HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketAGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting February 23, 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 January 26, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting – Chair Lauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 5, 2016 Special Retreat Meeting – Action –
Chair Lauing – (5 min) ATTACHMENT 3. Introduction of new Executive Director of Project Safety Net Mary Gloner – Informational – Kristen O’Kane – (30 min)
4. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - Peter
Jensen – Discussion – (60 min) ATTACHMENT
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair Lauing - Discussion (25 min) - Dog Parks
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 22, 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
REGULAR MEETING 7
January 26, 2016 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, Kristen 17
O'Kane 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
Chair Reckdahl: Next we have agenda changes. Does anyone have any changes or 23
deletions? Rob. 24
25 Rob de Geus: It's not really agenda changes, but I do have a couple of introductions to 26 make 27 28
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. 29
30
Mr. de Geus. If I could do that rather than at the end. The first is Kristen O'Kane. The 31
person sitting next to me is the new assistant director of Community Services. Thrilled 32
that she's on board. How many of you have met Kristen already? Most of you already, 33
all of you. 34
35
Chair Reckdahl: All. 36
37
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: Kristen has been a Parks and Rec Commissioner in San Jose actually and 1
has been a ranger in her background and has a background in environmentalism and 2
stewardship. She comes to us from the Santa Clara Valley Water District where she was 3
a senior manager there. We're thrilled to have her on board. She's going to be the CSD 4
liaison to this Commission. She'll take over starting today actually. 5
6 Chair Reckdahl: Really? 7
8
Mr. de Geus; Yeah. 9
10
Chair Reckdahl: She'll be the new Rob. 11
12
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, she's the new Rob. I have another introduction. The individual 13
sitting out there in the audience, that's Stephanie Douglas. She's our new recreation 14
superintendent. This is the position that we got put back in the budget this last cycle. We 15
went through quite a process for recruiting. We're thrilled to have such an outstanding 16
individual rise to the top and be selected. She comes to us from Milpitas, and she's been 17
a supervisor in the parks and recreation field in a number of different cities and brings a 18
lot of skills and expertise and is going to strengthen the team significantly. She wanted to 19
come and just say hello. She's going to sit and listen. That's her. She said that was her 20
Miss America wave. 21
22
Chair Reckdahl: Welcome. It's good to have you. Any other changes? Then we'll move 23
on. 24
25
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 26 27 Chair Reckdahl: This is for the general public. If you want to talk about something that's 28
not on the agenda, now's the time to get your speaker card in. 29
30
IV. BUSINESS: 31 32
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the Meeting of December 8, 2015. 33 34
Approval of the draft December 8, 2015 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Hetterly 35
and seconded by Commissioner Knopper. Passed 7-0 36
37
2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. 38
39
Chair Reckdahl: I'll start off. I was elected Chair last year and found it quite enjoyable. 40
I would prefer not to do it again next year, just to spread the wealth around. I would be 41
open to Vice Chair to provide continuity if that's desirable. I would like to nominate Ed 42
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
Lauing. Ed has been on the Commission for many years now. I think his experience 1
would be very good, very useful for getting the Master Plan done. Ed, are you interested 2
in being Chair? 3
4
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, I would be. 5
6 Chair Reckdahl: Do we need a second? No second. Any other nominations? Then we 7
will vote. Take one of the ballots here. I should note for the newbies especially, but for 8
anyone, I nominated Ed, but anyone can nominate themselves. You don't need someone 9
else to nominate you. If you're interested, speak up and say you want to do it. If you 10
have questions about what the Chair and Vice Chair do, let us know. We'll wait for 11
Catherine to pass. 12
13
Catherine Bourquin: Seven for Lauing. 14
15
Chair Reckdahl: Ed Lauing is now the Chair. Do you want to just move the gavel or do 16
you want to move chairs? 17
18
Chair Lauing: I don't care. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: Move chairs. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Move chairs. 23
24
Chair Lauing: No write-ins at all in that vote. Thank you. We do have a lot of work to 25 do this year. Thanks to Keith for rising to the challenge when he was sort of forcefully 26 nominated last year. 27 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: A little arm-twisting last year. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Stepped right up and did the work. Capable hands and still standing by 31
ready to help at any moment. Which is the next item of business. We need to elect a 32
Vice Chair. The Vice Chair obviously assists the Chair in any absences, but also at the 33
direction of the Chair participates in a lot of the meetings which could be meeting with 34
City staff, the Mayor on occasion, occasionally individually with a City Council Member. 35
That's the overall job description. Again, I agree if any of the new folks have any other 36
questions about that, I'd be happy to field them. Seeing none, then we would look for 37
nominations for Vice Chair. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: I'll nominate Keith to continue, since he expressed an interest in 40
that. 41
42
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm willing to do it, but if other people have interest, I don't 1
want to cut in front. I am willing. 2
3
Commissioner Knopper: I'll do it. I'm happy to be the Vice Chair and work with Ed this 4
year. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Any others? Would either of you like to comment any more extensively? 7
On your own interests or whatever. 8
9
Commissioner Knopper: I feel like Keith did a fantastic job this year and certainly would 10
be very capable of working with you, Ed. I also know that kind of, as Keith said, 11
spreading the wealth with regard to workload, etc., I've been on the Commission for two 12
years, just starting my third year and certainly would be willing to step up and get my 13
hands in more pots, so to speak, besides the ad hocs that I've been working on. If you're 14
interested in letting me participate in that, I would be interested in taking on that position. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't have anything to add. Like I said, I'm happy to do it, 17
but if other people are interested, then I'm happy to let them do it too. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Good. Let's mark our ballots. 20
21
Ms. Bourquin: We have seven for Knopper. 22
23
Chair Lauing: We know who's going to do all the work this year. Congrats. I have three 24
speaker cards. Are there any other speakers cards? If so, please give them to Catherine, 25 and she can submit them here. 26 27 3. Discussion and Feedback on Off Leash Dog Parks in Palo Alto. 28
29
Chair Lauing: The ad hoc committee and staff, Daren Anderson, if you can make a 30
presentation on that. 31
32
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf. I'm 33
here tonight to give you that ad hoc update on dog parks and to collect your feedback on 34
how best to proceed. As you know, the ad hoc committee's been working on dog parks 35
and investigating dog off-leash opportunities for some time, especially ones that could be 36
provided in advance of completion of the Parks Master Plan. This would help us serve 37
interim needs, hopefully test usage and behavior and evaluate impacts on neighbors and 38
park users. We started looking at a six-month shared-use pilot that would utilize large, 39
mostly fenced athletic fields during weekday mornings. We had looked at Baylands, 40
Greer and Hoover as options. We learned from our outreach that there were a number of 41
challenges with this, ranging from the hours being too limited to meet the dog users' 42
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
needs or the need to hire a contractor to enforce rules and pick up dog waste and other 1
impacts to field users. Because of these challenges with this shared-use concept, the ad 2
hoc committee decided to explore opportunities to find new or expanded dog parks that 3
could be implemented quickly, simply and with existing funds while waiting for the 4
Parks Master Plan to be completed. This was discussed at our October 2015 Commission 5
meeting. The three areas we had looked at sites—this wasn't an exhaustive search. It 6 was ones that were readily apparent, that could fit this model that I just described, simple, 7
existing funds and implemented quickly. We picked out three. The first was expanding 8
Mitchell Park. This is our largest existing dog park of our three. It's .56 acres right now. 9
The red outline delineates the existing; the green shaded area is the expanded portion. 10
That would take us from that .56 to 1.21 acres if we were to expand it. It would cost 11
about $10,000. As far as what it would displace or what it would utilize, it's largely 12
passive turf. There's a small seating area—sorry, this cursor won't be overly visible. Up 13
in here there's a few benches and a small pathway. Nearest to it, there's a picnic area over 14
here that would not be part of the fenced off area. The other areas we looked at for this 15
near-term dedicated site was El Camino Park. This is the north field with synthetic turf 16
up here, our south field with natural grass. Just outside the park is this undedicated parcel 17
here. It's very difficult to utilize because it's got an enormous number of utilities 18
underneath it. You can't build on top of it and all sorts of infrastructure challenges with 19
that area. It seemed to lend itself very well, being that half of it is already fenced, it's 20
already got mulch and there's no use at all on it right now. Could we fence that off and 21
use it as a dog park? It made sense to the ad hoc and to Staff, but as we investigated a 22
little further, there are tentative plans that there could be this transit hub expansion. 23
Perhaps one part of that is there could be either a road or a tunnel that goes right through 24
this area, that would make it not viable for a dog park. Staff's still looking in to that one. 25 We have a little more research to do. I hope to bring that back as a viable option but 26 more to come. There was a third site, a utilities site on Colorado Ave. After further 27 investigation and meeting with Utilities staff, there are some serious safety concerns and 28
safety laws that prohibit us from using that as a dog run as we'd hoped. This is not to say 29
that this is an exhaustive search. As I mentioned, these were the ones that jumped out at 30
staff and the ad hoc right away. I'm certain we could find more, but that's really under 31
the purview of the Parks Master Plan which is coming and will have hopefully a wealth 32
of different opportunities to meet our dog park needs. The ad hoc committee is 33
recommending that we pursue expanding this Mitchell Park dog run and continue 34
investigating the possibility of using El Camino as a dog run. There is another model that 35
we learned about during our outreach. This is the unfenced, shared-use model that 36
Mountain View is using. The City of Mountain View has eight sites now dedicated, as 37
you read in the staff report. Only one of the eight, I believe, is part of an athletic field. 38
The rest are kind of passive turf areas within their park system and again unfenced. This 39
is a model that MIG has proposed as a possible consideration in the Parks Master Plan for 40
Palo Alto to implement. This was outside the scope of what the ad hoc committee had 41
originally formed to look at. However, the ad hoc has a recommendation that the 42
Draft Minutes 5
DRAFT
Commission further investigate and discuss the policy around this option. We also 1
thought the February Commission meeting might be an opportunity for the Commission 2
to figure out what the appropriate process would be for looking at this particular option 3
and whether the ad hoc should have a role, if any, in that discussion. With that, that 4
concludes my presentation. I'll defer to my other ad hoc Commissioners if they'd like to 5
comment and share additional things I missed. 6 7
Commissioner Hetterly: I think that pretty well covers it. I think another issue that the 8
ad hoc was a little concerned about was as we looked at the project and programs list and 9
the draft list in the Master Plan, it didn't seem quite connected with what we thought we 10
were hearing about dogs. We wonder if it doesn't make sense for the Commission to give 11
a little more consideration not only about whether doing off-leash in unfenced areas 12
would be a pretty radical proposal for Palo Alto. It seems like we ought to weigh in, in 13
some way, on that question, but also to get some feedback from Commissioners about 14
other recommendations that were on the list or particular locations just to kind of touch 15
back in with the Commission before the Master Plan moves much further. We feel like 16
maybe there hasn't been a holistic look at dog parks through that process. We want to 17
make sure that they stay on track as we move forward. We weren't really sure what is the 18
best way to cover that, and we were hoping we could have a discussion about what you 19
all think about how much more effort we should put into that particular topic and what's 20
the best way to move forward in terms of public outreach, further research, etc. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: Also, just one slight clarification. Daren, you mentioned 23
discussing it at the next February meeting. I think you meant the Commission work 24
session. 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 27 28
Vice Chair Knopper: With regard to this, I think one of the things that we should do at 29
this work session is figure out with regard to all of the discussion points on the off-leash 30
and dog park is do we want to continue the ad hoc as it, do we want to change the scope, 31
do we want to reconfigure it and really kind of hone in as to moving forward on this 32
particular subject, whether it's off-leash or a dedicated dog park, how we want to proceed. 33
34
Chair Lauing: I think on the latter point, changing up ad hocs, that's something we've 35
traditionally done when we can do it sort of a little bit more casually, off camera and just 36
in a more casual setting at the retreat. That part I think we should do at the retreat. You 37
would like conversation now on the other aspects of it. You want some input tonight on 38
this as well, right? 39
40
Mr. Anderson: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. 41
42
Draft Minutes 6
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: You want input tonight on this ... 1
2
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 3
4
Chair Lauing: ... as well, correct? 5
6 Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 7
8
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: I'm sorry. I didn't (inaudible). 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can I ask a clarification? 13
14
Chair Lauing: Go ahead. 15
16
Commissioner Reckdahl: You mentioned the Colorado substation. I thought that was a 17
really good location. You said there was some laws. What laws? 18
19
Mr. Anderson: We met with the Utilities staff that supervises that, the assistant director. 20
He had expressed serious safety concerns amongst their own staff. That's where the City 21
gets all its electricity, through that site. He said there were recent new laws regarding 22
access, proximity to recreation or just people in general around facilities like that that 23
would prohibit that kind of thing. 24
25 Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now, it's an open area and anyone ... 26 27 Mr. Anderson: We brought that up to. 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: ... can walk up there. What's the difference whether a dog 30
walks up there or people walk up there? 31
32
Mr. Anderson: Their perception was we would actively be encouraging them into an area 33
that's really just passive turf right now, where not very many people are hanging out. 34
Whereas, we would now create a very large draw. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: What kind of spacing do we need from that for safety? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: He did not think any spacing would be appropriate. That entire site from 39
the passive turf up to the sidewalk is really no part of it, in his estimation, would be 40
appropriate for us to use. 41
42
Draft Minutes 7
DRAFT
Vice Chair Knopper: May I elaborate? 1
2
Mr. Anderson: Of course. 3
4
Vice Chair Knopper: Being that is the main point of electrical power infrastructure for 5
the City of Palo Alto, he expressed quite adamantly that it's a security risk just in the 6 greater general risk. Cities are looking at how, and the State of California, to beef up 7
security around power grids and points of interest. To Daren's point, creating a situation 8
where you're actively telling people this is an area you should go and hang out and play 9
with your dog, etc., is not. The State of California is actually looking at specific rules, so 10
they may end up fencing it all off at some point, etc. At this particular juncture, they do 11
not want to encourage people to actively go there. 12
13
Commissioner Reckdahl: I appreciate security at utilities like that, but I don't see any 14
way a dog park would sacrifice security. If a dog park could sacrifice security, we've got 15
big problems. I think that it's a perfect place for a dog park. There's a fence there. If that 16
fence isn't sufficient to keep dogs out, it's not going to do anything for someone who 17
wants to play with the power plant. I think that's just a really big mistake to shrug this off 18
so casually. Rob, do you want to ... 19
20
Rob de Geus: Yeah. I was part of that meeting as well. That's sort of where I started as 21
well. I thought this really could be a great location for it. It's near residential, and people 22
could walk there. The safety concerns seem pretty significant from the Utilities staff, not 23
only the safety of their plant but safety of people that are nearby. If kids or whatever get 24
in there or start climbing and if we encourage more people to be there, there's potentially 25 more likelihood that that could happen and how really that is necessary. Another thing 26 that the Utilities staff told us was they are looking at potentially reconfiguring the site and 27 that particular utility that could actually require or need that space in the future. There 28
was a concern about if we develop the site for a particular recreation activity, then it's 29
hard to take it back once you do that. That's probably sometime out before they're ready 30
to do that, but that is something that's in consideration from the Utilities Department. 31
That was just another element. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can I respond? 34
35
Chair Lauing: For a minute or two. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm sorry. I'll get off my soapbox eventually. Kick me off if I 38
stay up too long. Part of this was that we didn't want to necessarily have a final park. 39
This was let's get some more dog parks into the system. Let people use them with the 40
understanding that it may go away in two years. I think both the transit hub issue and this 41
issue, if they reconfigured it and people lost the dog park, they'd say at least we had a dog 42
Draft Minutes 8
DRAFT
park for two years. We as the City would learn more about running a dog park and what 1
worked and what didn't work. I think it's only upside if we did it. We're not talking 2
about putting anything fancy in, just having basic fencing around it. We'd have to take 3
that fencing down and put it somewhere else. I see the cost impacts being minimal, and I 4
see the risks being minimal. My two cents. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Yes, David. 7
8
Commissioner Moss: I'd even go so far as to say if they want to have a second temporary 9
fence that gives them a 5-foot buffer and a double-high fence with barbed wire at the top, 10
that you'd still have room for a dog park. It would extend the security somewhat. They 11
could have cameras and things like that if they want to do that. I've seen that over at that 12
one Coyote Valley. They've got a million cameras on that site. If we could go back one 13
more time, that would be great. 14
15
Mr. Anderson: I proposed the double fence concept as well. We threw every option that 16
we could think of. I found that site and proposed it as the ad hoc was looking at sites. It 17
seemed perfect to me too. I share your frustration. They were adamant that it's not an 18
appropriate site to have any form of recreation. Be happy to sit down with them again, 19
but I do not foresee that being a viable option at least from the Utilities standpoint. 20
21
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 22
23
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to add to Daren's response. Abbie and I were at that 24
meeting as well. We pushed pretty hard, as you might imagine. They were absolutely 25 adamant. I think really what it came down to was yes, it may well not be likely that you 26 would have a security breach that would endanger the utilities station, but if you did in 27 that 1 in a million chance have one because you had more people milling around, 28
blocking views from the streets, blocking view from their security cameras, it would be 29
catastrophic. They were really looking at it's a lottery. The odds aren't good that it'll 30
happen, but if it does, it's a huge impact. 31
32
Chair Lauing: Other comments on—briefly. 33
34
Commissioner Moss: A comment about the El Camino Park and a comment about 35
Mitchell Park. The El Camino Park, you said they might someday put a road or 36
something through there, but that won't preclude us from putting a park there temporarily 37
and see how it falls. 38
39
Mr. Anderson: That's my contention. 40
41
Draft Minutes 9
DRAFT
Commissioner Moss: That would be great. That would be great. About Mitchell Park, I 1
heard quite a bit in the previous meeting that concentrating all of our dog park in one 2
place is not what people had in mind. They had several in strategic places. Expanding 3
Mitchell Park, I noticed—I live right behind Cubberley fields, and there's at least four or 4
five dogs that are let run wild on that Cubberley field. They won't even go two blocks to 5
Mitchell Park. Expanding Mitchell Park doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of what the 6 public is asking for. They would rather really find some additional places around. The 7
El Camino Park should be first, in my mind, versus Mitchell Park. It sure would be nice 8
if we could find one more place somewhere in the north corner. 9
10
Mr. Anderson: I agree. I agree with everything you said. The only thing I would add to 11
the Mitchell one, because we heard that from a former Commissioner as well. I would 12
just add this is not meant to be end-all-be-all. It's more one piece in this puzzle that we'll 13
ultimately put together that kind of helps meet this need. The Master Plan is really the 14
area to get it. I think it would be a big missed opportunity to double the size of your 15
largest dog park when another piece of the feedback we've gotten is we need bigger 16
spaces, .5 acres is not big enough. This is the answer to that component. You're 17
absolutely right it doesn't give us the other pieces of what about north Palo Alto, what 18
about one in every neighborhood park. Those are something we need to strive towards. 19
I'm really hopeful that we'll continue to push the Master Plan to get us those answers. I 20
wouldn't blow off Mitchell as insignificant or ineffective. I do concur with you, let's get 21
a new one before we expand the other one. Push hard on El Camino first is my personal 22
preference too and recommendation. 23
24
Commissioner Moss: They're both low-hanging fruit. I would do them both, but not take 25 our eye off the ball on the other. 26 27 Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Council Member Filseth. 30
31
Council Member Filseth: If I can just make an observation on the location next to the 32
utility station. If I understand what happens correctly, if there's disagreement between 33
Parks and Recreation and the Utilities on the disposition of that piece of land, eventually 34
it comes to Council I assume. Is that right? I assume that's the process. The other 35
observation I would make is that it seems to me that the risk that everybody would have 36
to consider is not exactly the absolute risk that there be some kind of bad incident. That 37
could happen anyway. The risk to consider is does having a dog park there increase that 38
risk materially. It seems to me that there's sort of two ways that risk could happen. One 39
is there is some person that for whatever reason wants to vandalize the utility. It seems to 40
me that that's going to happen with or without a dog park there. The other risk to 41
consider is somebody who's there suddenly gets the idea that they're going to climb over 42
Draft Minutes 10
DRAFT
the fence and do something or something like that. It seems to me as everybody weighs 1
it, it's going to be like that. That's going to be somebody's judgment as to how big a risk 2
that is. I mean, you're right. If there was a catastrophic failure, there would be a 3
catastrophe, but the risk is obviously very low. Now you're arguing about what that is. 4
My guess is that if you and the Utilities can't agree, eventually it winds up in front of 5
Council. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Any other comments from Commissioners on any of the—these are all 8
interim locations to support what Daren is saying. Yes, Commissioner Cribbs. 9
10
Commissioner Cribbs: What is the timeline if we were going to do an expanded park at 11
Mitchell? 12
13
Mr. Anderson: It would start with public outreach. We'd do a public meeting, so we'd 14
make sure the neighbors understand and get a chance to voice their concerns. Bring that 15
back to the Commission with a Park Improvement Ordinance if the feedback was 16
generally positive. If it was negative, I could find mitigations. Bring back a Park 17
Improvement Ordinance, and then from there that Park Improvement Ordinance would 18
go to Council. At $10,000 we could use our existing funding to get that going. Rough 19
estimate, five months. 20
21
Commissioner Cribbs: Five months? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: That's a crude, rough estimate but something like that. 24
25 Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. I would just say that I love the El Camino solution if 26 that could be a solution as soon as possible. I think that would be really nice for northern 27 Palo Alto and actually for all of us. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Since that's on the table, can I do a follow-on comment? What's actually 30
the blocking issue there? We thought we were going to have it back this time actually for 31
action, but now we don't. 32
33
Mr. Anderson: We're at the stage where we need more feedback both from Planning and 34
from the City Manager's Office on that issue. Rob and I have been discussing this. It's 35
something we're anxious to push forward. We just need a little more time and feedback. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Might it come to our next meeting as an action item? 38
39
Mr. Anderson: I couldn't commit to that. I'm not sure. I'll definitely have an update for 40
you either at the ad hoc updates or be bringing you something perhaps. 41
42
Draft Minutes 11
DRAFT
Mr. de Geus: I would just ... 1
2
Chair Lauing: Do you have a comment? 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: (inaudible) comment. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 7
8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm not real wild about the Mitchell Park just because that 9
hillside is used. There's a picnic area right there, and people quite often have picnics. 10
People go up on the hillside and eat. People sit on the other side of the hill and watch the 11
soccer games. Maybe some of it could be expanded, but I don't think I'd want to see that 12
whole hill. Also, I'm not sure how well that would work, having a hill in a dog park. It 13
might work well; I'm not sure. There's four places that I think are better locations than 14
Mitchell. Both Peers Park and Ramos Park have back corners that are relatively unused. 15
Because it's in a corner, you wouldn't need fence around four sides. You'd just need 16
fence around a couple. Especially on Peers Park, you're between the tennis court and the 17
train tracks, so you only would need fence on two sides. I think both of those would be 18
very good options. Also, Heritage Park, I parked right next to that spot tonight, and I 19
looked at it. It to me still looks like a really good spot, the part of Heritage Park that's 20
right on Bryant. There's a little leg there that's not used very much. I think that would be 21
a perfect place for a park. It would be north Palo Alto. It'd be easy to walk. I think there 22
would be support for that. Howard Hoffman brought up last time Rinconada Park. That 23
little back area kind of behind the fire station isn't used for much right now. I think 24
there's a horseshoe pit there or something. I think that would be another spot we could 25 put up a small dog park. It would be relatively small. I mean, that's one thing we want to 26 learn, what works and what doesn't. All those, if you put fences around it and didn't 27 spend a lot money, just made a basic park, we would learn something from the process. 28
29
Mr. Anderson: Something I personally wrestled with was as we start expanding, as 30
you're proposing, looking at these other sites, how far do we get before we're stepping on 31
the toes of the Master Plan that may have some other demand or need or use for those 32
areas that we're prescribing at Peers or Ramos. It's a slippery slope. It could become one 33
of those things of why stop there. We would look at every single spot we've got in the 34
City just with the ad hoc. Are we again stepping on the toes of the Master Plan? It's just 35
a rough one that I could certainly use some guidance and some deliberation from the 36
Commission on. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I think that's totally true. The scope of the ad hoc was to look at not even 39
interim parks, but shared-use dog parks. We're already kind of going beyond the scope of 40
the ad hoc precisely for that reason which is that we wanted the infusion of the 41
Draft Minutes 12
DRAFT
knowledge on the Master Plan to really guide this thing for decades, if we could. Were 1
there others? Commissioner Hetterly. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: That's right; we did have a limited scope in what we were 4
looking at. The reason that these three options came up for us is because part of our task 5
was to find a large space because all of our dog parks are very small. We were looking at 6 shared used because that seems the only option for a large space. Mitchell was attractive 7
because we can get a large space by only adding half an acre as opposed to having to take 8
away a full acre from another park to dedicate for dog use. The other benefit at Mitchell 9
is that the current park, due to its size, faces significant maintenance challenges. Every 10
single year we hear from Staff it's a disaster, the grass won't grow. We hear from users, 11
it's a mud pit, the grass won't grow, we need a better facility. For several years, we have 12
not found a solution to that problem. We had hoped that making that park a little larger 13
with a larger turf area would be beneficial in terms of the maintenance, sustainability 14
going forward. That's why that made our list. As for the other parks, I think that's sort of 15
one of the things we were getting at, that we hoped we could talk about the process at the 16
retreat, to figure out where's the line between what we do in the interim and what we plan 17
to do the Master Plan. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a quick reply. The thing about the Master Plan is we're 20
part of it. We don't see anything where we're going to say we don't need any dog parks. I 21
think the Master Plan is going to come back and say, "You don't have enough dog parks." 22
The analysis they're doing is the same analysis we're doing here. As long as we're not 23
going fancy with these dog parks and we're just doing bare bones, if the Master Plan 24
comes and changes our mind, we change our mind and we move it. As long as you're 25 buying fencing, you can put that fencing anywhere. I don't think we're painting ourselves 26 in a corner at all. 27 28
Vice Chair Knopper: There's also—pardon me. There's one other thing to consider with 29
regard to the idea of dog parks. For instance, Mountain View took a completely different 30
approach. Again, at our work session, we can discuss like is this the right approach. 31
Obviously we're guiding and giving input to the Master Plan with regard to how the City 32
handles off-leash dogs. There's a different way to look at it too. For instance, Mountain 33
View does not have fenced off-leash they allow in eight of their parks. It's this is your 34
area, go and watch your dog. There are other ways to approach it. Again, this was out of 35
our scope as part of the ad hoc. As a Commission, we have to figure out how we want to 36
move forward on this particular subject utilizing some of the preliminary input that we 37
have thus far from the Master Plan and then sort of guide how we want to work moving 38
forward. 39
40
Chair Lauing: I suggest we listen to the speakers on this issue. I thought it would be 41
helpful to hear the kind of recap from the ad hoc before we had the speakers on this issue. 42
Draft Minutes 13
DRAFT
We'll do that, and then we can decide if we want to put this on the agenda for the retreat. 1
The first speaker is Irene Kane. 2
3
Irene Kane: Hello. Thank you. I live in north Palo Alto. I have a dog who's 2 1/2 years 4
old. I'm here on behalf of Howard Hoffman who couldn't make it tonight. I think all of 5
you know Howard. He has an organization, paloaltodogs.org. There's quite a few people 6 in that group now. We're advocating for all of our dogs, especially in north Palo Alto. I 7
think that in my mind this has dragged out way too long. This was supposed to be 8
something that was supposed to be quick and, in my mind, should have been done by 9
now. We're still just talking about it. Months and months ago, there was a community 10
meeting about this at Lucie Stern when that was just for the dogs. At that meeting, you 11
guys introduced this shared space, field. That's an okay idea until the Master Plan is 12
done. I think we should stick to the three spaces that were originally proposed, and get 13
this done, please. It's just dragging on and on. This was supposed to be a shared use, 14
take a big field. I love the idea of Greer Park. Just fence one of those fields in, and let 15
the dogs go even if it's just for two hours in the morning. If it has to be two hours in the 16
morning, then that's better than nothing which is what we've been having for months and 17
months and months now. Thank you. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Thank you. The next speaker is Herb Borock. 20
21
Herb Borock: Chair Lauing and Commissioners. I believe that the Commission at its 22
next meeting should recommend that the Council approve a dog park at El Camino Park. 23
If there are some concerns from the City Manager or other staff about things that have to 24
be delayed, they can discuss that with the Council rather than using that as an excuse for 25 why you keep getting this on your agenda, but it's not an action item. I believe the 26 Commission should take action. If staff prepares an agenda that prevents you from doing 27 that, you can't act. In regard to unfenced off-leash parks, we already have that except 28
they're not legal. One difference between Palo Alto and Mountain View is about 60 29
years ago the voters adopted by an initiative measure that dogs should be on leash. I 30
don't think it makes sense to try and stretch that. We're already stretching it by having 31
the dog parks that we have. In regards to the rules, there were suggested rules in the staff 32
report from October in Attachment C, but it didn't show what the current rules are. One 33
of them is that you have to be at least 8 years old to be in a dog park. You need to be 34
able to understand what it means to be around these animals and to respect them. The 35
rules seem to be written as if there were unfenced parks, but that gets into the idea of how 36
can you enforce people who are not there with dogs to behave. I don't think that's a good 37
idea. In terms of expanding the one at Mitchell Park, the sense I get from dog owners, 38
from the dog owners' groups is they would like to have a big area with their dogs but not 39
many other dogs. I had an example of that recently when I was taking care of a friend's 40
small dog at Hoover Park. The dog was somewhat reserved due to the fencing and the 41
small area. When her owner arrived, she was willing to take the chance of releasing her 42
Draft Minutes 14
DRAFT
off-leash in the fields behind the ball field. I don't think it was because there was grass or 1
that was there or that it was a bigger area. It was also the density. It was roughly the 2
same number of dogs over an acre compared to the small fraction of an acre at the 3
Hoover Park dog park. That was the difference. You have to understand it's not just that 4
people want more off-leash areas, it's that they're expecting that somehow magically it's 5
going to be the way it is now when people are using the off-leash, unfenced areas that are 6 illegal. I had one question. On the first page of the staff report ... 7
8
Chair Lauing: That's three minutes. If you could wrap up please. 9
10
Mr. Borock: Yeah, that'll be the final thing. I left this to last. It shows the size of current 11
Hoover Park as just a little bit more than Greer Park. I don't think that's correct. I believe 12
Hoover Park dog run was larger than Greer Park before it was expanded. Thank you. 13
14
Chair Lauing: Thank you. The next speaker is Mada Houry [phonetic]. 15
16
Mada Houry: Good evening. I'm Mada Houry, and I have a six-year old, extremely 17
playful Samoyed golden mix. I'm here to advocate on behalf of him, since he hasn't quite 18
picked up how to speak like us yet. He's very vocal about the fact that he wants a place 19
to run around without being on a leash, with all his other dog buddies and human 20
buddies. I know you guys have been trying to do this. We moved to the City about three 21
years ago, and I hear that this has been in the attempt phase for over 20 years. I do not 22
understand how it's possible for a City with so many civic participation minded people to 23
not be able to do this in so long. The level of frustration is very, very high. I'm from 24
north Palo Alto, and we have really no options. I should put it, we only have illegal 25 options. We do exercise them, because we have no other options. One of the things we 26 do is go to schools, Addison, after hours and let our dogs run. We just don't have any 27 options. The consequence of that is the policemen show up and throw us out. That's 28
what they should be doing, because we are in violation of the City leash laws. To be 29
personally warned by the policemen at least two times, to be in the park on days when the 30
policemen came and warned people at least six to eight times would perhaps, that's just 31
me, give you an idea of how desperate we are. One of the other points I want to mention 32
is with regards to having these areas, having more in many locations solves a lot of this 33
problems, problems related to overuse, problems related to bad waste cleanup behavior. 34
When we walk to a park in our neighborhood and we are seeing the same people in our 35
neighborhood day after day, we are going to behave ourselves. Guess what? If we don't, 36
our neighbor will come over and say, "Your dog pooped. You need to pick that up." I 37
think that should be something that you should consider. Most people will behave nicely 38
if given the opportunity with a little bit of shame thrown in. If you have more of these 39
areas in multiple parks, Rinconada, Eleanor Pardee, it would be great. As far as Eleanor 40
Pardee is concerned, in the last meeting one of the Commissioners mentioned that—I 41
think Commissioner Crommie—that the neighbors got together and nuked that idea. I 42
Draft Minutes 15
DRAFT
have been speaking informally to folks who live around. I do not think their (inaudible) 1
is quite as high. It is not noisy. Noise was a big issue. It's not noisy because I'll tell you 2
something. When we are at Addison, all of the teachers have been told to call the cops on 3
sight. They usually can't because they don't know we're there. The dogs don't bark. We 4
don't scream. 5
6 Chair Lauing: That's three minutes. Thank you. 7
8
Ms. Houry: Please consider that. Thank you. 9
10
Chair Lauing: Take it back up here. If everyone's amenable, we can put this on our 11
retreat agenda to kind of decide if we should re-org or go for the flow or expand it or wait 12
for the Master Plan or whatever, rather than get too deep into it tonight. Commissioner 13
Moss. 14
15
Commissioner Moss: How does this work? If we did want to make recommendations 16
for additional places to the staff, do we do it here or do we do it in the retreat and then 17
come back? Or just call? 18
19
Chair Lauing: It can be through any channel. It can even be through the ad hoc, if we 20
continue to go through that channel or the existing one. Any other questions? Rob. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: I was just going to amplify that a little further. We heard some 23
recommendations this evening about other parks that possibly could work as dog exercise 24
areas. That's captured in the minutes, and it should be part of the Parks and Rec Master 25 Plan as we consider what to do with respect to that area of focus. It's one of the areas of 26 focus. It's good feedback. Let us know if you have ideas about other park locations. 27 We'll evaluate it as part of the Parks Master Plan. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Thank you, and we'll move on to the next agenda item. 30
31
4. Review and Update on the CIP Budget. 32 33
Chair Lauing: Daren, you're going to lead that one? 34
35
Daren Anderson: At the December Commission meeting, I provided an update on capital 36
improvement project budget preparations for the fiscal year '17 through '21. On 37
December 18th or shortly thereafter, the Community Services Department submitted our 38
capital budget requests which included ten new requests. This is in your staff report, but 39
I'm going to into a little detail on each of the new requests. Mitchell Park/Adobe Creek 40
bridge replacement. This is the Magical Bridge. The bridge itself is very simple in 41
design and old. The primary reason it needs to be replaced right away and the reason 42
Draft Minutes 16
DRAFT
why we're proposing FY '17 is the side rails are very low. As we added the playground, 1
the number of children using this as a corridor, back and forth between the larger side of 2
the park over to the playground, kids are climbing over there and coming perilously close 3
to falling off. The number of parents who bring their children to the playground have 4
said, "We'd really like you to do something." We tried to take an interim measure to find 5
a contractor who could just add onto the fencing and bring it up. We're struggling to find 6 someone who will come on and take the liability of adding elements to that bridge. Not 7
that we're going to stop, but we believe replacement is a high priority. The Cubberley 8
tennis courts, also FY '17. This won't come out of the general fund. This is a separate 9
Cubberley fund of dollars. It's a high ticket price item at $950,000. They're probably the 10
worse condition tennis courts we've got in the City, so the need is very high. The theatre 11
soft goods. This is stage curtains, things like that, for our Children's Theatre. It's a Fire 12
Code that those have to be updated. It's $55,000 in FY '17. Our park restroom CIP was 13
an existing one that was defunded as we started the Parks Master Plan, basically saying, 14
"Let's wait until we know where the priority areas are to put these restrooms before we 15
keep funding it." It's been on hold, and now we're recommending refunding it in FY '18, 16
once the Master Plan is done and can provide insight on where these restrooms go. Of 17
course, this is in light of the fact that one of the important parts already identified from 18
the Master Plan process thus far that we need more restrooms. The replacement of the 19
theatre seats. This is again a Fire Code, scheduled for FY '18. The Foothills Park, 20
Pearson-Arastradero, Esther Clark Comprehensive Conservation Plan. This plan is a 21
companion to the one we've got starting in FY '17 for the Baylands. This will be the 22
same kind of things, just looking at these other open space preserves. The intent is to 23
give a best management practice guide to staff on how to manage wildlife, vegetation and 24
habitat and appropriate recreation in those sensitive areas. The Baylands Boardwalk 25 Project. This is—of course, we recently finished the feasibility study which will be 26 coming back to you in February for an in-depth look at that study. This CIP that we're 27 proposing is design in FY '17 and construction in FY '19 based on the feedback from the 28
feasibility study. The Foothills Park Interpretive Center exhibits in FY '20. The existing 29
exhibits at this part in the IC, Interpretive Center, at Foothills are antiquated and probably 30
in 1950s style where it's just stuffed animals, no interaction, just the name of the animal. 31
It's definitely due for a replacement. We're looking forward to that in FY '20. The 32
aforementioned Comprehensive Plan in FY '19 will help inform that a little bit, 33
prescribing some of the interpretive messaging that's important for that preserve. The 34
Foothills Park renovation project. This includes irrigation to the upper and lower turf 35
areas and the Sunfish Island bridge. Sunfish Island is a little, tiny island in the middle of 36
Boronda Lake. The bridge is original to the park and ready for replacement. The 37
Pearson-Arastradero improvement project. This is for bridges, fences and trails in FY 38
'21. There's also two changes to some existing CIPs. These are ones that are already on 39
the books, that needed to be augmented. The first is the Baylands Comprehensive 40
Conservation Plan that I mentioned in FY '17 is already funded, hopefully starting in 41
early July. We're proposing adding $59,000 to this CIP which would help address 42
Draft Minutes 17
DRAFT
planning for interpretive messaging not originally a part of the scope. We think it's 1
important and its timely while we're looking at the Baylands comprehensively to say 2
what should the messages be and where should they be specifically. The same for public 3
art. As projects happen in and around the Baylands, they have to contribute a certain 4
amount to public art, and they're usually placed in and around that building. This is the 5
opportune time to look at the Baylands holistically and say where is the right place for art 6 generally throughout the Baylands. Are we going to do it ad hoc or do we do it 7
comprehensively and plan it out? That's the intent of that change to the existing CIP. 8
Lastly, the open space trails and amenities CIP. This is a continuing one, ongoing, that 9
funds things like trail service. We have a contractor that comes in and does trail work in 10
our open space preserves. We recommended a change for FY '17, bumping it up by 11
$75,000. This is primarily to address a serious erosion problem that we have on Los 12
Trancos Trail. This is the backside, so unless you're hiking in 5 or 6 miles, you might not 13
see this. There's some serious erosion. It's very difficult to address by just routine 14
maintenance; this is insufficient. It needs a substantive fix. This is going to be a 15
challenging year, this budget cycle. There just isn't enough money to address all the 16
projects that have been submitted Citywide. We're going to need to prioritize how we 17
spend the approximately $126 million in available funding. The first priority is going to 18
go towards the infrastructure plan that Council's identified. This includes things like the 19
new Public Safety Building. That's the top priority; it's a high ticket item as I'm sure 20
you're aware. There's also the replacement of fire stations number 3 and 4 and the 21
completion of Byxbee Park. I just saw this priority settings today, so it's kind of new to 22
me. The second priority is the recurring projects. These are projects that were identified 23
during the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee. They looked Citywide at all our 24
infrastructure and rated where we're either—it's got a catch-up or keep-up category, 25 essentially deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed. Projects there will be the 26 second priority. Third is health and safety. An example of the health and safety among 27 our list would be that Mitchell Park, Adobe Creek bridge would kind of fit into that 28
category. Then Council priorities and then, lastly, projects offset by other revenue 29
sources. This, for us, would be that new park restroom CIP. The new park restrooms 30
could use the Park Development Impact Fee money. This wouldn't be existing restroom 31
replacement, but rather brand new ones that would increase the capacity to the park. The 32
schedule that you saw in your staff report is in May 11th this will go to the Planning and 33
Transportation Commission, and then in mid-May to the Finance Committee for review, 34
and then June to Council for adoption of the capital budget. That concludes my 35
presentation. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Just by way of review, do any of the newer Commissioners have questions 38
about this process? We kind of touched on it last month. It's an annual cycle and 39
planning out for five years. Capital projects are anything over $50,000. I think we would 40
take comments on the new capital projects. In specific, probably more like questions 41
Draft Minutes 18
DRAFT
because they're already submitted. Any comments from Commissioners? Commissioner 1
Moss. 2
3
Commissioner Moss: The bridge to the Magical Bridge, not being able to find a 4
contractor because of liability. Is there some way that the City can share that liability, so 5
you could get a contractor sooner? It seemed like it should be sort of business as usual 6 maintenance for health and safety. 7
8
Mr. Anderson: I agree with you that we shouldn't stop. We found three contractors, 9
came out; none of them gave us a bid. We reached out and found a fourth. He originally 10
looked at it and gave us a partial design, and then backed out. He said the owner of his 11
company wasn't willing to take liability. We definitely aren't going to stop; we're going 12
to continue to pursue this and, I think, additional pressure on our facilities staff to see if 13
they might be able to do it. It's nothing I have in-house in the parks or open space 14
division that could do those fixes to a bridge. We'll continue to look at it. It is a high 15
priority. 16
17
Chair Lauing: This is fast. When it says '17, that's about four months away. This would 18
be a high priority from staff's recommendation. Do you have other comments on any of 19
these? Okay. Other folks? Commissioner Hetterly, go ahead. I'll hold mine. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a couple of questions. I wondered if any of these that 22
are on the list in the staff report were also on the IBRC list. 23
24
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: And which ones those were. 27 28
Mr. Anderson: Sure. Let me see. I don't have the comprehensive list. Just off the top of 29
my head, I know that the Foothills Park renovation project, that's the irrigation and bridge 30
replacement, and the Pearson-Arastradero improvement project, that's bridges, fences and 31
trails, are on the IBRC for sure. They're cyclical. The irrigation, for example, has a 25-32
year lifespan. After that ends, it comes up next in the IBRC. It just shows it recurring. 33
That's kind of the keep-up. 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: I had another question about the Arastradero item. It is 36
$275,000 out in FY '21. The intent seems to be to make trail improvements to reduce 37
winter trail closures as well as signs and fencing and gates. I guess that feels to me like 38
an ongoing cost. I'm wondering why it's a one-shot deal far in the future as opposed to an 39
ongoing investment in keeping those trails open. 40
41
Draft Minutes 19
DRAFT
Mr. Anderson: It's bridges, fences and trails. We've got some bridges, those are again 1
cyclical with a very long lifespan. The trail portion, we have routine trail maintenance 2
that I mentioned in one of our other—the ongoing CIP, for example, the open space trails 3
and amenities. That's routine maintenance. This one would be more of a substantive 4
change to rock portions. It turns muddy in the winter. It's unpassable, and we have to 5
close quite a few. With this one, if it gets approved, we would look to rock some of those 6 seasonal trails, so it would not turn to mud, and you could keep it open through the 7
winter. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: I see. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Or larger portions. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: It is sort of a one-shot, major change? 14
15
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. My other question is on the Comprehensive 18
Conservation Plans. For the Baylands, we have $330,000 dedicated to 2017, I think, 19
coming out right away. For the other three preserves, the total budget is $300,000. Why 20
is it that one costs $330,000, but three others is so much less? Is that because of the 21
ecology of the locations? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: No. I think the acreage is comparable. Baylands relative to those other 24
three preserves are equal acreage, that is, about 2,000 for the Baylands and about 2,000 25 for Pearson, Foothills and Esther. They're all comparable ecologies for the most part in 26 the Foothills region. Likewise, in the Baylands, you've got a different marshland, 27 wetland, riparian areas. It's inflated by that $59,000 to look at those two additional 28
pieces, the interpretive messaging and the public art portion, for the Baylands. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: That's helpful. Also, I noticed that the Foothills, Arastradero, 31
Esther Clark ones are scheduled out in FY '19. Do you think you'll be able to do all three 32
of those at the same time? I know there are staff support timing issues involved. Would 33
it be better to spread those out or do you think those can all go in a single year? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: I believe they can all be done in a single year. I think it'll also save staff 36
time. A lot of the outreach and stakeholders (inaudible) for each preserve. Again, the 37
ecology types are similar. It makes sense to me to lump them. Plus, we need these plans 38
now. The idea of waiting a year and a half between each one, because they take a while, 39
it's putting out too far. 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: 2019 is soon enough? 42
Draft Minutes 20
DRAFT
1
Mr. Anderson: Yes. We'll have the Baylands one to carry us from FY '17 through—I 2
don't know exactly how long it'll take. Hopefully, it'll be quicker than our Parks Master 3
Plan process by a good margin, but we don't want to overlap in any way. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: My last question. Sorry I have so many questions. 6 7
Chair Lauing: That's fine. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: On the Boardwalk extension at the Baylands, feasibility and 10
improvements, are those dollar figures the cost only for that first stage? 11
12
Mr. Anderson: No. 13
14
Commissioner Hetterly: That's for the entire thing? 15
16
Mr. Anderson: The $250,000 for design and then the $1 million, you're going to get this 17
in more depth come February. The Public Works staff will bring that whole project to 18
you, including the feasibility study, and explain the next steps. The $1 million would 19
cover replacement, as far as I understand, completely. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: That first stage is happening sooner? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: The first stage, the first 200 and some odd feet is already repaired and 24
open. From the Boardwalk out to the first pull-out, which is about 200 feet, is open now. 25 26 Commissioner Hetterly: I didn't realize that. Great. Thank you. That's all I have. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Reckdahl. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: I want to double check on the Foothills fire plan. That's going 31
forward every year now? 32
33
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 34
35
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's going to be status quo? We don't have to do any action 36
to keep that? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. It's not tied to the capital. We've got ongoing funding in 39
our operating budget for that. The work is progressing nicely. 40
41
Commissioner Reckdahl: How is that split again? 42
Draft Minutes 21
DRAFT
1
Mr. Anderson: It's a portion for CSD. We handle the in-park portion. External to the 2
park roadways are handled by Public Works who do roadside clearing. The controlled 3
burn and risk assessment by the Fire department. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, the Foothills Park renovation project for the irrigation, 6 would we ever consider not irrigating that? 7
8
Mr. Anderson: I think there's definitely a need to reexamine how it's done. It's 15 acres 9
of irrigated turf. I think it's almost certain that we're going to have to reconfigure it and 10
reduce some of that turf. How much I don't know. We may need some public outreach 11
process. Of course, it's out a ways and we'll see how the drought plays out. Is it worse 12
by then? Do we have to really drastically rethink how we handle non-athletic field turf 13
like that? 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's in '21, so we have some time. 16
17
Mr. Anderson: I think it's actually design in '21, construction in '22. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: By that time, the Buckeye Creek will all be done, and the 7.7 20
acres will be open to the public. We can now take our time and do it right then. That's it. 21
Thank you. 22
23
Chair Lauing: I had a couple of questions. Just to clarify what I think you said is these 24
park restrooms are now in here, but they're kind of a placeholder. You're not assigning 25 any particular park. We just know that it's going to be necessary. 26 27 Mr. Anderson: The only exception is we internally have looked at some existing ones. 28
This would not be ... 29
30
Chair Lauing: It's both. You noted it was both. 31
32
Mr. Anderson: That's right. Foothills Park, for example, has restrooms that are in 33
desperate need of replacement. We internally have earmarked the first year of that 34
funding we'd like to go to that, but will of course be informed further by the Master Plan. 35
36
Chair Lauing: I'd just like to salute this process. We talked about that in the CIP ad hoc, 37
that if we could get some placeholders, we would know that we'd have the money after 38
the Master Plan is done so we don't have to wait two more years for this to be 39
approached. I wanted to clarify that for you and also for the Commissioners, that these 40
are placeholders so that when we start looking at individual parks with Peter and all, then 41
we can figure out if this goes here, we've got money to get that done. A couple of 42
Draft Minutes 22
DRAFT
questions on the fire retardant materials that you're putting in. I understand that, but it 1
seems to me like this becomes an urgent item as well. We talk about 18 in one case and 2
19 in another case. Nineteen is it? 3
4
Mr. Anderson: Seventeen and 18. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Seventeen, 18, okay. The question is if it's a hazard, is that soon enough. 7
That's really the obvious question. 8
9
Mr. Anderson: I don't believe it was a hazard. I believe that the Fire Code mandated you 10
change it at the end of its life cycle. They're both at the end of their life cycle. There is 11
the fire hazard at least for the soft goods. Again, that's happening in FY '17. 12
13
Chair Lauing: I think my last question here. The interpretive exhibits, do we have a feel 14
of what the scope is for that yet or is that a placeholder number? I thought we'd just kind 15
of stuff a few more foxes and get rid of the old ones. $350,000 is kind of a big number. 16
17
Mr. Anderson: We are thinking a lot bigger than just more stuffed animals. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Maybe something that's interactive ... 20
21
Mr. Anderson: That's right. 22
23
Chair Lauing: ... for kids particularly to play with would be terrific. 24
25 Mr. Anderson: That's the goal definitely, to have an interactive, top of the line 26 Interpretive Center (crosstalk) come and learn about nature. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Closer to a museum. Commissioner Knopper, did you have a question, 29
comment? 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: I just wanted to ask about the Interpretive Center. I was 32
interested in if there are plans for any kind of support from the community in terms of the 33
interactive displays. There's a lot of people out there doing really cool things. I 34
wondered if that was in the planning process. 35
36
Mr. Anderson: That's a great question. We specifically timed this to take place after that 37
comprehensive plan. During the comprehensive plan, there's enormous amounts of 38
outreach to the public. They'll be able to weigh in on it. We're hoping that 39
comprehensive plan informs what kind of interpretive messaging would be most 40
appropriate for the Interpretive Center. That would be the place to learn best 41
management practices at that time. Who's got the best stuff? Is it East Bay Regional? 42
Draft Minutes 23
DRAFT
Let's go borrow their greatest ideas around how to send interpretive messaging and reach 1
out to our community to figure out what kind they would specifically want and long for 2
and tie them altogether. 3
4
Commissioner Cribbs: That would be great, because there's so many people who, I think, 5
would love to be involved in creating something like that. It'd be great. I'm sure you're 6 collecting names already. 7
8
Mr. Anderson: Will do. 9
10
Chair Lauing: Go ahead, Abbie. 11
12
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 13
14
Vice Chair Knopper: I just had one quick clarification. With regard to the Foothills Park 15
improvement project, Keith had mentioned that turf will be reduced in certain areas to 16
help conserve water. Is that sort of across the board in passive turf, non-sport areas? 17
Right now, it's like what we're doing just consistently as far as water conservation as well 18
as maintenance. 19
20
Mr. Anderson: It is what we're doing. One of the policy recommendations you'll see 21
proposed in the Master Plan will allude to that as well. I wouldn't say it's categoric. I 22
wouldn't say it's absolute, that every piece of passive turf goes away. I don't believe that's 23
the case. We're not currently doing that in every way. For example, at El Camino we 24
have a piece of passive turf. We did select a turf type that can make it on two days a 25 week, where the typical turf we use for sports cannot. It has to be irrigated more. We're 26 making changes and adapting to meet that goal. Whether we go to something that 27 extreme is really something for the Master Plan, for the Commission and for the 28
community to weigh in on, on how far we go. Yes, with every CIP where we have any 29
turf, whether it's athletic field or passive, it's examined. Can we reduce this? Do we need 30
it? Are there other alternatives? Either mulch or California native landscaping, that kind 31
of thing to save us water. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Any other comments on that? Thank you very much. 34
35
5. Update on the Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master 36
Plan. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Peter Jensen lead a discussion on that, and then we'll have a ... 39
40
Rob de Geus: I'll kick things off, Chair Lauing. 41
42
Draft Minutes 24
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: Sorry. Go ahead. 1
2
Mr. de Geus: Just an update. We had a study session with the City Council last night 3
and gave them a much more comprehensive, detailed report. They really appreciated 4
that. It was a late night. It was at the end of the agenda, so we were there until 11:30 or 5
something. It was good. It got some really good feedback, and the Council was very 6 appreciative of the work and of the Commission and all the work that you're doing. A 7
few just highlights. We got a lot of feedback from a lot of Council Members. It was kind 8
of interesting. Certainly a lot of support for additional dog exercise areas. They want to 9
see us do something there. We've heard that from a lot of Council Members. There was 10
a discussion about natural turf and synthetic turf, and what is our policy going forward on 11
that topic. They'd like the Commission and the Master Plan to weigh in on that topic. 12
Highlighting the benefits of nature and trees and the canopy in particular, they want to 13
see that highlighted. Expanding the system, I know this is near and dear to the 14
Commission's heart. That was consistent across the Council as well. It may be hard, and 15
we may not know exactly how to do it. If it's something that we think is important, it 16
ought to be in the Master Plan with some hard thinking around how we might do that. 17
That was good to hear. There was an interesting discussion and comments around 18
Foothills Park, and whether it's time to think about opening it up again for nonresidents. 19
I say again because we have discussed it a number of times with the Council. It hasn't 20
been approved in the past with different scenarios. It was a study session, so there was 21
no voting, but it seemed like on balance there was interest in considering options there. 22
There was a representative from the Lee family actually that was there and spoke 23
encouraging that we figure out a way to open it up in some way. Sustainability was 24
another big theme not surprisingly, because the Council and the community had a 25 Sustainability Summit on Sunday afternoon for five hours, and then two study sessions 26 on sustainability before the Parks Plan study session. That was close on the mind. That's 27 obviously a principle within the Parks Master Plan, so they were happy to see that and 28
very happy to see nature added as a principle as well. Over all pretty supportive of the 29
principles and the areas of focus and generally where we're headed. They recognized 30
we've got some work to do. They're looking forward to us coming back with a set of 31
recommendations on policies, programs and projects, which of course we're working on 32
now. The last two things I'll just mention. There was lots of others, but these are the 33
ones that I found particularly interesting. It was investing in wayfinding to parks and 34
thinking creatively about how we do that with signage and other things, like it's ten 35
minutes walk to Greer Park from different locations. Pocket parks, at least a couple of 36
Council Members said there's value in small spaces, small parks. They'd like to see the 37
Parks Master Plan weigh in on that topic as well. Overall pretty good. Happy with that 38
study session. Looking forward to the next phase and step which Peter is going to talk 39
about now. 40
41
Draft Minutes 25
DRAFT
Peter Jensen: Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 1
City of Palo Alto. As Rob was alluding to, a lot of time over the last month was spent on 2
the study session that was last night and preparing the presentation and the staff report. I 3
would recommend taking a look at the report and reading the report. It does have a lot of 4
good information in it about the process that we've had so far and what information we've 5
gathered there. I would encourage the Commission to look at that. Tonight, though, we 6 do want to look at a couple of things. One, talking about the additions of the list, most 7
importantly the order of magnitude costs that are added and how that's going to take place 8
within the list, so we can get a good understanding and grasp of the cost impact of new 9
projects. Not just of the project, but actually then of the maintenance and keep-up of 10
those, another thing to think about recommending a new project or new program. That is 11
something that MIG has provided a summary update of what they're proposing to add to 12
the list. The list beside your comments which again I do thank you very much for. They 13
supplied a lot of insight for the list that you returned back to us and that we have given to 14
MIG to start incorporating and revising the list. They've done a good job of getting the 15
initial aspect of that going, but it's still ongoing as we speak. We don't have an updated 16
list tonight, but I do want to get through and talk a little bit and have a discussion about 17
the magnitude cost, talk some more about the criteria and the weighting of the scoring. 18
I'd like to get some type of direction tonight so we can solidify that so over the next 19
month staff can go forward and do some of the prioritization ranking that we can bring 20
back to you next meeting and have a further discussion more about the list and that 21
prioritization list ranked itself. MIG also responded to a couple of the questions that were 22
repeat questions from a lot of the Commissioners. We can discuss some of those, the 23
answers as well. That's basically the three main items that we want to talk about tonight 24
and have discussion on. I'd like to open it up first to discuss the order of magnitude and 25 get feedback and questions from the Commission on that. 26 27 Chair Lauing: Are you putting up a slide in that regard or are we working off paper? 28
29
Mr. Jensen: We're working off paper. 30
31
Chair Lauing: How quaint. Comments? 32
33
Vice Chair Knopper: I had a question. I think it's more clarity that I need with regard to 34
the order of magnitude for a cap cost versus an operating impact. As I was reading this, 35
the additional points of clarification regarding these costs—I'm trying to ... If a large 36
capital project is very expensive, three dollar sign expensive, yet it falls across a variety 37
of different departments, for instance a new bridge which would affect infrastructure, 38
planning, biking, pedestrian, park, the whole nine, how do you evaluate that cost? I think 39
I'm having a hard time figuring out how these dollar signs would work. Would each 40
department—maybe I'm confusing myself and over-thinking this. Would each 41
department have an operating budget for this particular project? Would it be just the 42
Draft Minutes 26
DRAFT
capital cost of building said project? Do you know what I mean? Am I being unclear in 1
my question? I'm just a little confused (crosstalk). 2
3
Mr. Jensen: I think the system set up for that is that the capital cost would be the initial 4
amount per the construction or implementation of whatever the project or program was 5
going to be. However that is done, either CSD is working on the project, Community 6 Services, or Public Works is working on the project, the funding is coming from that 7
source. It's not split out between different departments. It's just based on the cost of 8
implementing that. That's the capital cost. It's not divided between pieces from different 9
departments to make that amount. It's just the full amount. The magnitude of the 10
operating cost for our purposes usually does revert back to Community Service because 11
they're the ones that mostly maintain or do the programming themselves. That then cost 12
would mostly be on Community Services to cover the operating cost or the upgrade, the 13
maintenance, the continued programming costs that are associated with that. It's all those 14
costs that allow it to keep going after it's been implemented. 15
16
Chair Lauing: The purpose of this, Peter, I think it's just so you can with the dollar signs, 17
one, two or three, just give indication of the scope. It doesn't even necessarily have 18
anything to do with prioritization. 19
20
Mr. Jensen: No, it does not. 21
22
Chair Lauing: It's just kind of giving a hit that this one is expensive, this one's cheap. 23
24
Mr. Jensen: It's giving you an insight. That's basically what it's for in our purposes. 25 26 Vice Chair Knopper: It's not like a—it says some projects will likely be funded through 27 other departments, etc., and the order of. That particular measure is not being used as a 28
ranking specifically. It's just like this is going to cost plus $5 million. 29
30
Mr. Jensen: Right. It's to give you an idea of how much something is going to cost. If 31
you're looking at something that is a program that doesn't have a lot of upfront cost, that 32
may be a consideration in the long run for how high it is on a prioritization list, because 33
you could maybe do it faster. That's more about sequencing though. That's the other 34
thing to talk about. The list is scored on the criteria which doesn't base a lot on how 35
much something costs. We're trying to rank a list that doesn't really look at that. 36
37
Vice Chair Knopper: (crosstalk) the criteria. 38
39
Mr. Jensen: We just want to know what we'd like to have. The next step of that is to 40
look at the sequencing which we'd start to look at how much something cost. From our 41
Draft Minutes 27
DRAFT
previous discussion before about capital improvement and getting the budget for new 1
projects, you can see that it is kind of this five-year program that goes along. 2
3
Chair Lauing: That's good. 4
5
Vice Chair Knopper: Thank you. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Other comments on this? Commissioner Hetterly. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: Should we expect for most of these that there would be a capital 10
cost and an operating cost associated with most of the projects and programs? 11
12
Mr. Jensen: Most of them, yes. 13
14
Commissioner Hetterly: Is there also—does the capital incorporate the staff cost for the 15
construction, creation, if it's a facility? If it's a facility, there's a lot of management that 16
staff does to get it up and running. That's different from the ongoing annual staff cost. 17
18
Mr. Jensen: Yes. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: Where does that money—which bucket does that money ... 21
22
Mr. Jensen: That comes from the capital cost. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: That goes in the capital cost. My only comment would be I 25 think that it would be nice to start at a lower number on the magnitude of capital cost. 26 Like have up to 500,000, and then 500,000 to 1 million, and up from there. Simply 27 because I think there are several items on the list that wouldn't come close to that, and it 28
does distinguish them. Thanks. 29
30
Chair Lauing: Any others? I just had a very simple one. You have order of magnitude 31
operating impact. I don't know why you wouldn't want to just use the word cost. That's 32
the whole point of that analysis, this is going to cost something or not. 33
34
Vice Chair Knopper: Sorry, a follow up. With regard to the operating impact, that's 35
within an annual year or a fiscal year. That's a question. The 200,000 per one year, so 36
it's an annual cost, just to clarify. 37
38
Commissioner Cowie: Are there likely to be any projects that have significant cost 39
savings in them? 40
41
Mr. Jensen: You mean eventually after you implement them? 42
Draft Minutes 28
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Cowie: Just from an operating standpoint. I know you lump zero and 2
negative as all the same. If there are any with sign negatives, it seems like that ought to 3
be called out separately. I mean, significant savings, that ought to be called out 4
separately. I think we ought to know the distinction between something that's essentially 5
a wash and something that actually saves a significant amount of money. 6 7
Chair Lauing: You want to go on to the second one then? 8
9
Mr. Jensen: Yes. The second part of the discussion about the criteria and the scoring and 10
the weighting. Last time we had a discussion, and a few Commissioners thought that the 11
criteria itself should be weighted, that the first three criteria carried more weight than the 12
last two as far as scoring goes. We were proposing a system of zero to five for the 13
scoring of that. We want to get more feedback on is zero to three okay for the scoring of 14
those last two items or do you want to take it down to two. I think it was felt by the 15
consultant that an odd number usually helps when you add them together to offset ones 16
that are matching. They felt that the odd number was easier for scoring purposes. I don't 17
know if that's true or not, because I haven't scored them all yet. That was their 18
recommendation for that. I just would like further feedback on that. 19
20
Chair Lauing: The ad hoc has had a lot of discussion on that point as well. I don't need 21
to do all the talking, if one of you guys would like to chat about that issue. 22
23
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm not sure why the last two are even on the last. For 24
example, maximize public resources. We're costing these things and we're also rating 25 them. Wouldn't that maximizing public resource—can you clarify what maximizing 26 public resources means? Is it bang for the buck or is it something else? 27 28
Mr. Jensen: That's a good explanation of it, yes. Depending on the amount of funding 29
that you have and what we are trying to achieve with the Master Plan, do we want to tie 30
up our money with a large-scale project which some of them will be or do we want to 31
space that out over many different opportunities, projects and programs that have 32
impacts? That is something to consider. 33
34
Chair Lauing: We were just wondering if it was a little bit of motherhood and apple pie 35
that could be taken care of by very good judgment on the part of staff as they're making 36
those recommendations. Kristy. 37
38
Kristen O'Kane: I think one of the other intents of that was to not just consider internal 39
funding from the City but also external funding, partnerships, that might—one example is 40
if you look at the first three criteria, if you end up with things that are equally weighted 41
from the first three criteria, you could apply the maximize public resources, might help it 42
Draft Minutes 29
DRAFT
rise to the top if it is using partnerships and leveraging funding from other sources. That 1
might not just be internal funding. 2
3
Chair Lauing: We wouldn't have that data now to do the ranking. We wouldn't know if it 4
could be ... 5
6 Ms. O'Kane: It would be for future projects, because the Master Plan is long term. As 7
future projects come in, that might be a way that we could have something stand out from 8
the others. 9
10
Chair Lauing: How would we use that now? If we were going to rate a project and there 11
was a guess that we could get help building something, would that mean that that would 12
get a zero? Or would it get a three because there's a high guess? I don't quite get that 13
one. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: It may be more applicable just to the future projects as opposed to the 16
rankings now. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: The other tricky thing about that, I think, is in terms of where 21
we might be able to leverage private funding or outside funding of some sort for certain 22
kinds of things, but particularly private funding. If it can be scored highly in the scoring 23
criteria that's applied to various things, you do run the risk then of giving a lot of points to 24
a project that a particular funder really wants to have but may not fit with what the 25 community needs. I think there's a risk of shifting the energies and focus of the City 26 towards projects just because there's money. Just because there's money for something 27 doesn't necessarily mean that we should do it. That, for me, is part of why I think that 28
should have a lower limit for scoring than the top three items. 29
30
Commissioner Moss: I do think it should stay there. It helps us with low-hanging fruit. 31
Also the example for you, the Paly High School swimming pool would not have been 32
built without the funding of somebody else. I think it should be here. Zero to three is 33
fine. You're going to tell us whether it's zero to three. We're not going to tell you; you're 34
going to tell us whether it's zero to three based on what the staff has heard about other 35
projects that may dovetail with this one. Right? 36
37
Mr. de Geus: That's right. I would add in addition to the potential funding opportunity, 38
there could be other opportunities. I'm trying to think of an example. Let's say the Junior 39
Museum was a little further along, and it was actually going to happen, and we knew that. 40
There was a project sort of adjacent to that or reasonably close, and there could be an 41
opportunity to create a synergy between a playground and the Junior Museum, and 42
Draft Minutes 30
DRAFT
maximize the public benefit by doing it at the same time so there isn't as much disruption. 1
Another example might be the Baylands Interpretive Center which is already underway, 2
and we have a CIP related to doing something. If a project on the list relates to the 3
Interpretive Center that further enhances what we're trying to do there, and we're already 4
sort of planning a construction project, it could rise for that reason too. We're already in 5
there and doing work. 6 7
Chair Lauing: Does that raise the same question which is you don't know that now? 8
9
Mr. de Geus: We know some of that now. 10
11
Chair Lauing: You'll have to make that decision in three years or five years or whatever. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: I think it's probably more relevant sort of as a working model for thinking 14
about how we develop future projects. There are plans underway now that we do know 15
of. The Baylands Interpretive Center is an example. We know that is happening now. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Keith. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: Why wouldn't we have the net cost on the previous page, all 20
those costs be net costs? That's the cost to the City. If private sources are helping us, that 21
reduces the cost. Then just purely grade the project on are they a good project or not. 22
For every project we have, this is the grading for the quality of the project, this is the cost 23
of the project. That to me seems a simpler approach. You have one score for quality and 24
one score for cost as opposed to mucking it up and having (crosstalk). 25 26 Chair Lauing: Right now there's no score for cost. That was what we were saying in the 27 earlier session, that we're not going to use cost as a score. We're going to use it as an 28
indicator. If we need something that's $50 million instead of $1 million, it needs to be on 29
the 25-year plan. It's just sort of a signal as to the cost. 30
31
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Knopper. 32
33
Vice Chair Knopper: I kind of feel like this line item should be called private/public 34
partnership, because that's basically what we're talking about, or maybe state/federal as 35
well. It almost should be a tick box, like you check yes, this project probably has the 36
opportunity based on our knowledge, what's happening in the state and other 37
communities. It's almost like check yes, this is something that we should pursue versus a 38
numeric. You don't want to unfairly weight a project as other Commissioners were just 39
saying. If there's a check, go, this project could potentially, if the City is going to 40
actively be seeking that private/public partnership, if that is something that we're 41
committing to moving forward. 42
Draft Minutes 31
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: I think the intent of this maximize public resources is beyond partnerships. 2
I think partnerships is one of them, but how it's defined now is create the most impact for 3
each dollar of capital and operating expenditure possible. Another way I read that is if 4
it's low cost but high impact, it's going to impact in a positive way a lot of people, then 5
that's something to consider to give it more points than something that has low impact 6 and affects s smaller number of people. 7
8
Chair Lauing: You see it as quantitative. If it affects 200 people instead of 2 people, that 9
would get more points in this category? 10
11
Mr. de Geus: It would be something to consider and think through yeah. 12
13
Vice Chair Knopper: Wouldn't that be realize multiple benefit? I mean, this is maximize 14
public resources, so you're speaking—I hate to be the (inaudible). Resource, to me, 15
equals the dollar sign. For instance, your example of the Junior Museum and Zoo they're 16
building. This would be a great opportunity for us to kind of swoop in and develop the 17
adjacency in Rinconada Park. This is how maybe their architect can give us a little bit of 18
this and that. All of a sudden our $1 got $100 worth of benefit. That's maximizing 19
resource. To me, this means money, not people ... 20
21
Mr. de Geus: You could spend say $100,000 on a project. The impact it has on residents 22
and people that are interested in that particular activity, whatever that might be, that you 23
consider that. That could be a high number or a medium number or a low number. 24
Maximizing the resource, you may consider this is going to affect more people and 25 improve the quality of life for more people; therefore, it's a better use of that $100,000 26 there than the lower number. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Trying to evaluate how many people it's going to impact isn't always easy 29
either. I wish it were, because I think there should be some quantitative thing in here. If 30
two people say we need cricket fields and they're massive, we can't do that. If 5,000 did, 31
I think we've got to consider it. There are other things like that piece of art is wonderful 32
and 50,000 people might go by it, so we should put $2 million on it. It just doesn't work 33
completely quantitative that way. I don't know; maybe there's some way you could 34
combine the last two. That's also an efficiency if you can get some multiple benefits. If 35
you could play basketball and soccer and have a dog park. Again, to me, these are 36
seeming sort of like excellent management that you guys are going to do. I'm not sure 37
how that in the initial weighting gets scored. Maybe that's the issue; we should have a 38
scoring system for the initial weighting for the Master Plan, and then an ongoing here's 39
how you start to evaluate new projects going forward. 40
41
Draft Minutes 32
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to move off those last two and focus on the first two for a 1
second. One of the things that I struggle with, as I was thinking about projects and how 2
they would go through a scoring and trying to list what do I think, based on what I've 3
seen, are the gaps or what do I think are the community preferences based on what I've 4
learned from this process. I found that there was a lot of overlap between the two. A lot 5
of the gaps are things the community wants, but not necessarily consistent overlap. I 6 found further that, as I was thinking about gaps, many of the gaps I identified as this is a 7
significant gap was based on the community input. When you're scoring it if you give 8
five points for it fills an existing gap, and then you say that gap is a community 9
preference that ranked highly in the survey or whatever, you give it 5 points again. That 10
projects gets 10 points for addressing a critical, unmet need. Whereas, one that the 11
community identifies as a gap, but the City hadn't yet identified it as a cap or vice versa 12
that the City knows from your work running programs or running facilities that we really 13
need this new facility in order to keep operating properly. That counts to me as an 14
existing gap. Maybe it's an urgent and vital and important existing gap, but the 15
community might not be aware of it at all. That one doesn't get double points for critical, 16
unmet need. I struggled with how those two elements crisscross inconsistently and 17
wonder if it doesn't twist the evaluation somehow. 18
19
Mr. de Geus: I've been thinking about this a lot too, how would this play out. I had that 20
same sort of scenario running through. What would happen in that scenario? I think if 21
there was address community preferences and that came through strongly, then I think it 22
will be an existing gap. I don't think we as staff or Commission will say, "We're not 23
going to agree. It's not a gap." I think it will get the double points. On the other hand, 24
the other way, if we didn't hear it through the outreach—we know the outreach was pretty 25 comprehensive, but we didn't get everything. There's some gaps that we've identified; 26 staff or the Commission together we've identified. That's why it's still there and it gets 27 points. Right? 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 30
31
Mr. de Geus: But it might not get points on the community preference, but we've 32
identified it. Do you follow me? 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: You think it's appropriate for double points if we identify it and 35
they identify it. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: Yes. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: Then the question becomes how do you make that fill existing 40
gaps list. If you were making a list of the top ten gaps, do they come from us or you or 41
do they come from the community preference? 42
Draft Minutes 33
DRAFT
1
Mr. de Geus: It comes from all three. Together we come up with that list. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I'll have to think on that some more. 4
5
Chair Lauing: One other thing we talked about in the ad hoc is should we weight existing 6 gaps more heavily because some existing gaps, as Commissioner Hetterly said, you guys 7
know more about than we do, even as close as we are, or many citizens. If there's a 8
safety issue, like curtains that are going to burn up in the Children's Theatre, then we 9
need to fix that. That's a gap. We wouldn't want it to come across for any reason to be 10
distorted that we're not giving full weight to the community input. That's the problem 11
with that. That's not really true; we're just trying to say that there are some gaps that 12
folks don't know about, so they wouldn't be able to opine on that. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: One approach we could take is—I'm just brainstorming a little bit here—15
does it fill an existing gap or is it a community preference. If it hits either one of those, it 16
gets the same points. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: That's kind of what I was (inaudible). 19
20
Commissioner Cowie: Aren't all the top three proxies for demand? 21
22
Mr. de Geus: I think the ... 23
24
Chair Lauing: The third is more of a forecast than demand. 25 26 Mr. de Geus: That's what I was going to say. 27 28
Commissioner Cowie: But they're all about demand, right? 29
30
Mr. de Geus: It's going to be a gap if it's not a gap already. 31
32
Commissioner Cowie: Yeah. The bottom two are ROI essentially. 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: The first one might not necessarily be about demand. If it's a 35
facility repair that's vitally important to keep the gym open, that's unaffected by whether 36
demand for a gym is going up or down. 37
38
Commissioner Cowie: I don't think you would prioritize it highly if the demand was 39
going down, if nobody wanted to use a gym anymore. I do think there is potential for us 40
to perhaps attribute too much significance to the numbers when the categories seem to 41
Draft Minutes 34
DRAFT
be—I mean, I raised this point last time. It feels like we're covering the same ground to a 1
certain extent. There seems like a lot of redundancy to me. 2
3
Chair Lauing: When you say the numbers, do you mean the scoring system? 4
5
Commissioner Cowie: Yeah, yeah. I think the first three are all really going after 6 demand. I think the last two are ROI. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Another thing that the ad hoc has talked about—by the way, we decided 9
not to do a report but just to chime in here just to make it more collegial. We talked 10
about a lot of different things. Now I forgot what we talked about. I just blanked out on 11
what the actual point was. I know what it was. We think that collectively this group 12
from the big study and everything else could probably at the retreat in two weeks sit 13
down and come up with the top 20 things that this City ought to be doing based on all of 14
this stuff without having any calculators in our hand. If it was top 25, 26 down is a little 15
bit different. Then it gets into more judgment and tradeoffs. Maybe we should do this 16
first thing at our retreat. That would kind of show that this kind of meticulous scoring of 17
400 projects by this for the initial sorting may not be essential. 18
19
Commissioner Cowie: I guess I just worry that we're going to end up spending a lot of 20
time trying to be precise about something that really doesn't beg precision. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Or worse. 23
24
Commissioner Cowie: I think I fundamentally agree with you. 25 26 Chair Lauing: We could have some of these things that really shouldn't be used as 27 scoring, like public partnerships pushing something up on the list. We're all trying to get 28
it right. We're all on the same page here. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: I do think it's important that we have a process that we can defend and we 31
can share and that's transparent. This is the process that we've come up with, the scoring 32
and trying to identify how we would come up with the top 20 or the long list and put 33
them in some order. I don't doubt we could come up with that just by spending a day 34
together and really sort of thinking it through. We need to define that filter that we're 35
working with and agree on that criteria. I think the public wants to see that and the 36
Council will want to see how did we come up with the top 20 or whatever the number is. 37
These seem pretty reasonable to me. I think you're right we shouldn't spend a whole lot 38
of time thinking about whether it should be zero to five or zero to seven. These are five 39
really important sort of criteria that we think are important. I think there's a lot of overlap 40
as well. How do we use this set of criteria to actually have that conversation to come up 41
with that top tier of policies, programs, projects is the question. 42
Draft Minutes 35
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Just to address your question, I would suggest that if you could have a 2
very specific, written definition of what the last two really mean so that whoever is 3
scoring would know what they're scoring; if it does include public partnerships, if it does 4
include overlaps with four and five. Let's get the overlaps out so we'll know what the 5
scoring should be. Then we can figure out what the weighting should be. I think we 6 have agreed and it sounds like you folks have agreed that some weighting is appropriate. 7
Now we're just talking about these last two mostly and a little bit of overlap on one and 8
two. Were you finished? 9
10
Commissioner Cowie: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think fundamentally I agree with what 11
Rob is saying. I worry that we're trying to be too precise and go around and around 12
trying to hit it exactly right. I'm just not sure the effort is worth it. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: The thing I'm concerned about is that we'll rate them. We'll 15
score them all, do all this work giving them 2s or 3s or 4s, all this effort. We look at the 16
list and say that one shouldn't be that high, and we'll go back. We'll tweak it until we get 17
the list the way we want it. Then just form the list directly. Why should we muck around 18
with 3s and 4s? 19
20
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Moss. 21
22
Commissioner Moss: After listening to all this discussion, I view these as your way of 23
telling us important information that we can use to help you prioritize. You're not asking 24
us for this. We're asking you to give us these scores and the definitions, as 25 Commissioner Lauing said, so that it will help us to help you. I would like as much 26 information as I can get from you in order to better help you. If you feel comfortable 27 about these five categories and you can define them well for me, I'll be happy to take 28
your input and give you feedback. 29
30
Chair Lauing: If we are going to agree to chat about this at the retreat, which makes 31
sense because it's only the major thing we have to do in 2016, how would you like us to 32
address that? Beforehand or in the retreat? More of this kind of discussion or the ad hoc 33
meets again to kind of process it and sort of shape it? 34
35
Mr. de Geus: I think it would be good to have the ad hoc meet again with staff to try and 36
set it up so we have a productive retreat. I think the retreat represents a real opportunity 37
and a unique time to have this discussion to think about what are those top policies, 38
programs, projects that are going to move those areas of focus and really influence the 39
principles that we've defined as important for the whole system. We have to set it up 40
right though, because otherwise we could spend all day talking about lots and lots of 41
Draft Minutes 36
DRAFT
options. I think that's a good idea, Chair Lauing, that we meet again in advance of the 1
retreat. When is the retreat by the way? Do we have a date? 2
3
Chair Lauing: The fifth. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: It's pretty quick. I wonder whether it might be better to postpone it a little 6 later so that we can provide the kind of detailed information that, I think, the Commission 7
is going to need to be able to help with the prioritization. I'm not sure we're there or will 8
be there by the fifth. You'll need it in advance as well so you can have a chance to think 9
it through. 10
11
Mr. Jensen: I think it would be beneficial to take an initial stab at ranking the list per the 12
criteria and scoring that we have and looking at that list at the retreat that you're going to 13
have and get an actual list of how it plays out and then have that further discussion more. 14
Did that criteria work of scoring that? How do we feel about that list? Do we need to 15
apply another scoring or need to revise that of how that needs to go? I think that's more 16
fruitful for your conversation that day of looking at the list and developing it, to have 17
actually a ranked list and then just, as we've been talking about, that we're going to rank 18
it. I would like to get to that point where you have that, we can see how the process 19
went, have a further discussion about that. We haven't really discussed that option yet 20
with staff on that process, but I think that would be beneficial for you. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Any comments on that? 23
24
Vice Chair Knopper: Will the list be, especially since we have three new Commissioners 25 who just dove into the deep end really quickly on the Master Plan, cold meaning—this is 26 the last list that I saw which is like 700 million lines of data. 27 28
Chair Lauing: It's a lot shorter now. 29
30
Vice Chair Knopper: It's a lot shorter and with more specific information per project. 31
That feels doable. 32
33
Mr. Jensen: I think that there is further discussion just with the Commission, the ad hoc 34
and staff of the list itself and how it breaks down. I've had now a few weeks to really 35
delve into the list and look at it and break it apart. I have some ideas about how it can be 36
simplified and broken into segments that make sense on scoring them, that we need to 37
have further conversations about. That is evolving. This is definitely going to be an 38
evolving thing. At some point, I think, for your conversational point it would be nice to 39
get just to a prioritized list that we can start looking at and discussing. I think that would 40
be a good use of time for your retreat to do. I think Rob is right. I think February 5th is 41
too soon to have that list put together. 42
Draft Minutes 37
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: Did you have a comment? 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I have two comments. One is about the retreat. We don't want 4
to lose sight of the fact that the retreat is really important for organizing our work and our 5
thinking for the year to come. We don't want to displace that activity which is important 6 with an exclusive focus on the Master Plan which frankly we should be having in a more 7
public setting. I think we have to be careful about the balance there in terms of what 8
we're going to do at the retreat. Secondly, in terms of the list, one of the things that the 9
ad hoc was concerned about was that the list was very long and included a lot of stuff that 10
was really tactical decisions, that didn't have anything to do with policy or strategy that 11
would be guided or represented by or in the Master Plan. I don't think it's an efficient 12
way to move forward to have the full Commission going through every single item on a 13
long list, to do that kind of review. I don't know how much shorter the list is now, but I 14
think it would be very helpful to have it sorted out, kind of policy questions, major 15
strategic choices, that kind of thing. I hope that that's the direction we're headed. 16
17
Chair Lauing: I didn't understand that the assignment is to do that again, what we did last 18
time, before the retreat. It was just to kind of get a look at what your prioritization was to 19
date, so to speak. It's always hard to reschedule retreats. That could be another issue 20
here. I completely agree with Commissioner Hetterly that there's other sort of policy 21
issues and organization that we want to address, so we'll all know what the options are. 22
We could do an extra special meeting, if we need to do that, on just this topic if we don't 23
have time in the retreat. We could start the retreat with our organizational stuff to make 24
sure we get that done before we move to the Master Plan which we would then decide if 25 we can get it done or we have to schedule an extra meeting. We could do either of those 26 two things without probably changing the date. I don't have any problem with changing 27 the date as a policy matter. It's just it's always hard to schedule, because we did the 28
doodle poll. I don't know how much flexibility you had when you sent that out. That 29
didn't pass. 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: I would suggest we keep the date if it works for everybody and 32
use it for the non-Master Plan. Don't use it for the "what do we do with the list" question. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: We also could do the Master Plan and stuff but just stay at a 35
high level. 36
37
Commissioner Moss: That was what I was going to suggest. 38
39
Commissioner Cowie: I was going to say the same thing. 40
41
Commissioner Moss: If we could see something just to start, that would be great. 42
Draft Minutes 38
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: We need to do that as the second agenda item to make sure we get to the 2
first part. I don't mean 50/50 necessarily. I'm just saying batting order to make sure that 3
we get to some of the other stuff. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: I'm just not sure what staff would be bringing forward. We don't want to 6 bring something that's half done to the Commission. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Totally agree. Don't rush it for that date. If you don't have it, then maybe 9
we have to schedule a special meeting to stay on track. 10
11
Mr. de Geus: On the other hand, can we still use the retreat to some way advance the 12
work of the Master Plan? We may be concurrently working ... 13
14
Chair Lauing: I think we can. 15
16
Mr. de Geus: ... on the list, but then we hear from the Commission sort of a fresh 17
perspective about what do you see as the top, at least for the Commissioners that have 18
been a part of it for a long time. The new Commissioners have been doing a lot of 19
reading. What rises to the top in terms of policy and projects for you absent any list? 20
21
Chair Lauing: That we definitely want to do. Also I think that we could have another 22
discussion about the prioritization, because you said you're going to think about that a bit 23
in terms of what we're talking about here. 24
25 Mr. de Geus: I think that could work. 26 27 Chair Lauing: That's the plan? We basically already talked about item 3 on your list 28
here? 29
30
Mr. Jensen: Yes. 31
32
Chair Lauing: The ad hoc had one other thought which we actually spent again a lot of 33
time on. The areas of focus which were sort of drivers to the Plan. We looked at that and 34
have some suggestions for the discussion of the entire Commission. There are 12 areas 35
of focus. We thought there was a little bit of overlap in some of those. We're doing a 36
handout in place of some of the work that we've done in the last few days. There's some 37
for staff; although, I sent it in advance. 38
39
Mr. Jensen: The documents you're getting does have the areas of focus on it, but I did 40
also include the principles and the criteria on there. If you want to read all those 41
definitions, they are in that package. 42
Draft Minutes 39
DRAFT
1
Chair Lauing: The document that Peter passed out shows the existing areas of focus on 2
page 2 and 3. Again, as we've had the ad hoc meeting with staff, we thought about the 3
areas of focus could evolve here as the next phase of the Master Plan as being kind of the 4
objective, going beyond the guiding principles to the objectives. As objectives 5
particularly, they didn't work we didn't think—that's for you guys to decide—in the 6 context of these areas of focus. Two of these were consolidated. The first being there 7
were two items on programs, one about existing programs and another on new programs. 8
The idea was to just combine that into talking about we need to have a rich assortment of 9
programs and classes to meet various needs of residents of all ages and abilities to cover 10
both of those. The second being there was very specific language on sports fields and 11
dogs and things like that. We decided, as we talked about it, that maybe it was really a 12
broader issue the way to balance and serve the needs of user groups that are both sizeable 13
and underserved for the various dedicated facility space to cover things like dogs and 14
fields and potentially pools and things like that. That's an item of feedback. Other ad hoc 15
members can speak. Commissioner Hetterly. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to give a little more context to that. The areas of focus 18
evolved as a tool to reach out to the public to help them prioritize among various kinds of 19
investments. Where do they want to make the most ... I think that's why sports fields and 20
dog parks were called out specifically, because those were particular things. It seems like 21
most of the groupings really taken together describe what we want the parks and rec 22
system to look like. That's why we're trying to see if we can make some minor changes 23
to make this still useful in the kind of overarching organizational sense for the Master 24
Plan. Those were some that we thought could be consolidated into a more generalized 25 piece. We'd love to have your input. Do you think that's a good idea, bad idea? Are 26 these ... 27 28
Chair Lauing: Not to mention when we did it, we were down to ten which made it sound 29
very scientific. Ten items only, not 11 or 12. Any comments? 30
31
Commissioner Cowie: Looks good. 32
33
Commissioner Cribbs: I think it looks good. 34
35
Vice Chair Knopper: Yep, looks good. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: Did staff have any comments? 38
39
Chair Lauing: We talked about it with you, but then we wordsmithed it since we ... 40
41
Draft Minutes 40
DRAFT
Commissioner Hetterly: We told you we were going to do it, but I know you didn't get to 1
see it until late this afternoon. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, we haven't seen it. We got it today. I want to look at it a little bit 4
and think about it. 5
6 Chair Lauing: I think it can still be tweaked. We wanted to get feedback from the 7
Commission Members as to if the consolidation kind of made sense, which we're getting 8
pretty unanimous approval on that. 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: We're not going to call on you to say yes or no, just throw it out 11
there. I think we have general support. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Are there any other Master Plan items that we should review tonight? 14
(crosstalk) Commission that they want to ask about? 15
16
Mr. Jensen: I guess there is some next steps. We are planning on having the community 17
prioritization meeting on February 11th. That will be at the Embarcadero Room, 6:30 to 18
8:00. That will be the in-person community meeting that goes along with the 19
prioritization challenge. That's basically very similar to what you do online, but there is 20
much more group discussion with that and breaking different interests down into different 21
groups to start a conversation on the prioritization and then how that money can be 22
arranged. It's very similar to the online challenge as its format. It just allows more 23
interaction and discussion with people since we have a community group in the room. 24
That's on the 11th. We also are looking at having the third stakeholder meeting which 25 will also introduce the prioritization to get some feedback from them on that process. 26 We're looking at doing it on February 18th. Those are kind of the next big steps of this. 27 28
Chair Lauing: Neither of those meetings will have prior knowledge of what the online 29
survey said? 30
31
Mr. de Geus: When is it closing? 32
33
Mr. Jensen: The survey is closing on the 5th. We will have some results from that that 34
we (crosstalk) really share. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Published results? 37
38
Mr. Jensen: Yeah. 39
40
Chair Lauing: It could be more of a debate then if community members say no, that's not 41
right. Just checking. 42
Draft Minutes 41
DRAFT
1
Mr. Jensen: Currently, we are up to approximately 600 surveys filled out in full. There's 2
about the same amount that have been partially filled out that need to be looked at to see 3
how close they got to the end. We have been generating quite a bit of activity on the 4
prioritization challenge which is good. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Great. I mean, it does feel like we're making progress, and we're doing 7
the tweaks, and we're working together on it, and we're going to get there. It's just we've 8
got to plow through and be innovative and inspirational to get to the right answers. 9
10
Mr. Jensen: I think definitely last night's study session with Council was definitely a 11
hurdle over way to move forward. I think that definitely helped out with the process. 12
13
6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 14
15
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is any other ad hoc committee or liaison 16
updates. Any additional ones? We covered CIP. We covered Master Plan and dogs. No 17
others, okay. 18
19
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 20
21
Chair Lauing: Comments and announcements other than the published February 5th. I 22
just wanted to reinforce congratulations to Rob for building out his staff. Congratulations 23
to our new liaison. We'll try to go easy on you, but there's a lot of work. There's a lot of 24
work. And supervisors. We feel relieved for you, Rob. We just have to say that. You've 25 just been soldiering on without your troops there and doing great work 24/7. 26 27 Rob de Geus: I appreciate the Commission's support and soldiering on with me. Chair 28
Lauing helped with the interview process; I think I mentioned it last time. You guys do a 29
great job. I should mention Keith was there last night until the end, 11:30, with us on 30
this. Thank you. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: One thing I did want to point out. Last night, the Council was 33
very positive. At the last meeting, the Council had a lot of attitude. They weren't happy 34
with some of the principles and things like that. They were very receptive. In fact, I 35
think one of the—was it Cory—said that he liked the principles, but most people did not 36
dwell on that. It was good feedback. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Did you have any follow-up comment on that? 39
40
Draft Minutes 42
DRAFT
Council Member Filseth: I can't speak for the whole Council. I think it's moved the 1
needle quite a bit since the previous meeting. I think there was a lot of happiness at 2
seeing that. I think good stuff. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Thanks. Commissioner Moss. 5
6 Commissioner Moss: One of the things that came out at yesterday's meeting was that 7
there should be a sustainability representative at all of these meetings, because everything 8
we do seems to have some component. Are you representing that here or is there some 9
other way to do that? 10
11
Mr. de Geus: I'm very aware of that. Sustainability is a theme that's embedded and needs 12
to be embedded in all of the planning that's happening right now, from the Comp Plan 13
and of course the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan and also the Parks Master Plan 14
among a number of other efforts. We're working closely with Gil Friend, the Chief 15
Sustainability Officer. He's reviewing all of these documents and will be reviewing the 16
list of projects and priorities that we put forward. It's definitely us, but we're working 17
closely with Gil as well. 18
19
Commissioner Moss: I thought I heard three things. One was the canopy and the impact 20
on our use of resources, also drought-tolerant plants and things, and then also the parking. 21
The amount of space for parking today versus what we'll need in the future and how 22
much of that could we turn into parkland, or something like that. 23
24
Chair Lauing: Did you have other announcements, Rob? 25 26 Mr. de Geus: I know that Kristen has a few, but I have a couple. There's a Council 27 retreat this Saturday at Mitchell Park. It starts at 9:00 as the formal start. There's a little 28
coffee and so on before. It runs until 2:00, I think. It's their annual retreat where they 29
discuss priorities for 2016. That'll be pretty interesting if you would like to attend. On 30
February 8th, the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan goes to the 31
Council for review. It was February 1st, and it's pushed out a week. I wanted to let the 32
Commission know about that. That's something that we've been working on with the 33
Planning Department. This is the first element the Council's going to review of the 34
Comprehensive Plan. It's the work of the Citizen Advisory Committee largely, which 35
Commissioner Hetterly sits on. That could be very interesting to the Commission to tune 36
into as well. I wasn't going to bring up the golf course, unless you were. You probably 37
know more about the golf course than I do. There is some movement on the golf course. 38
The JPA is in a position now where they're really feeling more confident that they can 39
start their project even this year in fact, which could have an impact on the golf course. 40
One of the first things they need to do is move some utility, gas lines and other things. 41
Draft Minutes 43
DRAFT
It's starting to become more real that the golf course may also get its permits, and we can 1
close and actually start the project. Do you know any more than that, Kristen? 2
3
Kristen O'Kane: We had a meeting with Public Works today. Mike Robb [phonetic] said 4
the conflict with the golf course is the gas line that runs alongside the golf course. That 5
needs to be relocated for the JPA's project. We're talking with Public Works on what that 6 means for the golf course, because it will impact some holes. We're in dialog with Public 7
Works to sort of figure out what that means for the golf course if we don't also get our 8
permits in time to do construction at the same time. 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: Is that because of a redesign of the JPA project? Is this new 11
news? 12
13
Mr. de Geus: No, it's not. Where the gas line is right now, if it stays there, the levee 14
would be right on top of it, because the levee's moving out. They have to move the gas 15
line out. 16
17
Ms. O'Kane; I have just a couple of announcements on some events that are coming up 18
and some events that we just had. On January 18th was the celebration for Dr. Martin 19
Luther King Day at Mitchell Community Center. This was a collaboration with the 20
Youth Community Service as well as the City of Palo Alto. We had over 200 attendees. 21
There were activities for kids. There were performances, food trucks. It was a great 22
event. Also, Mayor Burt spoke as well as East Palo Alto Council Member Carlos 23
Romero. Also on Friday, January 22nd, the Mitchell Park Teen Center held its grand 24
opening for The Drop which is a safe place for teens to go on Fridays from 6:00 to 9:00 25 p.m. We had about 60 teens stop by for the grand opening. This will be a recurring event 26 that happens every Friday at Mitchell as well. Coming up Saturday, February 6th, the 27 Palo Alto Youth Council is hosting the Palo Alto Strong, a teen movement to promote 28
resiliency and empathy, at Mitchell Park Community Center. This will focus on sharing 29
ideas to maintain social, mental and physical well-being for teens. The 2016 summer 30
camp and aquatics catalog comes out tomorrow. Following that, on Saturday, 31
February 20th, is our registration fair for the summer camp and aquatics program. That 32
will be from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Mitchell Park Community Center. A lot going on 33
and a lot of fun things happening. 34
35
Peter Jensen: I will touch on some projects. I give a lot of credit to CSD for overseeing 36
the Monroe Park renovation which is completed. If you haven't been by there yet, I 37
would encourage you to go by to see that. It looks really good out there. We did have 38
bid openings today for Bowden Park, and they look pretty good. We should be starting 39
the renovation of Bowden Park in the next couple of months. We're scheduling right now 40
the community gardens irrigation mainline project. We have a contractor on board now 41
Draft Minutes 44
DRAFT
and just setting up the timeframe to start that, looking at the end of February for starting 1
that project. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Moving right along. Go ahead. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question for you, Kristen. On The Drop, 6 Fridays from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., is it like the old Drop that was after school, that kids 7
register and then they can come and go during those hours or is this a drop-in Friday 8
nights for anybody and everybody? Is it a different kind of ... 9
10
Mr. de Geus: I do know the answer. This is a new thing we're trying to attract high 11
school teens to utilize The Drop. We already are open every day after school between 12
3:00 and 6:00 or thereabouts. Largely, it attracts a lot of middle schoolers which is the 13
same as the old Teen Center. This is a great facility, and we have food and other things. 14
We really want high school teens to also see it as a space that they can hang out and be. 15
They like to hang out in the evenings. It's a new program really targeted for Palo Alto 16
high school students. 17
18
Chair Lauing: Yes, go ahead. 19
20
Commissioner Moss: The MLK event, I went by there afterwards. It was really well 21
attended. It got spillover to the park, because the Magical Playground had hundreds of 22
people who moved from the MLK event to the playground and to other parts of the park. 23
Anything we can do to encourage organizations like YCS to do more events like that and 24
take more advantage of the parks would be fantastic. I think we have a pretty good 25 relationship, but YCS does have choices. They also have events in East Palo Alto, and 26 they have events in Menlo Park. If we can continue to have them use Palo Alto parks, 27 that would be great. 28
29
Chair Lauing: Thank you. 30
31
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2016 MEETING 32 33
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is to make an agenda, actually two of them. 34
One for the next meeting on February 23rd. Let's do that first, and then segue back to the 35
agenda for the retreat which we've already actually talked about a little bit. We were 36
supposed to have the Boardwalk back on the agenda for this month, and it didn't happen. 37
Will that be ready for the next meeting? Yep, I think so. 38
39
Kristen O'Kane: Yes. 40
41
Draft Minutes 45
DRAFT
Chair Lauing: We know the dog parks needs to come back preferably as an action item, 1
if we can get through any of those barriers, particularly on the El Camino Park. Go 2
ahead. Did you have a comment on that? 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: No. 5
6 Chair Lauing: Sorry. Other items that anybody up here knows about? (crosstalk) 7
8
Rob de Geus: Just on the El Camino Park. I was going to mention it earlier. Because it's 9
not City-owned land and it's Stanford land and it has the complication of the transit 10
station and the future thinking of what might happen with that transit station, that's not a 11
barrier, but it's more of a complication than say the Mitchell Park idea of expanding that. 12
In talking with the City Manager about the option of a dog park at El Camino Park, while 13
he wasn't against the idea, he did feel it was important that we first connect with Stanford 14
on the possible concept and get their input before we get too far ahead in making 15
recommendations. 16
17
Chair Lauing: That's in process now, right? 18
19
Mr. de Geus: Right. 20
21
Chair Lauing: We've got a month. 22
23
Mr. de Geus: I'll see how far we get. 24
25 Chair Lauing: Are you aware of others at this point, agenda items? 26 27 Mr. de Geus: I'd mentioned a couple of months ago that we were looking at alternatives 28
for service delivery for the aquatics program at Rinconada pool. We have two 29
contractors out there already that run our masters program and run our competitive swim 30
program for youth, PASA. The City runs the lifeguarding program and the learn to swim 31
program. We've been really challenged on the City side, our program, to find enough 32
lifeguards and swim instructors to really meet the needs and demands of the summer use 33
and early spring use. I recommended that we put out an RFP to see if there are other 34
options that make sense for the community. We took that to Policy and Services 35
Committee as well and the Council just to make sure they were comfortable with that 36
approach. We put that RFP out and have gotten the responses. We're evaluating those 37
currently. Before we really make a recommendation on that, I think it'd be good to have 38
the Commission's perspective on our options. That could be something that we could do 39
in February, I think. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Do you have a comment? 42
Draft Minutes 46
DRAFT
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I would love to have an update on the Cubberley planning with 2
the School District, where that stands and what are the next steps. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: We had talked about the cost of services study. The auditor 5
fee study was to be done late last year. The auditor fee study was to be underway, and it 6 was supposed to be done towards the end of the year. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: They haven't completed the study. I know they've started the study. It's 9
with the auditor's office. I'll have to see what the update is, because we haven't heard 10
from them for some time, not since before the new year. I'll have to see. 11
12
Commissioner Reckdahl: The auditor's fee study, what is that? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: They're looking at the cost of services study and the fee schedule, the 15
Municipal Fee Schedule, and seeing if they're aligned. In short, that's what they were 16
doing. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: What's the status? The cost of services study was done and 19
completed, and it's been published. 20
21
Mr. de Geus: And approved. 22
23
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can you send out a link to that? 24
25 Mr. de Geus: I can. 26 27 Chair Lauing: If there's no obvious agenda items, which there may be by then. Sorry, go 28
ahead. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: We also had Interpretive Center signage. Is that underway at 31
all? 32
33
Mr. de Geus: No, it's not underway yet. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Let's shift back over to the retreat. There's a couple of things that we've 36
traditionally done that I think folks think is helpful at the retreat. One is what we call sort 37
of a look back, just a quick summary on a page or two of the things that we've addressed 38
in the past year. I think it'd be particularly helpful this year with the new folks. There's 39
also sort of a look at what might be on our agenda to deal with in the future year. We 40
kind of try to winnow it down or prioritize it. You can guess that Master Plan is on there 41
for this year. We'll see what else can fit that is urgent and/or ideas that are brought to that 42
Draft Minutes 47
DRAFT
retreat by Commissioners or staff that we should take a look at. There's kind of a 1
structural piece where we look at what do we need to do to get these things moving, 2
which includes looking at the existing ad hoc committees and potential future ones that 3
we should form and/or reconstitute or dissolve so that we have kind of a logistical way 4
forward, which of course can be changed at any time and should be. Ad hocs should go 5
in and out of existence. That's kind of the mechanical and strategic part that we deal 6 with. That look back is always done by the Vice Chair. Congratulations, you have your 7
first assignment. Everything for the retreat is also done by you. 8
9
Vice Chair Knopper: That's a lie. 10
11
Chair Lauing: And you make the sandwiches. 12
13
Vice Chair Knopper: No. 14
15
Chair Lauing: Actually we get some help from folks on that. There's pretty good food at 16
that. That's sort of the overall view of it. We will try to figure out which part of the 17
Master Plan we can go into a little bit more depth on. We were also going to squeeze in 18
some time specifically to talk about dog parks as we discussed earlier tonight. Are there 19
any other things that I haven't covered? I know it's pretty general; it's not too specific. 20
Yeah. 21
22
Commissioner Cribbs: I'd like to hear a really short update of our relationship, the City's, 23
with the School District and how we're sharing facilities; where we intersect; if we don't, 24
what the opportunities are. 25 26 Chair Lauing: Okay. That's going to be a full four hours with lunch at the end. You're 27 not going to tell us what you're making though, right? That's that. Are there any other 28
items of discussion? Rob. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: Just happy Australia Day everyone. 31
32
Chair Lauing: I think we should have a motion to adjourn in honor of the Australian new 33
year. 34
35
VII. ADJOURNMENT 36
37
Chair Lauing: Do we have a motion to adjourn? 38
39
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Hetterly and second by Vice Chair 40
Knopper at 9:20 p.m. Passed 7-0 41
Draft Minutes 48
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7 ANNUAL RETREAT 8 February 5, 2016 9 Foothill Park, Interpretive Center 10 11729 Page Mill Road 11 12 13
Commissioners Present: Jim Cowie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie Knopper, Ed Lauing, David 14
Moss, Keith Reckdahl 15
Commissioners Absent: Anne Warner Cribbs 16
Others Present: Council Liaison Eric Filseth 17
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: 19
20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 21
22
None. 23
24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25 26
None. 27
28
IV. BUSINESS: 29 30
1. Review 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Accomplishments/Priorities 31 Vice chair Knopper handed out a list of the Commissions 2015 accomplishments. The 32
Commission reviewed and commented. 33
• Discussed 7.7 Acres Foothill Park 34
• New Pedestrian bridge over 101 35
• Parks, Open Space, Recreation and Facilities Master Plan 36
• Conceptual Plans for new Junior Museum and Zoo 37
• Temporary Batting Cages at Baylands Athletic Center 38
Draft Minutes 1
DRAFT
• Council recommendation for next steps 7.7 Acres-Hydrologic Study for Buckeye 39 Creek 40
• Organics Facilities information meeting 41
• Recommendation for Park Improvement Ordinance within the PASCO site to allow 42
pilot Batting Cages at Baylands Athletic Center 43
• Staff update on drought response to Parks and Open Space and Golf areas 44
• Approval of Memo to Council on supporting funding for the implementation of the 45
Foothills Park Fire Master 46
• Approval of recommendation to Council to adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for 47 improvements identified in the Byxbee Park Hills interim park concepts plan 48
• Avenidas capital project study session 49
• Junior Museum and Zoo capital project update – Friends of the JMZ – Discussion 50
• Informational report on sustaining trees during the drought within the City and Parks 51
a Public Works presentation 52
• Discussion on new online procedure for Summer Camp registration. 53
• Community Garden Ad hoc update report and recommendation 54
• Review of the Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements and Boardwalk Feasibility 55
Study 56
• Discussion on the share use Dog Park Pilot Program 57 58
2. Consider Potential Areas of Focus for 2016 59
• Ongoing items: Dog parks, 101 Highway Pedestrian overpass 60
• Review Council Priorities to be aligned with PRC’s priorities: Built environment: 61
housing, parking, livability, mobility; Healthy city/Healthy community; 62
Infrastructure; Comp plan 63
• Staff de Geus reminded commission that the role of the commission should be 64
priorities with policy recommendations. 65
• The Masterplan should focus on sustainability 66
• Council member Filseth pointed out that sustainability isn’t just climate change. 67
• The Commission raised the question is the Gym/Field use brokering policy working 68
well? Do we need to revisit? Commissioner Hetterly commented that the Master Plan 69
will address but the key policy question is “How far do we want to go?” We want to 70
keep pushing the consultants MIG to identify what we need. 71
• Commissioner Lauing would like more data to justify decisions for things like more 72
synthetic fields. 73
Draft Minutes 2
DRAFT
• Commissioner Moss commented that we should make sure that all these big issues, 74
dog owners, community gardens, gyms, etc. are addressed in context so that it is a fair 75
and equitable split of land use. 76
• Commissioner Reckdahl commented that we should keep moving on things like dog 77
parks, where we have enough data to show that we are too short. Gyms are 78
something we don’t know about, and maybe can wait. 79
• Chair Lauing suggested that the ad hocs working on the priorities for gardens, dog 80
parks, gym/field space should continue working on them. 81
• Commissioner Knopper stressed that we need a cohesive policy for field use. 82
• The 7.7 acres hydrologic study is out to bid 83
• The 10.5 acres was discussed, don’t want to take action to hastily with this and not let 84
it become a dumping area for whatever the Masterplan says we need. More analysis 85
needs to be done for this site. 86
• Land around the Baylands Athletic Center needs to be considered for possible ideas, 87
such as more parkland, parking, batting cages, etc. 88
3. Review Commission Ad hoc Committees and Liaison assignments 89
• The Arastradero Preserve benching and parking issues need to have an ad hoc 90
established to work on this. 91
• The Commission web page still being worked on, resources limited but should have it 92
wrapped up within the next couple months. 93
• CIP should stay on the list 94
• Cubberley should stay on the list 95
• Take IBRC off the list. 96
• Project Safety Net – possibly do something for parents. 97
• Sterling Canal – need more information and a firm ruling from Utilities. This should 98
continue to be considered for space, staff Anderson will be the lead on this. 99
• The Lucy Evans Interpretive Center boardwalk project will be monitored. 100
• Take off the Byxbee Park Hills design and add a new ad hoc for the Baylands 101
Comprehensive Conservation plan. 102
• The Baylands Satellite Parking – The shuttle idea was abandoned; but there may be 103
interest in adding parking on Embarcadero Road and reducing a lane. This would be 104
from 101 to the Baylands, with parking on both sided. This should be taken out. 105
• Keep the following on and monitor: 101 Adobe Creek Bridge, Lefkowitz tunnel, Golf 106
Course Project 107
• New Ad hocs: Matadero Creek Underpass project, Baylands CCP, Baylands Athletic 108
and Recreation Complex, PAUSD/PRC dialog – shared use of facilities 109
Draft Minutes 3
DRAFT
• Continue with Ad hocs: Parks Master Plan, Dog parks, Community Gardens, CIPs, 110
Baylands CCP, Parks Tree Canopy 111
See attached 2016 Priorities and Ad hoc list 112
4. Other 113
Staff Anderson spoke on the dog park issue. My personal feeling is that we need a team 114
of staff and Commissioners to sit in a room with a large map of every park (and park-like 115
area) up on the wall and figure out all the possible locations to place dedicated dog parks. 116
Then we pick out the best of those locations and prioritize them. Ideally, there would be 117
a few we can implement in the near term, without waiting for the Master Plan or a new 118
CIP; and several more that can be implemented in the near future; prioritized by the 119
Master Plan, along with many other important community needs, and completed through 120
the CIP process. 121
We’ve tried twice now to offer a few near-term off-leash options (the shared use athletic 122
field idea, and the expanded Mitchell/El Camino Park dedicated idea) and both times they 123
have failed to gather much support from the community or the commission. Selecting 124
just a few sites and recommending a “first step” solution hasn’t worked. I believe we 125
need to present a comprehensive plan for dog parks before we can take that first step. 126
This is exactly what the Parks Master Plan is intended to provide, but hasn’t yet. I think 127
this can be done in coordination with the Master Plan, be part of the Master Plan, and 128
used to provide the “first step” solution in advance of completing the Master Plan. 129
It would be helpful to have Commission discussion and consensus on the following: 130
1. Is the share-use concept right for Palo Alto? If it is, should it be shared with athletic 131
fields, or only non-athletic field areas? 132
2. Is the unfenced shared-use concept (City of Mountain View model) right for Palo 133
Alto? 134
3. Should we conduct a comprehensive dog park analysis initiated by staff and the Ad 135
hoc; and then bring back to the Commission as mentioned above? It seems to me that 136
it would inform decisions on the other questions. For example, if after looking at 137
every possible site, we are able to identify an appropriate number of suitable locations 138
for dedicated dog parks distributed equitably throughout the City, perhaps we don’t 139
need to further explore the shared-use and unfenced shared-use models. 140
Chair Lauing commented, It’s agreed that we need to expand the scope of the ad hoc, and 141
we are at a point in the Master Plan development where we are looking at an in depth 142
analysis of where to place dog parks. We will keep going with El Camino as a potential 143
site and wrap the expanded Mitchell Park dog park into the whole analysis. We then can 144
Draft Minutes 4
DRAFT
bring it to the whole Commission to get action on expanding the scope of the ad hoc and 145
potentially discuss policy issues. It’s agreed then that the ad hoc can move forward with 146
looking at the full list of City wide dog opportunities. 147
148
149
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 150
151
None. 152 153
VI. ADJOURNMENT 154 155
Meeting adjourned at 1:15pm. 156
Draft Minutes 5
2016 PARC RETREAT PROJECTS AND PRIORITIES Categories: (*Previously determined that Master Plan will guide the initiative/outcome) A = PARC Driven B = Staff Driven M = Monitor activity and update/engage PARC as appropriate. I = Identify lead/ad hoc to generate initiative COMMUNITY SERVICES AND RECREATION
Parks and Rec Master Plan Category: A/B Lead: Ad Hoc(s)/Staff Goals: Work with staff to complete draft by August, 2016 Continue Ad Hoc and full commission involvement to facilitate. For example, 1. Existing Ad Hoc for pre-processing major new material prior to monthly Commission Meetings. 2. Others as needed
*Dog Parks Category: A/B Lead: Ad Hoc/Staff Goal: Increase off leash dog space with geographical distribution in City. Met with Dog Group and did broader community outreach. . Considered short term shared-use dog parks. Currently considering expansion of existing dog parks and addition of one or two new ones before Master Plan complete. Action item pending. *Gyms & Fields/Field Use Policy Category: A Lead: Staff Goals: Review policy on fields at appropriate time. Evaluate field use policy if need determined by staff. Investigate field and gym location if indicated by Master Plan.
*Community Gardens Category: B Lead: Staff CIP for irrigation being executed in 2016. Co-ordinate existing rules with Ventura site.
*7.7 Acre Foothills Parcel Category: B Lead: Staff Goals: Complete Buckeye creek CIP hydrologic study before any further action to be taken.
1
* Land Bank Category: A/B Lead: Ad Hoc/ Staff Goals: Tie-in to Master Plan. Likely longer term activity. Consider use and timing for fields, gyms, open space, other options. .
* Arastradero Preserve Category: A Lead: Staff
Goal: investigate land use barriers that may limit ability to expand parking.
Website Category: A Lead: AdHoc/Staff Goals: Expand PARC website to include issue-specific links and make more user friendly. CIP Input Category: B Lead: Staff Goals: Weigh in on CIP priorities Cubberley Category: M Lead: Staff Goals: Monitor developments in lease negotiations, efforts to replace Foothill College, Our Town grant application.
Project Safety Net Category: I Lead: Staff Goals: Propose initiatives. Sterling Canal Opportunities Category: M Lead: Goals: Propose initiatives. Clarify opportunities. Lucy Evans Interpretive Center & Boardwalk Category: I Lead: Ad Hoc Goals: Propose initiatives. Consider potential physical improvements/CIPs, partnerships to expand services/hours?
101/Adobe Creek Bridge Category: M Lead: Staff? Goals: Monitor design developments for best access and integration into Baylands Preserve. Lefkowitz Tunnel Category: M Lead: Goals: Maximize length of open season and advocate for retention of existing tunnel access in new bridge design. 2
Golf Course Category: M Lead: A/B Goals: Identify and promote Clubhouse and parking funds
Matadero Creek Trail Category: A/B Lead: Ad Hoc Goals: Work with Transportation staff on outreach to impacted neighbors and interested users and consider connections to underpass.
Children’s Zoo Reconstruction Category A/B Lead: A/B
Goal: Project requires PIO with vote from PRC
PAUSD/PRC Dialog Category: A/B Lead: Ed to call Council DuBois Goal: Create Partnership with PAUSD and City for shared use of ALL facilities. * Water Conservation Category A/B Lead: Ad hoc Goal: Document and implement new policies for all parkland Facilities Rental Category: M Lead: B Goal: increase use and fees from city rental spaces
*Baylands Athletic Complex Category: A/B Lead: Ad Hoc Goal: Investigate options and timeline
Comprehensive Baylands Conservation Plan Category: A/B Lead: A/B Goal: fund and participate in study Increase Park Canopy Category: A Lead: A/B Goal: Investigate options and timeline
3
4
Topic Leads/ AdHoc Staff
PTOSR Master Plan pre-processing Reckdahl/Hetterly/Lauing
Matadero Creek Undercrossing /Reckdahl/Moss Anderson
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Moss/backup Hetterly O'Kane
Community Gardens Knopper
Dog Parks Hetterly/Knopper Anderson
Gyms Cowie
Canopy Moss/Reckdahl
Baylands Athletic and Recreation Cowie/Reckdahl
CIP Reckdahl/Lauing Anderson
2016 PRC Ad Hoc Committees
AdHoc Assignments as of:
PARC Retreat 2/5/2016
David Moss:
Matadero
Canopy
CCP
Keith Reckdahl:
Canopy
CIP
Baylands Athletic and Recreation
Matadero
Master Plan pre-processing
Jim Cowie:
Baylands Athletic and Recreation
Gyms
Jennifer Hetterly:
CCP-Back UP
Dog Parks
Master Plan pre-processing
Ed Lauing:
Master Plan pre-processing
Abbie Knopper:
Community Gardens
Dog Parks
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 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 as well as drafting revised and new policies that will support the Master
Plan recommendations.
DISCUSSION
As the development of the master plan has progressed a structure for how the draft master
plan will be organized has been established. The structure and how these segments of the
master plan link together are as follows:
o Principles
o Goals (Revised Areas of Focus)
o Policies
o Project and Program Recommendations
Draft Goals
The analysis and community input phase resulted in the compilation of 12 areas of focus
that identify the key components guiding policy, project, and program recommendations.
With feedback from the Commission and staff, the 12 areas of focus were consolidated
into five goals. One additional goal, “Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively,
efficiently, and sustainably” was added to represent the standards by which existing and
future parks, recreation, and open space systems would be operated. The proposed draft
goals are presented as Attachment A.
Draft Policies
Proposed revised and new draft policies are being presented to the commission for
feedback and input (Attachment B). The policies coincide with the formulation of the
master plan goals and are intended to support the goals. This list represents policies
developed from community input, park and program analysis, staff input and commission
feedback throughout the planning process. The draft policies will work to support the
master plan goals as well as other city plans such as the comprehensive plan, public art
master plan and urban forest master plan. The policies will also provide direction for
future renovations and enhancements of the parks, recreation and open space system.
The commission is requested to review and discuss the proposed draft goals and policies
and provide further input to assist with their development.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Overarching Goals
B. Draft Policies
NEXT STEPS
A City Council Study Session tentatively scheduled in April 2016 will review the master
planning process activities completed to date and obtain feedback on the evaluation and
prioritization process
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
ATTACHMENT ‘A’
DRAFT OVERARCHING GOALS
Overview
This document presents six goals. Goals 1-5 encompass the 12 Areas of Focus as presented in
the Community Prioritization Challenge. Goal 6 encompasses management of the system,
capturing the System Management category from the Project and Program Ideas list. The goals
build on the efforts of the PRC Ad Hoc Committee. For each goal, the areas of focus addressed
are listed.
1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive, and
distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city
Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities
Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and
abilities
2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks,
recreation, and open space facilities and services.
Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the
community
Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
Increasing the variety of things to in existing parks
3. Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support
health, wellness and social connections.
Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs
Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
4. Integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks
5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system
Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events
Expanding the system
6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably.
ATTACHMENT ‘B’
DRAFT POLICIES
Overview
The project team has also been working on developing policies that will give overarching
direction to City staff and the PRC, and will also provide a foundation for the projects and
programs that will be included in the Master Plan. A cross-departmental work session was
convened on January 25, 2016 to review and provide feedback on the draft policies.
This document provides each of the six goals, accompanied by the relevant areas of focus and
policies. The goals are numbered 1 through 6. Under each goal, the policies are numbered for
reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, etc).
The definition of a policy is a course or principle of action that provides clear guidance regarding recreation program provision, park maintenance and operations or future renovations and
capital improvement needs for parks, trails, open space and recreation facilities.
Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, inclusive
and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
Areas of Focus
• Distributing park and recreation activities and experiences across the city
• Improving the accessibility of the full range of park and recreation opportunities
• Exploring new types of programs, classes, events and activities for all ages and abilities
Policies
1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision of programs and services and the
facilitation of partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that:
o Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of life among
participants, especially Palo Alto youth; and
o Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased number of locations
and distributed evenly throughout the city.
1.B Retain the standard of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents for developed
parks and follow best practices for measuring service levels. This standard does not
include developed or undeveloped open spaces.
1.C Evaluate park service areas to maintain accessibility by applying a walkshed
methodology that evaluates how people travel to parks and recreation facilities on
the street and trail system.
1.D Adopt the following service areas as the desired maximum distance between
residents’ homes and the nearest park or recreation facility, in order of priority:
o Public park or preserve: ½-mile, ¼-mile preferred;
o Play experiences: ¼-mile;
o Picnic shelter, picnic area or amphitheater: ½-mile;
o Community garden: one mile; and
o Dog park: one mile.
1.E Adopt the wayfinding signage used at Rinconada Park as the standard for Palo Alto
parks and provide standardized directory signs for all large parks, preserves and
athletic field complexes.
1.F Apply universal design principles as the preferred guidance for design solutions in
parks, striving to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
1.G Continue to apply the Field and Tennis Court Brokering and Use Policy as well as
the Gymnasium Use Policy (as well as any subsequent updates) to guide the
allocation of these recreation facilities with a preference for youth and Palo Alto
residents.
1.H Encourage walking and biking as the preferred method of getting to and from parks,
supporting implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
1.I Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and programs to encourage citizen
participation.
1.J Create and promote opportunities for youth and adults to participate in parks,
recreation, open space events, projects and programs through volunteerism.
1.K Affirm the Child’s Right to Play adopted by the International Play Association
alongside the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child in a play policy recognizing:
o Play is a part of education;
o Play is an essential part of family and community life;
o Children need opportunities to play at leisure; and
o The needs of the child must have priority in the planning of human settlements.
1.L Explore and support the City’s potential designation as an AARP Age-Friendly
Community.
Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system
of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services.
Areas of Focus
• Improving and enhancing community center and recreation spaces across the
community
• Enhancing capacity and quality of sports fields
• Increasing the variety of things to do in existing parks
• Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 2
Policies
2.A Sustain the community’s investment in recreation facilities by completing all “Catch
Up” projects identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations
and continuing to budget adequate funding for “Keep Up” projects.
2.B Strive to provide the following features in every public park, appropriately scaled for
the size and intended character of each site:
o Provide restrooms except where alternatives (adjacent businesses or public
facilities) exist or site is under 1 acre in size;
o Provide a looped walking path or hiking trail within the site or around its
perimeter;
o Provide an open lawn area suited for flexible play and uses; and
o Provide an active recreation facility (e.g., bocce, pickleball, basketball, tennis,
skate park, athletic field, climbing wall).
2.C Design and maintain high quality turf fields with adequate time for resting to support
maximum use in parks by multiple organized sports and casual users with areas
large enough for practice or play. Invest in tournament-quality high-wear sports field
turf (see Natural vs. Synthetic Turf Analysis) at designated sports fields used full time
for sports where lighting is possible. Policy Direction Needed: Should the policy be
written to encourage more synthetic turf, to retain existing synthetic turf and replace
it, to exclude synthetic turf, or to consider it on a case-by-case basis?
2.D Policy Direction Needed: Should the Master Plan retain existing policy (requiring
dogs to be on-leash) and strongly push for building more off-leash areas OR should
it change the policy to allow dogs off-leash during specified hours in some parks. In
either case, the policy should continue to exclude off-leash dogs from open space
preserves.
Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to
support health, wellness and social connections.
Areas of Focus
• Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
• Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and programs
Policies
3.A With the community implement the City’s Healthy City Healthy Community resolution
3.B Incorporate artistic expression into park design and recreation programming
(consistent with the Art Master Plan).
3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are provided in lieu of park
fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines and standards for publicly owned parks,
including Master Plan policies 1.C, 1.D and 2.B and are designed to support self-
directed exercise and fitness.
Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 3
Goal 4: Integrate nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout
Palo Alto.
Areas of Focus
• Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks
Policies
4.A Incorporate nature into recreation programs to connect youth and adults to the
outdoors and introduce outdoor skills.
4.B Connect natural areas, open spaces and contiguous vegetated areas in parks and on
public land as wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by planting with species that
support pollinators or provide habitat values.
4.C Reduce the urban heat island effect in Palo Alto by using asphalt and concrete only
where necessary, using pervious surfaces where feasible and expanding tree canopy
in parks in accordance with the Urban Forestry Master Plan.
4.D Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents.
4.E Update the City’s ecosystem management and planning to account for the ongoing
hotter and drier climate by applying ambient rainwater standards (currently used in
open spaces) to urban parks.
Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the
system.
Areas of Focus
• Expanding the system
• Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events
Policies
5.A Refine Special Event programming within Community Services to activate parks on a
more regular basis. This includes developing a series of smaller scale events held at
more locations, more frequently.
5.B Support innovation in recreation programming by:
o Creating an exception to cost recovery and performance requirements for the
first full year of a new program;
o Reviewing program data based on clearly communicated objectives for reach,
impact, attendance and financial performance;
o Retiring, ending or refreshing programs that require staff, facility and financial
resources but do not achieve program objectives, thereby freeing up resources
for new programs; and
o Actively developing a small number of pilot programs each year to test new
ideas, locations and target audiences.
5.C Designate park-like spaces at public facilities (such as the King Plaza at City Hall,
the Secret Garden at the Children’s Theatre, outdoor spaces at the Art Center and
libraries) as Public Spaces to recognize their role in providing space for recreation
programming, informal park activities and enhancements to public health.
Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 4
5.D Expand the overall parks system through repurposing public land, incorporating
public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and other creative means to help
address shortages of available land.
5.E Allow and encourage parklets and other temporary park spaces for both long and
short-term uses.
5.F Encourage new parks and identified neighborhood needs as part of the Development
Agreement process.
5.G Explore options to expand access to Foothill Park for non-residents.
5.H Continue partnerships and collaborations with Palo Alto Unified School District and
Stanford University to support access and joint use of facilities where appropriate for
effective delivery of services and programs.
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and
sustainably.
Policies
6.A Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for recreation programs, refining the
cost figures and expectations using the most current information available.
6.B Limit the exclusive use of Palo Alto parks (booking an entire park site) for events by
outside organizations that are closed to the general public.
6.C Facilitate partnerships and sponsorships with corporate entities for funding and to
support recreation programming and capital projects.
6.D Expand the memorial program to include additional options for donations to support
low-maintenance park features in memory of a person or event. All memorial fees
should include a fully loaded endowment and clear expectations for maintenance
following the model of the memorial bench program.
6.E Update existing guidance for development, operations, and maintenance of Palo
Alto’s PTNOSR system based on the best practices in the industry and this Master
Plan, including:
o Park Rules and Regulations;
o Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook;
o City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards; and
o Tree Technical Manual.
6.F Increase energy efficiency in Palo Alto parks, including allocating funding to retrofit
facilities for energy efficiency with increased insulation, green or reflective roofs and
low-emissive window glass where applicable and sustainable.
6.G Continue with the Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) policy as written. While some
parks may be managed as “pesticide free” on a demonstration basis, IPM should
continue to be Palo Alto’s approach, grounded in the Best Available Science on pest
prevention and management.
6.H Reduce the amount of waste produced at park facilities and by park operations.
6.I Reduce GHG emissions produced by Department equipment and fleet.
6.J Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at parks, open spaces, natural
preserves and community centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality
standards.
6.K Provide leadership in water conservation.
Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 5
6.L Continue to coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans, including:
o Urban Forest Master Plan;
o Urban Water Master Plan;
o Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP);
o Water Reclamation Master Plan;
o Recycled Water Project;
o Comprehensive Plan; and
o Others adopted in the future.
6.M Continue to involve other relevant City departments and divisions in planning, design
and programming, drawing on the unique and specialized skills and perspectives of:
o The Palo Alto Art Center;
o Library, including Children’s Library;
o Junior Museum and Zoo;
o Children’s Theatre;
o Public Art;
o Transportation;
o Urban Forestry; and
o Planning.
6.N Participate in and support implementation of regional plans related to parks,
recreation, natural open space and trails, such as:
o 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision;
o Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and
o Land Use Near Streams in Santa Clara County.
Draft Master Plan Goals and Policies 6