that have been identified. For example, Mitchell Park, there's no cons listed here. By the way, I thought this whole ad hoc report was terrific, very detailed, very thorough. Good job by the ad hoc and staff. It's just really, really helpful. Mitchell, there's no cons listed, and the cost is $9,500. I always think of cost as a con. Commissioner Crommie: Con is location. Mr. Anderson: I should clarify. The pros and cons list were conducted for our shared-use ones. When we put together our list of potential dedicated parks, we hadn't done the pro and con analysis. It was just preliminary. We haven't quite resolved a lot of the other potential challenges like the substation (crosstalk) we didn't get to the pros and cons for this one. Commissioner Lauing: This one seems to get to wow, we can get a real-size park here in a way that your analysis, the ad hoc's analysis, it'd be nice to have an acre and to be able to add that much—if there really are any cons and there's $9,500 as the cost, that seems like a way to get some—like we created in the Baylands. What did Council say? We created land out there by doing that. You might be able to create a big dog park here. Rob de Geus: Can I just comment on that? Commissioner Lauing: Sure. Mr. de Geus: There's always going to be tradeoffs and some pros and cons. I haven't been out there recently. That area, people do sit on that grassy area. It's ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 sort of a hilly area. It's a nice place to just lie down on the grass and relax. I see people do that all the time, so that's one tradeoff that we have to consider. Commissioner Lauing: Your point is an important point for all of this discussion. The public, some of whom spoke tonight, always need to know that there's a tradeoff. If you've got a dog there, you're not kicking a ball, you're not lying in the grass, and so on. That's part of our challenge with this whole issue Citywide. With respect to both Colorado Avenue and El Camino, the issue of there may be a future need, in and of itself doesn't seem too compelling to me as a con, because we can use it now. I guess my question back is how long do you think it would take to resolve that situation for either one of those? Yes, you might need it later, but as we know it takes time and it could be a couple of years before they need it, Let's be active with it, would be one approach. Mr. Anderson: That's certainly the position that staff is taking. The conversations for both of those sites are ongoing right now. Commissioner Lauing: I mean, I know this is a little bit unfair. Do you think this is going to be resolved in a month or 12 months or ... Mr. de Geus: I don't think we have an answer. We're trying to get the answer to that. We have the same question, Commissioner Lauing. One of the things we've heard for this location here from Utilities staff is the concern that once you provide that service, say this is a dog park even if it's temporary, it's very hard to take it away once you've provided it. They've expressed that concern. Commissioner Lauing: The other side of it is if we don't do it all for two years ... Mr. de Geus: I know. That's what we ... Commissioner Lauing: We have some blank space there that looks compelling. Just to be sure about the security concern issue there. Was it just getting too close to the electrical facilities? Is that what you mean? Mr. Anderson: That's what they voiced, yes. That was the Utilities staff. Security in terms of protecting the asset of the City's power. Mr. de Geus: That's a particularly important power plant, not that I know much about it. What I've heard from the Utilities staff is—I asked them about this. How serious are these constraints that they're suggesting? This site is where all the electricity for Palo Alto comes through, into that particular location. They're especially sensitive to ... ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Commissioner Lauing: Is it a two-way security concern? They're concerned that somehow the public is going to get in there and disrupt that or is it a concern that we don't want the public to be hurt? I just didn't (crosstalk). Mr. de Geus: I think it's both. I do think it's both. It wasn't a complete shutdown; it can't happen. The Utilities staff were willing to in fact even meet with the ad hoc committee if they'd be interested in doing so. I think we'll pursue that. Commissioner Lauing: I didn't quite get the concern about the amount of money. Again, it's just sitting there vacant, and there wouldn't be any change for that if they needed it back in five years. I didn't understand why that was a potential constraint. Mr. de Geus: I don't know if this is it. Daren, I don't want to jump in. Utilities is an Enterprise Fund, so they pay rent for the land that they use. They're paying rent to the City's General Fund for the use of that land including that. Once it's used for a different purpose, not a utility purpose, then they no longer pay rent back to the City. There's a financial (crosstalk). Commissioner Lauing: Legally or conveniently? Mr. de Geus: It's just there. They ... Commissioner Lauing: I don't want to take too much time. Another question I had is that in the summary many, many dog owners at that last large meeting, which I attended, said that the hours just don't work. Again, it's a debate with if that's all you could get, would you take a shared-use dog park with a couple of hours. I share that concern, because what we're trying to do with any pilot is basically do a test market of will this work in a lot of different ways. If you only test two hours or three hours on five days a week, we're just not testing anything that's very comprehensive relative to, as you would say with a product, to be able to roll it out. I wasn't on the ad hoc, so I don't have the level of detail. I was surprised that at Baylands, for example, there weren't Sunday nights between 4:00 and 8:00 in the summers that might be open. I don't think, from my recollection of Babe Ruth which I was involved with, that they play at that time. My question is, if we really strive, could we find some other segments of time to test different time segments besides 10:00 to 12:00 in the morning. Has the ad hoc already exhausted that? Mr. Anderson: I'll defer to the Commissioners on that one. Commissioner Hetterly: I would just answer on when the Baylands Athletic Center is used, they're telling us from 3:00 until 10:00 p.m., Monday through ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Friday, it's booked. Weekends from 8:00 a.m. 'til 10:00 p.m. it's booked. That seemed to us to preclude joint use during those evening hours. Commissioner Lauing: I'm surprised at the evening hours. I haven't worked on those schedules in a few years. Also in terms of the Babe Ruth, which is a big user of that, it's not 12 months out of the year. Chair Reckdahl: They close down the field for how many months? Three months during the winter? Mr. Anderson: Mm-hmm. Chair Reckdahl: So no one can access the field just because of damage to the field. The field gets wet. Commissioner Lauing: That makes sense. Chair Reckdahl: During the non-closed, it's between Babe Ruth and other people that rent the field, it's brokered down there. It's pretty busy. Commissioner Lauing: That was just one example. The question is do you feel like you've exhausted any options for evening walks. Basically, anybody who has a job, has an 8-5 job, is not going to be able to use this shared-use dog park. Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's pretty clear to the ad hoc. Anyway, we concluded that Hoover was the only viable option of the three for a shared-use pilot that could handle those evening hours ... Commissioner Knopper: The yellow. Commissioner Hetterly: ... at the yellow part, outside that fence. Commissioner Knopper: The stakeholders that use that said they would not use that part of the field. Now, part of the field they use sort of for practice, but if it was shared use with dogs, they wouldn't even put children on it at that point, because they'd be scared dogs would dig a hole and the kids ... Commissioner Lauing: This is Hoover? Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, outside the yellow portion. The baseball stakeholders said they just wouldn't use the yellow if we did ... ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Commissioner Hetterly: They occasionally use it now, but it's not booked through our—I don't know (crosstalk). Commissioner Knopper: For official practices. Mr. Anderson: That's right. Commissioner Hetterly: It's just informal use. Commissioner Knopper: It's not official, but you use it to take kids out there to teach them technique or whatever. If we were to implement a pilot of shared-use, they wouldn't put kids out there. Commissioner Lauing: Okay. Was the small field at Baylands the same way in terms of its usage? Mr. Anderson: Yes. Commissioner Knopper: Mm-hmm. Commissioner Lauing: No further questions. Chair Reckdahl: Deirdre. Commissioner Crommie: How come Sterling Canal didn't end up on your list of extra opportunities? Mr. Anderson: It just wasn't a comprehensive list. As I mentioned, these three jumped out at us. Both because there was partial fencing there on all three of those that limited the cost to something that we could afford without waiting for a CIP. As soon as you need a new CIP, you're looking at a much longer timeframe. Once you're within the 20,000 and less category, it's something we could probably fund with our existing funds. Commissioner Crommie: I have a problem with that actually, for generating a list that way. First of all, if you end up at Mitchell, there's already a dog park there. It seems like you're not even in line with the mandate to look for areas that are not served currently. If that's what you've come up with, it means you didn't look enough, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if this is our comment section. I would just say that you're not being expansive enough right now. Commissioner Hetterly: Should I respond? Would you like a response to that? As far as what we were limited—our mandate was really to look at shared-use ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 sites. The whole purpose behind that was to find large sites. Shared-use was appealing because it offered the opportunity to have a big chunk of land that dogs could really run in. We had agreed as a Commission to defer the bigger question of how we can distribute dog parks Citywide within our parks better through the Master Plan, because we know there's a big public outreach process for every single park, as you know. Who wants a park, who doesn't want a park, dogs, bathroom, whatever. We thought that was more appropriate through the Master Plan process. We were really just looking at what can we do in the short term to test something out for shared use, which limited our options to begin with to the three we talked about because of the cost and the size, where we had athletic fields that were available. Then when we looked at non-shared-use options, again we were looking for big sites with few improvements that could happen quickly. That's how we ended up with those three that we ended up with. I think Sterling Canal has a number of issues, as you probably know because you were on the Sterling Canal ad hoc committee. There was limited options there. It's completely fenced off at this point, and there's no public access at all. Commissioner Crommie: We never got to the bottom of that. Let me just ask this question then, based on what you just said. Is the current Mitchell Park dog park bigger than a baseball field diamond shared-use would achieve or smaller? The current size. Commissioner Hetterly: Small, small. Commissioner Knopper: Smaller. Commissioner Crommie: Can you just give me the two square footages? Commissioner Hetterly: They're on your handout. Mr. Anderson: Mitchell's .56 acres. For example, Hoover which is up on the display, you can see the yellow area is 1.17 acres. Inside the red area is .96 acre. They're all a little different. As I toggle back to the Baylands, you can see it's much larger, for example. That large red area has 3.27. Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you have any questions? Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. In the Hoover Park option, it's listed as a con that there's frequent use of the field by the Keys School. Why is that a con? Because the field is occupied? ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Commissioner Knopper: There's a lot of children using it during the day, so that leads to the issue of use, because they use it for their PE activities during the course of the school day. A lot of the comment with regard to public comment is that you have dog waste that isn't necessarily cleaned up and the occasional dog digging the hole and tearing up the grass. That is an opportunity for kids to ... Commissioner Ashlund: That applies at any park, right? Commissioner Knopper: For shared-use, yeah. Commissioner Ashlund: For shared use. Do you only want questions at this point or we're making other comments as well? Is this the first pass through? Chair Reckdahl: The first pass through. (inaudible) two. Commissioner Ashlund: That's it for now. Chair Reckdahl: That's it, okay. Any other questions? Okay. Now, comments, conversations. Ed, do you have anything? Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. Why don't you start at that end? I'm happy to go if you want. Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you want to start? Commissioner Ashlund: Okay. Chair Reckdahl: Go for it. Commissioner Ashlund: I really like the recommendations. I mean, it's been so consistent all along from the community and Council and everybody that the need is in the north of Palo Alto. I really like the potential triangle we'd have if we kept Mitchell the size it is, use the Colorado substation area and the El Camino Park area. I think that would be really, really good coverage. The Colorado substation, today's the first day I've heard that brought up. I don't know if we've discussed that before on the Commission, but I may have missed that one in the past. If we are looking at shared-use, I don't see that use of a public park by a private school for PE is a con. It's public land, so I don't think that applies here as a con. It's public land. I mean, there's schools adjacent to all of our parks. It's public land; it's not private PE land. Chair Reckdahl: Do they pay rent? ATTACHM E N T A January 2 6 , 2 0 1 6 Mr. de Geus: I have to look into that. I'm not sure if they get a permit; I don't believe they do. I have to check. Commissioner Ashlund: If they were renting the field, that would be one thing. Commissioner Knopper: I think you have to look—just pardon me for interrupting. Point taken with regard to it's a private school. I think some of the other cons are there's a nearby playground and it's a heavily used park on any given day, all hours of the day. Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, I understand that. I don't think location-wise that Hoover is really jumping out. I mean, it's been so consistent that the need is in the north. The other possibility—I don't know if we have already approached the neighborhood associations. Since we do frequently hear from speakers in the north saying, "We want them in the neighborhood parks in the north," have you approached the neighborhood associations at all and said, "Talk to your neighbors and let's see what your consensus is. Do you guys want it or do you not want it in your neighborhood park?" Once it comes back to the Commission, then we have to go back and do the outreach. If the neighborhoods are asking for it and can start to say there really is more demand than there is resistance in a certain neighborhood park, that could help with community feedback. Commissioner Hetterly: We have not done that primarily because the Commission had asked us not to do that and to leave that to the Master Plan process. Commissioner Ashlund: Leave that to the Master Plan process, right. Commissioner Hetterly: Just to reiterate, the idea of trying to get more dedicated dog parks in neighborhood parks across the City is, as we understood it, really part of the Master Plan process. This is an additional process that we're trying to move something forward quickly. That's a big (inaudible). Commissioner Ashlund: I would avoid expanding at Mitchell. Mitchell is really, really crowded by a number of schools, a number of tennis players, bicyclists, pedestrians. I would really avoid it. The need just isn't there. Nobody is coming to our meetings saying, "We wish we had—if Mitchell were bigger on the south end of Palo Alto." We're hearing north, north, north. That's my feedback, is really, really keep the focus there. Chair Reckdahl: Other questions? Deirdre. Commissioner Crommie: Are we just doing comments now? ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 Chair Reckdahl: Comments, questions (crosstalk). Commissioner Crommie: I knew the shared-use was dead on arrival when it was just morning hours. I mean, I wasn't surprised one bit because everyone I know that hangs out with their dogs in public places are doing it in the evenings. It just seems obvious. Just look around our City. Look around our neighborhoods. Look around our parks. Everyone comes out after they get home from work. They like to come during that twilight hour. All across the City, that's happening, and it's not happening in the morning. I'm not surprised that we got all that feedback. I brought it up at the time that the ad hoc was formulating their idea, but I was told, "We just have to do that as a pilot." These things are all connected. I mean, it's not independent. It's like you have to satisfy the need even when you do a pilot. I think we should take the Baylands park off the table. There's not a single person who's coming here saying they want to go over there and use that as a dog park. We need to look at what the constituency is saying. No one is saying that. Plus, it can harm the wildlife as people move from that park to the levee which they absolutely will do if they're over there. I just think that should be a non-starter. I know it was sort of put on the table because it was cheap, but I just don't see any reason to keep it there. Mitchell Park is in my neighborhood, relatively close. I guess it's a 20-minute walk or 5-minute car ride. None of my neighbors with dogs go over there. They just don't want to do it. They hang out at the tiny, little Monroe Park. I wish I could get them to go to Robles which is a 7- minute walk. People just don't seem to want to go very far from their homes with their dogs. Mitchell Park, I don't even like being there with my dog. It's all dirt. I haven't heard good things about the experience at Mitchell Park for a dog park. If we don't have a good experience with a half-acre dog park over there, I'm not sure it's going to improve to go into that nice sitting area nearby. We can't keep the grass nice at Mitchell Park. Now, if you double the size, maybe there's a lower impact, somehow you can keep it nice. I've just not seen that happen. I'm a big user of the artificial turf dog park; I go there multiple times a week with my dog. It's in the shopping center at San Antonio and Fayette. I was never into artificial turf; it seems gross to me. I will say it works, it really does work. It's hugely used, a massively dense dog park, and the dogs are all different sizes. It'd be really nice to know the acreage on that dog park. It seems tiny to me. I've talked to a lot of people there. Kind of the word at that park is, it's tiny but we all can see our dogs so the dogs are not misbehaving. That's why the small dogs work with the big dogs, because they're highly monitored. Some people in dog parks say where you really get into trouble is when it gets too big, the dogs run off. People want to stay and congregate with each other, and then the dogs start misbehaving or not getting picked up after and stuff like that. I guess of all these proposals, I would say put them where the people want them which is in the north. That's where we have the deficit. We should do whatever it takes to get something over ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 there. Then we have to look at just neighborhood by neighborhood and make sure every neighborhood park is assessed for a dog area, because that's where people want to go. They want an easy walking distance. Some parks are a lot better suited for it. It's an absolute tragedy at Eleanor Pardee. The reason you don't have a dog park there is because people rebelled in that neighborhood. We need to have a stronger policy mandate to really counteract the NIMBY-ism. I've been on the Commission now for seven years. Ever since I sat here, we have looked at dog parks. I just hope the next wave we get more going with it. You really do need to look at where the users are, where people want it, independent of cost at this point. I think we're being misled to look for a cheap solution. Look where we ended up; we ended up in areas where we already have dog parks, looking at that. That's not what people are telling us they want. That's what I feel. Female: Can I ask a question? Commissioner Lauing: Not really. Chair Reckdahl: No. Female: Come back next month on this. Chair Reckdahl: Ed. Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thanks. As we address this whole issue, we need to go back over the last year and half when we got started and over the last six years. Why are we looking at shared-use dog parks? Because there aren't enough dog parks. Why aren't there enough dog parks? Because there's not enough parks and there's not enough park space. To have a comment that we should just survey the public and put them where they want them is not practical in any way, shape or form. We have to do what we can with the limitation of park space until we can get more park space, if we can, and do the best we can to identify existing spaces that can be turned into dog parks. We've been working on this for a long time. The need is there. We know that it's going to come out as a very, very high need in the Master Plan. The top three, maybe the top issue in all of parks, maybe in the top three of all City issues, but certainly as park specific. There are other options that are being uncovered, which I agree is above and beyond the scope of what the ad hoc was supposed to look at. I thank them for also looking at those. There are still a lot of cards to overturn there. We don't know if that's going to be the case. I would be very happy to see action at our next meeting in favor of going ahead with these pilots to get some data. That's what you do, as I said earlier, in a test market. You try to get some data on what works and what doesn't. For example, I think it would be a very valid test to have Hoover and Baylands because, amongst other things, it's comparing the usage that we get from someone ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 who's walking to the park and the usage we would get with someone who is driving to the park. If I lived in north Palo Alto, which I do, and I had a dog, which I don't, I would love to go to Baylands a couple of hours and run my dog in that big space as opposed to never go there because it takes me five minutes to drive there. I think it could get extraordinary use. We don't know that if we just restrict it to one pilot or say, "Forget about it. Let's just wait another couple of years until we can get some permanent dog parks." To be able to test Hoover versus Baylands, number one, you really do need an A-B split test to have a valid study. You're testing north and south; you're testing drive to and walk to. I think you would get some pretty interesting feedback there. I'm very aware of the challenges involved, but I don't think the cons are so overwhelming that we say we shouldn't do it. In the meantime and in parallel if those, call them ready options, can be looked at, certainly the El Camino would be a tremendous alternative. We worked really, really hard on the El Camino Park to get a dog park in there. We were shot down on that a couple of years ago by the environmental; otherwise, there'd be one right there today because I see the park is almost ready to open. I'd like to see us move to action on the ad hoc at the next meeting. I'm sorry, on the shared-use at the next meeting that the ad hoc has studied. If we ended up saying contingent on if a permanent one opens up in 60 days, we can kind of reel it back in. The footnotes that I would have is that I still would like to see if there will be a way to extend the hours. In contrast to my colleague, I don't agree that nobody's going to come between 8:00 and 10:00, because a lot of people walk their dogs in the morning. A lot of people. I've gone on morning walks, and I run into a lot of dogs and make a lot of dog friends. Let's see. The second thing is in the pilot I would like to see—this may be a detail—during the pilot I would like to see outreach and support from the dog owners in terms of the clean-up aspect of it just to make it a very successful pilot. We can sort out later what to do around that. Chair Reckdahl: Anyone else? Pat. Vice Chair Markevitch: It seems to me there's one park that has not been mentioned, and it's in north Palo Alto. That's Heritage Park where the old clinic used to be on Homer. They specifically planted trees there so soccer clubs couldn't play. I think it's a good shared-use option to look at. Chair Reckdahl: We went over there after the May Fete Parade. I brought that up, that I thought there is room there to have a dog park whether it be a shared-use or a dedicated dog park. I understand the ad hoc was not addressing the whole dog park issue. They were very focused on the shared-use. Once the Master Plan comes in, I think we'll have a little more freedom. When I look at these options, I think the most promising one is El Camino. I think that is a very good location. If we can do that on the cheap, I think we should do it now and not wait for the Master Plan. I do think that, in my anecdotal experience talking to people who ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 have dogs, most people want something that they can walk to. I hear that over and over again. We don't have big parks in Palo Alto. We can't have big dog parks in every park, but we can have small dog parks in a lot. Down the road, if I look in my crystal ball, I think that's the solution that's going to percolate up, having some small—it'll probably have to be artificial turf since you have high use on it—in neighborhood parks. That's a decision down the road, but now I think we should just move ahead and do something, either the shared-use at Hoover or the El Camino Park. Those are the two most feasible. Hoover Park, you could have evening hours. There is not the constraint that you would have if you had it inside the diamond where you would have competition from kids. You could do Hoover and have morning and evening hours, and that would be an option. You could have a dedicated park over at El Camino. I think those are the two best options. I don't see any reason to wait for the Master Plan for either of those. A couple of points I would bring up. A lot of people complain, "I'm a neighbor to a park. I don't want to have a dog park nearby." When I go over to San Antonio, I'll sit there and listen. One thing is if you look up there, people have their windows open looking out over that dog park. If it was really that noisy, they would have their windows shut. I don't think a dog park is any more noisy than any other park use. When I sit there and try and listen and pretend if I was in my living room, would I find this objectionable, I don't. I think that neighbors' objections are not based on fact. It's based on concerns that are not real. The second thing is off- leash without fences. I think that's a really bad idea. My son was knocked down in a park once by an off-leash dog, and it was very traumatic. He had a dog phobia for years after that. I think if we want to off-leash dogs, they really should be inside some type of fence. I think that's the best option. I think we do have options here. I agree with Ed that we should move on, and we should in the near future try something. If it doesn't work, we always can back it out. Failing any other comments, we'll move on to the Master Plan. ATTACHMENT A January 26, 2016 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016 SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BACKGROUND On December 8, 2015, staff provided an update to the Commission on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget preparation for fiscal years 2017 to 2021. The City schedules CIPs in a five-year plan, with only the first year’s projects actually funded. The outlying years are planned projects. Each year the list of projects is updated. In 2015 staff completed projects at El Camino Park, Scott Park, Magical Bridge Playground, Hopkins Park, Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study, and Tennis Court Resurfacing at Hoover Park, Terman Park, and Weisshaar Park. There are several CIPs that are underway or scheduled to start soon. The Monroe Park project is nearly complete and scheduled to re-open early February 2016. The Byxbee Park Hills project has most of the trails and hydro-seeding completed, and the seating, signage and native plants will be completed in the summer 2016. The Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields turf replacement project is scheduled to start June 2016 (this project was originally scheduled to start December 2015, but was delayed due to product availability). Rinconada Pool Locker Room is currently under construction. DISCUSSION On December 18, 2015, the Community Services Department submitted the following CIP budget requests (most of these projects are from the backlog identified in the City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee study): New CIPs not currently in the existing FY17 to FY21 CIP plan ●Mitchell Park Adobe Creek Bridge Replacement FY17 ● Cubberley Tennis Courts FY17 ● Theater Soft Goods (stage curtains, etc.)FY17 ●Park Restrooms (This was an existing CIP, but was defunded while we started the Parks Master Plan)FY18 ●Replacement of Theatre Seats to Meet Fire Code FY18 1 ● Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan FY19 ● Baylands Boardwalk Project FY19 ● Foothills Park Interpretive Center Exhibitions FY20 ● Foothills Park Renovation Project (Irrigation, Bridge Replacement) FY21 ● Pearson Arastradero Improvement Project (Bridges, fencing, and trails) FY21 Changes to existing CIPs for FY17 to FY21: ● Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan FY17 (additional funding to address planning for interpretive messaging and public art to the scope of the project) ● Open Space Trails and Amenities FY17-FY21 (this is a reoccurring CIP that needed additional funding to: increase service level of trail clearing performed by contractor, and perform a one- time addition of funds to address a serious erosion problem on Los Trancos Trail. See Attachment A for detail sheets for the new proposed CIPs and changes to existing CIPs. Existing CIPs already in the FY17 to FY21 CIP plan: ● Bowden Park Improvements FY16 ● Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study FY16 ● Palo Alto Community Gardens Irrigation System FY16 ● Baylands Emergency Access Levee Repair FY17 ● Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements FY17 ● Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Exhibit Improvements FY17 ● Ramos Park Improvements FY17 ● Golf Reconfiguration FY17 ● Rinconada Park Improvements FY17 ● Baylands Boardwalk Improvements FY18 ● Boulware Park Improvements FY18 ● Byxbee Park Completion FY18 ● Cameron Park Improvements FY18 ● Golf Course Net and Artificial Turf Replacement FY18 ● Hoover Park Improvements FY18 ● Peers Park Improvements FY18/19 ● Robles Park Improvements FY18/19 ● Seale Park Improvements FY18/19 ● Mitchell Park Improvements FY20 ● Bol Park Improvements FY20 ● Parks and Open Space Emergency Repairs (On-going CIP funded every year) ● Off-Road Pathway Resurfacing and Repair (On-going CIP funded every year) ● Open Space Lakes and Pond Maintenance (On-going CIP funded every year) ● Tennis and Basketball Court Improvements (On-going CIP funded every year) 2 For detailed information on the existing CIP’s please view the Adopted 2016 Capital Budget located at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48595. SCHEDULE May 11, 2016 - Planning and Transportation Commission review of proposed capital budget Mid May - Finance Committee review of proposed capital budget June 2016 - City Council adoption of capital budget. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Detail sheets for the new proposed CIPs and changes to existing CIPs 3 Project Number:AC-17000 Title:Perfroming Arts Venues Soft Goods Replacement Asset Type:Division:CSD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description: This project provides funding for the replacement of existing soft fabric goods in City performing arts venues and to bring the goods in the facilities up to fire code, which requires that all hanging fabric be certified as fire retardant. The soft goods must be flame-retardant with up-to-date flame certification in the Children¶s Theatre, Community Theatre and Cubberley Theatre. Soft goods refer to: 1) theatre drapes and stage curtains: large pieces of cloth used for purposes such as backdrops to scenery, or to mask backstage areas of a theater from spectators; 2) cyclorama: a vertical backdrop usually made of heavy fabric drawn tight to achieve a flat surface; 3) scrim: a large piece of fabric which serves as a drop or border for creating the illusion of a solid wall, backdrop, or creating a semi-transparent curtain when lit from behind. Comments:Estimated Cost: $15,000 Children¶s Theatre; $20,000 Community Theatre; $20,000 Cubberley Theatre. Total Cost = $55,000 Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funding for the replacement of existing soft fabric goods in three City performing arts venues and to bring the goods in the facilities up to fire code. The soft goods must be flame-retardant with up-to-date flame certification in the Children¶s Theatre, Community Theatre and Cubberley Theatre. Soft goods refer to theatre drapes, stage curtains, and fabric backdrops. Comments:Soft goods at these sites are due for replacement based on their age, condition and/or fire code. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (55,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 10:41:30 AM Project Scenario Details Project AC-17000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:AC-18000 Title:Performing Arts Venues Seat Replacement Asset Type:Division:CSD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funding for the replacement of damaged seats in City performing arts venues. Many seats have broken hinges which may cause the seat to block a fire exit or create a tripping hazard if it is not able to be kept in an upright position. Comments:Estimated Cost: $250 per seat / Total = $75,000 or 300 seats Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funding for the replacement of damaged or non-functioning seats at the City's three performing arts venues: Children's Theatre, Community Theatre, and Cubberley Theatre. Comments:Damaged or non-functioning seats at the City's three theatre sites are due for replacement based on their age and/or condition. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure 0 (75,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 12:12:42 PM Project Scenario Details Project AC-18000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:OS-00001 Title:Open Space Trails and Amenities Asset Type:Division:CSD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2015 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:Open Space Trails and Amenities Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:Proposed Budget Name: Main Description:This project provides funding to restore unpaved trails, fences, picnic areas, and campgrounds at Foothills Park, the Baylands, and the Pearson-Arastradero Nature Preserves. The project also provides habitat protection by guiding park users towards areas dedicated for hiking, biking, and assembling. Benches, tables, footbridges and fences that are at the end of their useful life will systematically be replaced. Comments:Open Space trails require ongoing repair of natural erosion, storm damage, and control of aggressive plants, such as thistle and poison oak to ensure that facilities are safe, accessible, and maintained for recreational uses. These restoration projects are consistent with the Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan and the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 253,618 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (253,618)(175,000)(175,000)(175,000)(175,000)0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 12:06:09 PM Project Scenario Details Project OS-00001 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:OS-20000 Title:Foothills Park Interpretive Center Exhibits Asset Type:Division:CSD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funding for designing and installing new interpretive exhibits at the Foothills Park Interpretive Center. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funding for designing and installing new interpretive exhibits at the Foothills Park Interpretive Center. The existing exhibits are over 25 years old and need to be upgraded with vibrant, interactive, and interpretive messaging. Comments: Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 0 0 0 345,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure 0 0 0 (345,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 12:10:02 PM Project Scenario Details Project OS-20000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PG-17000 Title:Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Asset Type:Division:CSD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2015 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:The Conservation Plan will examine the native vegetation, wildlife habitat resources, and wildlife-appropriate public access for the entire Baylands, including Byxbee Park. This plan will provide needed information on best areas to maintain as wildlife habitat and appropriate areas to develop trails or other recreation amenities; provide a design overlay for appropriate types and locations of public art in the Baylands; and a design for interpretive messaging throughout the Baylands. The plan seeks to optimize opportunities for low impact recreation ensuring that these are compatible with the Baylands Master Plan direction for a passive park and nature preserve. The Conservation Plan will also provide input to the Byxbee Park Completion project, design of which is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2018. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:Proposed Budget Name:Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan Description:The Conservation Plan will examine the native vegetation, wildlife habitat resources, and wildlife-appropriate public access for the entire Baylands, including Byxbee Park. This plan will provide needed information on best areas to maintain as wildlife habitat and appropriate areas to develop trails or other recreation amenities; provide a design overlay for appropriate types and locations of public art in the Baylands; and a design for interpretive messaging throughout the Baylands. The plan seeks to optimize opportunities for low impact recreation ensuring that these are compatible with the Baylands Master Plan direction for a passive park and nature preserve. The Conservation Plan will also provide input to the Byxbee Park Completion project, design of which is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2018. Comments:Staff needs a guiding plan to provide insight on best management practices for wildlife, habitat, vegetation, and recreation management. The plan will also provide priorities, which will help staff and volunteers guide resources to the most important projects. With the many changes taking place in the environmentally significant area, it is important to have a holistic vision for the corridor that will balance the diverse needs of stakeholders. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 30010 REGULAR SALARIES 20,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 309,923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (330,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 11:08:29 AM Project Scenario Details Project PG-17000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 2Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 11:08:29 AM Project Scenario Details Project PG-17000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PG-17001 Title:Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Conservation Plan Asset Type:Division:CSD Open Space, Parks and Golf Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2019 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funding for hiring a consultant to create a comprehensive conservation plan for Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Esther Clark Park. The plan would provide guidance on wildlife and habitat management, public access and recreation, trails, and interpretive messaging. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Foothill Park, Pearson Arastradero, Esther Clark Park Comprehensive Plan Description:This project provides funding for hiring a consultant to create a comprehensive conservation plan for Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, and Ester Clark Park. The plan would provide guidance on wildlife and habitat Management, public access and recreation, trails, and interpretive messaging. Comments:Staff needs a guiding plan to provide insight on best management practices for wildlife, habitat, vegetation, and recreation management. The plan will also provide priorities, which will help staff and volunteers guide resources to the most important projects. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure 0 0 (300,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 12:25:11 PM Project Scenario Details Project PG-17001 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:CB-17000 Title:Cubberley Tennis Court Renovation Project Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides renovations of the existing tennis courts at Cubberley Community Center. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides renovations of the existing tennis courts at Cubberely Community Center. A full court renovation is required including: removal of existing paving and surrounding fence, installation of new concrete paving and fencing as well as stripping of the court. Comments:The tennis court facilities at Cubberley are extensively used by the community. Currently the courts are in poor condition with severe cracking and surface unevenness. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 950,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (950,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 3:15:00 PM Project Scenario Details Project CB-17000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PE-14018 Title:Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2015 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:Proposed Budget Name: Main Description:This project provides funding for a feasibility study to assess the existing boardwalk and to determine the feasibility and estimated costs for the repair and/or replacement of pilings, decking, structural framing members and railings. Comments:The Baylands sanctuary serves 80,000 visitors annually, approximately 2,900 of whom are elementary school students. The Baylands Interpretive Center Boardwalk provides a unique opportunity for visitors to view a pristine salt marsh habitat that is home to the endangered clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse. In 2014, the boardwalk was closed due to safety concerns. In order to reopen the boardwalk, safety issues and structural improvements need to be addressed. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 30010 REGULAR SALARIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31040 ENGINEERING 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31990 OTHER CONTRACT SVCS 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (250,000)0 (1,000,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 3:19:55 PM Project Scenario Details Project PE-14018 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PE-17000 Title:Mitchell Park Adobe Creek Bridge Replacement Project Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funding to replace the existing bridge over Adobe Creek in Mitchell Park. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funding to replace the existing bridge over Adobe Creek in Mitchell Park. Comments:Since the completion of the Magical Bridge Playground the Adobe Creek Bridge in Mitchell Park has seen continued increased use. Acting as the main link between the surrounding neighborhoods, schools and Mitchell Park the bridge is heavily used and an integral component of the safe routes to school path system. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31040 ENGINEERING 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (250,000)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 3:18:00 PM Project Scenario Details Project PE-17000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PE-17001 Title:Park Restroom Installation and Renovation Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides for installation of new restrooms and renovations of existing City park restrooms. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides for installation of new restrooms and renovations of existing City park restrooms. Comments:Many parks in the City have no restroom facilities within the park boundaries and a few that do are outdated and no longer meet code. This project will provide funding for installing new restrooms as well as renovating old facilities. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31040 ENGINEERING 50,000 250,000 50,000 250,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure (50,000)(250,000)(50,000)(250,000)(50,000)0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/20/2016 3:19:10 PM Project Scenario Details Project PE-17001 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PE-21000 Title:Foothills Park Improvement Project Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funding for installing new irrigation to the 15 acres of grass meadow at Foothills Park and well as replacing the bridge to Sunfish Island in the park. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funding for installing new irrigation to the 15 acres of grass meadow at Foothills Park and well as replacing the bridge to Sunfish Island in the park. Comments:The irrigation system is over 25 years old and needs to be upgraded to reduce increased continuous maintenance as the system has aged, and to install more efficient equipment to reduce water needs. Turf will be reduced to reduce in certain areas to help conserve water and reduce the amount of mowed turf. The Sunfish Island Bridge (located at Boronda Lake) is in disrepair and needs to be replaced for safety purposes. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31040 ENGINEERING 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 (200,000)0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/21/2016 12:41:07 PM Project Scenario Details Project PE-21000 - Details for Budget Year 2017 Project Number:PE-21001 Title:Pearson Atascadero Improvement Project Asset Type:Division:PWD CIP General Fund Start Date:Completion: Manager:Partner: Year Identified:2017 Locked:No ProjectRegions: Description:This project provides funds for replacing fencing, signs, gates, bridge decking, and making improvements to some of the seasonal trails to help reduce winter trail closures. Comments: Scenario Details Budget Year:2017 Project Status:PNBY Name:Main Description:This project provides funds for replacing fencing, signs, gates, bridge decking, and making improvements to some of the seasonal trails to help reduce winter trail closures. Comments:The fencing, signs, gates, and bride decking have exceeded their useful lifespans, and need to be replaced. There are a number of seasonal trails that must be closed during the rainy season. Locked:No Active:No GL Account Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Expense 31040 ENGINEERING 0 0 0 0 275,000 0 0 0 0 0 38490 Changes/Desig Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 (275,000)0 0 0 0 0 Total Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rank Description Value Comment Operating Impact GL Account Fund Description FTE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Page 1Project Scenario Details1/21/2016 12:42:27 PM Project Scenario Details Project PE-21001 - Details for Budget Year 2017 TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016 SUBJECT: PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL 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 Master Plan. The 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. The Master Plan process consists of three phases: Phase 1) Analysis and community input; Phase 2) Recommendations and prioritization; and Phase 3) Master Plan drafting and adoption. The planning process is currently focused on the second phase of the Master Plan-developing and prioritizing recommendations for the overall parks and recreation system. The evaluation process created in this phase will provide the basis for determining which potential projects and programs will be included in the final Master Plan Report. To date the second phase has focused on the drafting of project principles, areas of focus and criteria. Each of these three components will be used to evaluate and prioritize the proposed project and program ideas. DISCUSSION Draft Project & Program List Staff will review and discuss with the commission the role of the commission in reviewing the finalized prioritization list and advancing that effort forward, a review of the updates being made to the project and program list including discussing the comments provided by the commission, a continue discussion concerning prioritization scoring and weighting the criteria and a review of next steps. The consultant (MIG) and staff have provided a summary of the added economical evaluation column being added to the revised projects and programs list, a proposed weighted criterion scoring system, as well as responses to several comments from the commissioners regarding the list. Draft Policy List Staff will introduce and discuss with the commission the proposed draft policy list. NEXT STEPS A City Council Study Session on January 25, 2016 will review the master planning process activities completed to date and obtain feedback on the evaluation and prioritization process. A community meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 10 that will focus on a discussion of prioritization associated with the current online community challenge survey. A stakeholder meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 18 that will discuss the prioritization of proposed new projects and programs for the parks and recreation system. 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 A - Summary of Project and Program List & Scoring Updates ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND PROGRAM LIST AND CRITERIA SCORING This summary provides additional information concerning the second draft of the projects and programs list and changes to the criteria scoring. The first sections reviews the order of magnitude costs being added to the project and programs lists columns Q and R. The second section discusses scoring and weighting of the criteria for prioritization. The third section provides clarifications and a summary of changes made to the list based on feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). 1. Order of Magnitude Costs A ‘$’ symbols will be used in the project and programs list to represent the capital costs (construction, planning, one-time implementation) and ongoing operating impact (annual cost of staff, supplies, etc.). These magnitudes work well to reflect large, medium and small(er) investments. However, individual actions at multiple sites can add up to larger costs. For example, upgrading turf on one field is $, three fields may be $$ and five fields collectively is $$$. This is important to note for many of the single $’s in the matrix. Additional points of clarification regarding costs: • Costs are assumed to be per-site unless the site is “systemwide.” • Operating impact is annual cost, net any income or cost savings resulting from the idea. • Planning or policy development is indicated as a capital cost due to the one- time nature. • Some projects will likely be funded through other departments (such as bicycle and pedestrian connections). The order of magnitude costs reflect the total magnitude of the project, not the parks and recreation contribution to it. Order of Magnitude Capital Cost N/A = Non-capital $ = $1 million or less $$ = $1M-$5 Million $$$ = $5 Million + Order of Magnitude Operating Impact (0) = No impact or cost savings $ = Under $50,000 $$ = $50,000 - $200,000 $$$ = $200,000 + 1 2. Scoring Criteria As part of the discussion during the December PRC meeting a weighted criteria scoring system was favored by the commission. Below are the proposed weighted criteria scoring: • Fill existing gaps: Point range 0-5 • Address community preferences: Point range 0-5 • Respond to growth: Point range 0-5 • Maximize public resources: Point range 0-3 • Realize multiple benefits: Point range 0-3 3. Clarifications & Revisions of Project and Programs List The Parks and Recreation Commission provided a tremendous amount of feedback regarding the matrix. The following are clarifications and summarized changes: • Many PRC comments related to their priorities for projects. As a rule, these did not generally result in changes. The prioritization process will accomplish this result. • Many comments requested or suggested clarifications for projects or programs. Descriptions were generally updated accordingly. • Several controversial topics are offered as ideas, including artificial turf fields at Baylands Athletic Center and opening Foothills Park to non-residents. The rating process will allow us to prioritize these in relation to other projects and facilitate further conversation. Similarly, the fact that there are many sites listed for some ideas does not mean that they all will become projects. Instead, it is an opportunity to rank locations. • Many comments requested that additional sites be added for projects or programs. New sites were incorporated where they matched the projects or programs. In some instances the Greendell Early Childhood Education Center was proposed as an alternative to Cubberley Community Center and Fields, as requested. • Some comments suggested new projects or programs. These are currently being evaluated. • Some comments conveyed concern about the lack of community support for particular projects or programs. It is important to note that engagement with residents provided just one data source. Others include the site-by-site analysis, recreation trends and industry best practices. • Several comments noted duplicate projects or programs. Several entries were deleted and updated on this basis. • Clarification was added to descriptions based on confusion regarding partnerships with PAUSD. • The reference numbers are updated on the far left of the matrix, but the numbers from the 12/1/15 version are in a column on the far right. Summary of Project and Program List and Criteria Scoring 2