HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-23 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. 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.
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 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 June 28, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Special
Meeting – Chair Lauing – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. ITT Antenna Field Site in the Baylands – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – (25 min)
ATTACHMENT
3. Update on Service Delivery Options under Consideration for Aquatics Program – Kristen
O’Kane – Discussion – (25 min) ATTACHMENT
4. Approval of Dog Park Recommendation– Chair Lauing – Action – (30 min) ATTACHMENT
5. Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan – Peter Jensen – Discussion –
(60 min) ATTACHMENT
-Schedule Update
-Draft Chapters 1 through 5
-Approach to Implementation
6. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair Lauing - Discussion (15 min)
V.DEPARTMENT REPORT
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 MEETING
VII. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
June 28, 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, Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: David Moss 15
Others Absent: Eric Filseth 16
Staff Present: Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane, Amanda Deng 17
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Amanda Deng 18
19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
21
Chair Lauing: With respect to Agenda Changes, Requests and Deletions, there is one 22
agenda change that we know of. That is Item Number 2 had been pre-announced as an 23
action item, but it turns out that we don't actually need a PIO on advice of City counsel. 24
That will just be an informational session for our benefit and for our comments. Are 25
there any other changes to agenda or requests or deletions? 26
27
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 28
29
Chair Lauing: Are there any speakers at this point? On items that are on the agenda or 30
not, either one. I'd like to recognize Robert Neff. If you could just step up to that 31
microphone there, it's recorded so that's why we like you to be there. 32
33
Robert Neff: I'm Robert Neff. I'm on the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory 34
Committee, have been on that for about 5 years. I wanted to talk to you about trails and 35
trails that go across our City and the recreational aspect of the multiuse trails that we have 36
in the City that I hope you can take an interest in. I've got about four copies of handouts. 37
The first page is—excuse me. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Chair Lauing: Just so that everybody can hear you that listens in. 1
2
Mr. Neff: Now, I have to remember what was on those things. The first page is a Palo 3
Alto open space map from about 5 years ago. It shows the parks, and it also marks kind 4
of in yellowish there the beta hills trail that was recognized then. It also happens to mark 5
trails all over Stanford and every bike lane in town. The next page is actually a map from 6
today showing our parks and facilities. I don't think it actually shows any of the multiuse 7
paths in town at all. I was involved with the Bike Advisory Committee in about 2010 to 8
2012 when we developed the Citywide plan. We have a bunch of multiuse trails in that 9
plan. Actually the Bicycle Advisory Committee was not particularly interested in that; 10
they're mostly interested in bicycles it turns out. It is in the plan. If you look on the next 11
page, it's a list of all the proposed multiuse trails. There are many that are primarily—12
they are somewhat transportation oriented but also recreation oriented including the 13
Matadero Creek Trail, which Council just acted on, which includes a connection to the 14
Baylands from Midtown potentially and other trails around town. The next map shows 15
the proposed bicycle network, which includes the beta hills trail from the 2010 map and 16
also two other beta hill trail alignments that were proposed as part of the Bicycle and 17
Pedestrian Transportation Plan. I'm here to encourage you to keep abreast of these plans. 18
Since you guys are the Recreation Committee, then I think you should be interested in 19
recreational uses of our City beyond the parks including these trails. Especially since you 20
have a Parks and Trails Master Plan, I think these trails—the recreational aspects of these 21
trails and trail connections should be of interest to you in the Master Plan as well. What 22
has happened so far in reality is, especially the Matadero Creek Trail, there's been really 23
some community involvement thanks to an outreach that was done by the Transportation 24
Department, but nobody's organized to look at that and say this is a beneficial 25
recreational thing, and we really need to get some momentum behind it. As a 26
consequence, a small focus group has managed to really put that trail kind of—to 27
convince Council that it's not a worthy thing for us to go forward on. I guess I'm 28
interested in hoping that you guys can get more involved with the recreational trails. I 29
think my committee is not very strong on recreational walking and connections as far as 30
PABAC goes. Also, we're oriented more towards transportation than about recreation. 31
It's the same for the other advisory committee, the City School Safety Committee. 32
They're also more oriented toward routes to schools but necessarily routes to parks. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Thank you very much. There are no other speakers. We'll move on to the 35
next item, which is Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 31 Parks and Recreation 36
Commission special meeting. I'm not sure why it was special; they're all special. 37
38
IV. BUSINESS: 39
40
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from May 31, 2016 Parks and Recreation 41
Commission Special Meeting. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
1
Approval of the draft May 31, 2016 Minutes was moved by Commissioner**and 2
seconded by Commissioner **. Passed 5-0, Moss absent, Cowie abstaining 3
4
2. Approval of Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Park 5
Improvement Ordinance 6
7
Chair Lauing: The next item and the first official item of business is now the look at the 8
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center improvement ordinance. This is the 9
second time that we've seen it. 10
11
Daren Anderson: I'd like to introduce the group presenting tonight. Daren Anderson, 12
Open Space, Parks and Golf. Here tonight from Public Works is Hung Nguyen. He's a 13
Project Engineer working on this one. John Aikin is the Community Services Manager 14
overseeing the Junior Museum and Zoo and the programming at the Baylands Nature 15
Center. I should note that, while this was originally slated to be a Park Improvement 16
Ordinance, the City Attorney reviewed it and found that it was not necessary to do a Park 17
Improvement Ordinance for this one. This is an informational report, but there are a 18
couple of key design features that we would really like your feedback on. With that, I'll 19
pass it over to Hung. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Daren, can you clarify why we don't need to vote on that? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: I didn't actually hear the details. The premise behind a Park 24
Improvement Ordinance is usually something substantive is going to change. If it's 25
routine maintenance, which is really what this falls under, typically it doesn't. The trend 26
has been, though, that we err on the side of caution and do a Park Improvement 27
Ordinance for everything. Upon further review, it was not necessary. 28
29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 30
31
Hung Nguyen: Good evening. My name is Hung Nguyen. I'm the Project Engineer of 32
the Baylands Interpretive Center. Back in October of last year, we present the 33
Commission the schematic design of the project. The overall project has not been 34
changed. We received some of the comment back from the Commission back in October, 35
and we proceed with the design based on that. I can go over what the Commission would 36
recommend back there. We should stick to the color of the Baylands; try to design 37
something similar to what we have now; a desire to include gray water plumbing for 38
future uses. We'll work with a consultant to incorporate that in the project. Retain the 39
habitats for the swallow onsite. John will go into further detail of the option that we have 40
to retain the swallow onsite. The next item is gender neutrality for the restroom. Due to 41
the space limit out there and the use of the space, we have created separate gender 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
restrooms for male and female, but we do have the neutral gender restroom for the youth 1
in the building. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: That means that both of the restrooms will just be labeled 4
bathroom? 5
6
Mr. Nguyen: No, we have a men and a women restroom separately, and we create a third 7
space. The use in that restroom will be a gender neutral restroom for kids. 8
9
Commissioner Reckdahl: If it's single occupancy, can you just say any gender goes into 10
any bathroom? It's different if you have a bathroom that holds ten people, but these are 11
small bathrooms. Can we just make each one be gender neutral? 12
13
Mr. Nguyen: Sure. I can take a look and I can talk to the consultant to see if we can 14
modify that. There was concern that the glass panel that we install for the interpretive 15
signage will cause some bird collisions. We investigated that, and we will use a glass 16
that approved by the Audubon Society and the—what is it, John? 17
18
John Aikin: American Bird Conservancy. 19
20
Mr. Nguyen: To prevent collision on that. John can go into more detail later. There will 21
be interpretive signage railing that meet ADA compliance that the Commission 22
recommend back then. All the project design based on the Baylands Design Guidelines, 23
so we adhere to what the Commission recommended. We do have a requirement for the 24
contractor to salvage some of the siding to be used either in the restroom or somewhere 25
else that they think it's appropriate for that. With that, I can go into brief detail of the 26
project. We will do the project overview and then the building improvement that we 27
going to do and the swallow nesting, which John can go into further detail, and then we 28
can go into the project sketch. We would like some feedback from the Commission. 29
Since we have a very aggressive schedule, we will not be back for another review. If you 30
can provide as many comments as you can. Thank you. The scope of this project. We 31
will have the fascia repaired. The fascia either broken or cracked after 40 or 50 years out 32
in the sun and the Baylands environment. We will have bird habitat protection. We have 33
to upgrade the electrical panel. The building doesn't have any control now, so any 34
control with the electrical have to be done at the panel. They don't have a second switch 35
for separate rooms. We will upgrade that. We will replace all the stairwell lighting, and 36
the new lighting for the restroom will be incorporated in that. All the sprinkler heads will 37
be replaced. The restroom, we realigned the restroom to meet ADA compliance. All the 38
decking will be new, the railing will be new. We do some minor structural repair to the 39
column and the beam of the building. Repair all the conduit, and I'll be showing you the 40
deck opening and the new railing associated with that at a later slide. This is the new 41
floor plan layout. This is the area that we going to have the ADA interpretive signage 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
railing installed. The area right here is the deck opening for the swallow dropping to go 1
down to the Baylands. This area and this area. We have 3-D interpretive glass panel that 2
we going to install in the railing. Here one, the second one right here, and the third one 3
over here. All decking will be new. All the railing will be new also. The restroom will 4
be organized. You can see the existing layout of the restroom right there. The new 5
restroom, we will have the women's and the men's, but I can talk to the consultant to see 6
if we can make that a gender neutral also. This is the youth restroom for the kids to use. 7
We like the layout for the sink, the wash-up area right here. It provides more space for 8
the big group to go, the kids to go in. They can wash their hands after the project. They 9
work on clay a lot of times, right? They can wash up. This is a 3-D model showing the 10
new railing. This is the railing to prevent people from falling down the deck opening that 11
we're going to create. The glass panel location is right here, right here and back here we 12
have another one. Here is the glass in the guardrail. John, you want to talk about it? 13
14
Mr. Aikin: John Aikin. I just wanted to mention that there are two types of railings 15
being installed. A legal railing that will be the standard railing used in the deck of the 16
boardwalk in the next project. We're trying to standardize railings for both the deck here 17
and then the boardwalk itself as well as interpretive railings that will be canted at a 18
greater angle as a visual cue for people to know where to go and get information. What 19
that allows us to do is to avoid putting something on top of the railing that further blocks 20
the view. We're going to have a lot of interpretive information just at railing height. 21
We'll also have other locations where we could add sculpture or other kinds of 22
interpretive elements. The two illustrations that you see up on the board behind me or 23
wherever in the room, one is a higher cant. That's the interpretive railing. The other is 24
just the standard railing. The elevation that you see where it says guardrail elevation 25
shows the glass viewing panel. The railings currently are steel rebar that doesn't meet 26
Code. We're replacing those with wooden battens, but those wooden battens block more 27
of the view for children, people in wheelchairs, anybody at a low profile. We're just 28
trying to be able to provide windows through to the marsh. We've chosen a bird collision 29
deterrent glass that's produced by a company that creates a film that birds can see, that we 30
can't see. They see it in UV light. It's tested by the American Bird Conservancy, and 31
actually meets the standards of both the Building Code for anti-bird collisions for 32
Oakland and San Francisco, but also the standards for the Golden Gate Audubon Society 33
and Santa Clara Audubon Society to reduce bird collisions. Let's talk about swallows. 34
This swallow season we're prototyping nest boxes. The photograph up on the upper 35
panel there are some of our test boxes. We're trying various dimensions and various 36
locations on the building to see how the swallows would react. We also tested excluding 37
swallows from the building using a polypropylene netting. We did that because it was 38
inexpensive. The contractor will actually use a steel mesh that's coated in vinyl; it lasts 39
more. What we've learned is the rats will actually use it as a way of getting out into the 40
eaves to get to the swallow nests. The steel will prevent them from chewing through it. 41
We've also learned that it has to be offset from the surface. The swallows will actually 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
build up enough mud underneath it that they'll get enough bite for their nest to actually 1
create a foundation for the nest and continue nesting. The prototyping was, I think, 2
successful in teaching us a lot about what the swallows will look for and where they can 3
nest and how to exclude them. What we'll do in the project is try and concentrate the 4
nests in areas where we open up the decking and provide the right kinds of habitats in the 5
right locations so that the swallow droppings go down into the Bay and in locations that 6
we know the swallows will choose to nest and in dimensions that they're looking for. 7
These illustrations sort of show both the root of the problem, the trajectory of the 8
swallows from underneath the artificial nest structures that we've created, and then how 9
we're going to accommodate the mess that's created there, allow us to just hose it down 10
and really keep people away from the mess is largely what it's going to do. Questions 11
about any of that? I'll turn it back over to Hung. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: I just have a quick question. It looks like you've tested the 14
boxes, and they will actually use them. You've put them in the locations that you plan to, 15
so there's no reason to expect that they will reject it in favor of a different spot? 16
17
Mr. Aikin: Correct. 18
19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I do have one question. We're losing some benches along the 20
wall right now. Can we find any place to replace them? 21
22
Mr. Aikin: We've talked a little bit about that. Our tradeoff for the swallow holes in the 23
deck, for lack of another term, is that we're losing through-way. It's a narrower area. It's 24
difficult to put the benches back where they were. We've talked about putting them on 25
the—I think that's the northwest side of the building, where you've got viewing out of the 26
building. The glass comes to the ground, and we don't really want to block those views. 27
Also, that's an area that we often bring school groups out, and they sit on the ground. 28
What we're looking at is furniture options that we can actually bring back into the 29
building and things that we can have outside. As we move forward with the design of the 30
boardwalk, we'd like to look at bench options and pull-outs in interpretive nodes out there 31
as well. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we had benches somewhere on the boardwalk, I think that'd 34
be sufficient. We just need—both for youth and for elderly, we need some spot where 35
they can stop and rest. 36
37
Mr. Aikin: People to sit. 38
39
Mr. Nguyen: To add on that, we will have some turnout on the boardwalk for ADA 40
compliance. We can create the space for benches for people to sit. To chime in on the 41
two options that we show on the slide. One option is we can install the bird nest 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
prototype and leave the deck the way you see. The downside is all the droppings will be 1
falling on the deck and causing a mess again. Second option, we have the deck opening. 2
The bird droppings will go down to the Bay. The problem of the option is we don't have 3
the—for the second, the deck opening, we don't have to deal with the mess. However, it 4
will increase the project budget a little bit. We have to encapsulate all the exposed beams 5
of the structure, and then we have to add the railing to the project on the deck opening 6
sides. Now to the schedule. We have a very aggressive schedule. I think it's doable. 7
Like (inaudible) before the Commission can give me as many comments as you may 8
have, so we can incorporate. We are planning to have the ARB minor review done next 9
month and file the notice of exemption to the Santa Clara County next month also, and 10
have the design complete by end of July. We hope to get the permit by August and bid 11
the project by the end of August and have the Council award in September and start 12
construction somewhere in middle of September, the third week of September. 13
14
Mr. Aikin: After the swallows leave. 15
16
Mr. Nguyen: Yes, after the swallows leave. We only have a 5-month duration to work 17
during the swallow and the other birds nesting in the area, which is between September 18
and January 31st. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is our best guess on how long the construction would 21
take? 22
23
Mr. Nguyen: I think most of the—we have the contract require all the noisy and outside 24
work to be done by January 31st. We vetted that with our consultant, and they think it 25
will be doable within the timeline. They have done the project across the Bay, the 26
Cooley Landing project, a couple of years back. They say with the Cooley Landing 27
project (inaudible) but they can get it in the same time period also. They're pretty 28
confident that we can have this project (inaudible). 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: We're starting September, then September, October, 31
November, December, January, 5 months. 32
33
Mr. Nguyen: Five months, yes. 34
35
Commissioner Reckdahl: That gives us 2 months margin, 3 months margin. 36
37
Mr. Nguyen: Yep. 38
39
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it May 1st we have to stop or end of April? 40
41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Mr. Nguyen: No, no. January 31st is when we have to stop all the noisy operation. We 1
can do some minor finishing work inside. For example, tile work, electrical, lining with 2
insulation. Those typically don't cause any noises, and that shouldn't be an issue. 3
4
Commissioner Reckdahl: How much margin do we have then? It almost sounds like we 5
don't have any margin. 6
7
Mr. Nguyen: For the exterior work, I think if we don't have that many rain days, I think 8
we should be done in about 3 or 4 months. The inside finishing work might take some 9
time to finish out the work. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Can you give them a rough idea of when the building would be ready to 12
open inside and outside? 13
14
Mr. Nguyen: Right now, I think the realistic schedule for opening the building back, I'll 15
say probably early March next year. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: There's a typo here. It says 2016. What's the ramifications if 18
we get a lot of rain days and we don't make progress? Do we just extend the construction 19
into February and potentially irritate the wildlife or do we have to just put it on hold for a 20
year? 21
22
Mr. Nguyen: We would have to ask the contractor to work on the weekend, and we have 23
to pay them extra for that work. 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: We have to finish on time. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: We wouldn't be permitted to finish any of the noisy work in the bird 28
nesting season. We have to get that one done. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's going to be tough. 31
32
Mr. Nguyen: There are some way we can put some liquidate damage in there if they 33
cannot finish in time. The downside of that is it could deter some of the contractors from 34
bidding the project. We have to analyze that. 35
36
Commissioner Reckdahl: That would not be good if we've been in there all summer and 37
people couldn't use it. 38
39
Chair Lauing: Could you back up one slide? 40
41
Mr. Nguyen: Sure. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
1
Chair Lauing: What is that exemption that's required? 2
3
Mr. Nguyen: The environmental process, although it's exempt from CEQA process. Say 4
we work in the Baylands, we still want to file the notice of exemption to the County. If 5
anyone have some concern, be sure they can (inaudible) to us. 6
7
Chair Lauing: The permits in August is reasonable given where you've got the ARB 8
minor review in July? 9
10
Mr. Nguyen: Yes. I have looked at the schedule. I'm pretty sure we're going to meet the 11
schedule. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Others have questions? 14
15
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. 16
17
Chair Lauing: It's very cool. The changes that he made are really cool. 18
19
Mr. Anderson: A couple of key things we really wanted to make sure that we got your 20
feedback on and support on, overall design, the swallow habitat premise, and then really 21
that decking option, we leave the decking open for the swallow guano to fall through or if 22
you don't like that. That feedback would be really helpful. 23
24
Chair Lauing: I like the swallow toilets like that. Those are really (crosstalk). 25
26
Vice Chair Knopper: I believe they're called potties. 27
28
Chair Lauing: I accept your amendment. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: I like the openings too. I think that is the best. I think it's 31
pretty clear. 32
33
Chair Lauing: It's totally consistent with them being integrated to their natural life out 34
there. We're already doing a little bit of interruption, so let them do their thing. It's great. 35
Terrific. 36
37
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a couple more questions. 38
39
Chair Lauing: Sure, go. 40
41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about internet or multimedia wiring? We do a lot of 1
classroom stuff there. When we're doing the construction, are we going to be wiring up 2
that main room and the lab for access? 3
4
Mr. Aikin: We already have fiber optic out there. There's Wi-Fi in the building. 5
6
Commissioner Reckdahl: How about the connections outside the building? When we 7
had the meeting out there 6 months ago, there was a walker and she had to go through 8
gravel to get to the front. From the parking lot to the Interpretive Center, it'd really be 9
nice to have something smooth, so people with disabilities and strollers too can make an 10
easy access. 11
12
Mr. Anderson: There's a separate project to correct the narrowing levee. This is further 13
towards the discharge pipe, about 300 yards away from the nature center, further on the 14
trail, if that makes sense. It had narrowed from ground squirrel activity. We had the CIP 15
to correct that, and we're stuck in permitting limbo with that project right now. I don't 16
have an ETA on when we'll have a next step. It's kind of in the position that the golf 17
course was 3 years ago. We'll move forward. In the interim, what we'll probably do is 18
staff-level corrections of ruts, but it'll remain the same material, the base rock levee 19
material. We've already made some corrections. There was a wood entry piece to the 20
front gate, and that had some uplifted areas that were problematic with certain folks. 21
That's been corrected already. Little pieces like that can be done, but it won't be the full 22
smoothing of the entire levee. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: The intention is to eventually have that smooth from the 25
parking lot to the ... 26
27
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. The bulk of the levee was really to correct the narrowed section. 28
We had a small scope to smooth out that piece, because we knew it was rough. I think it 29
will happen eventually. In the interim, we'll take some interim measures that will smooth 30
it a little better, but it won't be perfect. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. That's it. 33
34
Commissioner Cribbs: I had just one question about the classes that are being moved and 35
where and how many do we have to cancel and what are the plans. 36
37
Mr. Aikin: It's going to be an interesting year for us this year. We are working on 38
negotiations right now currently are going on between the City of East Palo Alto and the 39
Community Services Department here in Palo Alto, the City Attorney's Office here. We 40
expect to bring forward an agreement to Council—actually to both Councils, the City of 41
East Palo Alto and the City of Palo Alto, to use Cooley Landing as a site for our 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Baylands programs this year. If for some reason those negotiations go south and it 1
doesn't happen, our contingency plan or Plan B is to do a modified field trip program 2
with the schools. What we would do is go into the schools for the classroom portion of 3
the field trip and then do the field trip actually out in the Baylands and use the port-a-4
potties that are out there and just the diminished services that are available in terms of 5
classroom support out there, but still go forward with an actual Baylands field trip. 6
Alternatively, we're going to ask schools if they'd like to do a field trip to Foothills Park 7
or to Arastradero Park. We would also accommodate those field trips and just change the 8
curriculum to match those. A great deal kind of in flux right now, but we've got 9
contingency plans on top of contingency plans. 10
11
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 12
13
Chair Lauing: Thanks very much. Great project. Hopefully we'll meet those 14
construction deadlines. 15
16
3. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 17
18
Chair Lauing: The next agenda item is actually a multiple agenda item for the Parks, 19
Open Space, Trails and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. We're going to look at some 20
revisions to policies and programs from the last Commission meeting, based on 21
comments there and staff review. There will be an ad hoc committee report including 22
recommendations from the ad hoc committee on new policies which we reviewed with 23
staff, and then a Master Plan outline which is in the packet, and then site concept plans 24
that staff wanted comments on. Those are the sub-bullets under the Master Plan 25
discussion for tonight. Kristen, do you want to start with the staff suggestions? 26
27
Kristen O'Kane: Yes. Thank you, Chair Lauing. Good evening, Commissioners. 28
Kristen O'Kane, Assistant Director with Community Services. As you mentioned, we 29
have four items to discuss tonight on the Master Plan. The first is the revised goals, 30
policies and programs document, which is in your packet labeled as Attachment A. 31
These are the redline comments that we heard from the May 31st Commission meeting. 32
I'm open to hear any comments or questions on those. Would you like to go through each 33
item separately? 34
35
Chair Lauing: I think we should definitely go through your redlines first, or your 36
changes, and also take another pass to see if Commissioners had other comments that 37
weren't picked up or new thoughts or whatever. If that's all right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Yep. 40
41
Chair Lauing: Do you want to just start with it in that order? 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
1
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Can we just work down the line here. Keith, do you want to start? Do 4
you have any comments on the redlines or changes? 5
6
Commissioner Hetterly: Are we just going goal by goal? 7
8
Chair Lauing: We can, yeah. 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: Just to clarify. You mean just for the comments? We're not going to go 11
through each goal, over stuff. 12
13
Chair Lauing: For the comments. After that, if there are additional comments that you 14
didn't redline, we want to give Commissioners a chance to talk about that. 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: Sure. Thank you. 17
18
Chair Lauing: For Number 1, there were a number of redlines. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't have any comments on the redlines. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 23
24
Commissioner Hetterly: In Goal 1, I had some comments. On page 2, Policy 1.B, "new 25
parkland should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres per 1,000 26
residents" was deleted. I don't know why that is. I'd like it restored. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: Okay. 29
30
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't remember any discussion advocating for deleting it. I'd 31
be happy to hear from other Commissioners. 32
33
Chair Lauing: Do you want her to address that? See if there's any ... 34
35
Commissioner Hetterly: Sure. 36
37
Ms. O'Kane: The thought behind removing the 4 acres per 1,000 is in line with using the 38
NRPA Association standard as simply a guide. Keeping the 4 acres per 1,000 seems to 39
not be in line with our goal for this policy, which is using that standard as a guide but 40
really doing what's best for Palo Alto. If we add parks in the appropriate area and the 41
appropriate geographic distribution within Palo Alto, it may be that that's adequate, but 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
perhaps it doesn't meet the 4 acres per 1,000. It's using the standard as a guide but not 1
limiting us to that guide. Doing what's appropriate for the City of Palo Alto as opposed 2
to the standard number. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I think I was the one who advocated for using it as a guide as 5
opposed to verbatim. The motivation behind that was to get rid of the distinction 6
between neighborhood and district parks, which was an artificial distinction as applied in 7
Palo Alto. I am not in favor of eliminating the minimum parkland standard. 8
9
Ms. O'Kane: Okay. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Isn't that part of the guideline? 12
13
Ms. O'Kane: It is part of the guideline. 14
15
Chair Lauing: We're trying to follow that as a guideline, so I guess I'm not understanding 16
why it was deleted either. Others on that? 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: The 4 acres per 1,000 is not mandatory. It's our best effort. 19
Even if we put it in there, we are not forcing ourselves to follow it. We're saying this is 20
our desires, but if we don't meet it, there is no ramifications. We're not saying by 21
December 31st we have to meet this. 22
23
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. It is putting it in as a policy that we will—it says "new parkland 24
should be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4 acres per 1,000." 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: It says "should," not "shall." I think "should" is okay. 27
"Should" just means we should do it, but we're not required to do it. If we said "shall be 28
added," then we're required to do it. 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: We can certainly keep that in the policy. I think the perspective was that 31
it's more important to meet our needs as a community and not meet a number because it's 32
a standard. That's where that thought process came from. If we prefer to keep it as a 33
standard. 34
35
Commissioner Cowie: Didn't we say that the 4 acres per 1,000 is incorporated within ... 36
I think we asked that question a minute ago. It's incorporated within the National Rec 37
and Park Association standards. Right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: It is. 40
41
Commissioner Cowie: Isn't it redundant? 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
1
Chair Lauing: It's redundant, but that means it could be included. 2
3
Commissioner Cowie: It could be included, but (crosstalk) excluded. 4
5
Commissioner Hetterly: Everything in this Policy 1.B is redundant with this standard. 6
Basically the way that Policy 1.B is written prior to the deletion was to be explicit about 7
the things that we thought were important in the standard. As we're using the standard as 8
a guide, we're saying while we're not holding ourselves to every single detail in the guide, 9
these are the things that we're trying to accomplish. That's why we're using it as a guide. 10
That includes the acreage as well as expanding with population as well as distribution 11
across the community in size and distance. 12
13
Chair Lauing: For clarity to those that read this document. Right? 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: Right. 16
17
Chair Lauing: Instead of just citing it in half a sentence and saying "the standard" and 18
then have somebody go and look up the standard. Giving just a slight executive summary 19
of what that includes is how I read it. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: The standard also makes that distinction between 22
neighborhood parks and district parks. I think this is much clearer, because this is what 23
we're embracing. We're not embracing that neighborhood park stuff. I think this is much 24
clearer than just referencing that guide. 25
26
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: It's not included in this, but in the Master Plan itself the actual standard 29
verbatim will be included on this page, off to the side, so people won't have to look it up. 30
It'll be right there for people to reference back to. 31
32
Vice Chair Knopper: That's the comment sidebar? 33
34
Ms. O'Kane: Correct, yeah. We can add that redline back in if that's the desire of the 35
Commission. 36
37
Commissioner Hetterly: Do you want more on—do you want all the redlines on Goal 1 38
or do you want to (crosstalk)? 39
40
Chair Lauing: On "1," yeah. 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Commissioner Hetterly: Page 3, 1.B.12, identify and dedicate City-owned park-like 1
spaces as parkland. I'd like that to be "identify and dedicate City-controlled spaces 2
serving park-like or recreational uses" and include some examples as you have on the 3
previous page, like Gamble Gardens, Rinconada Community Garden, Winter Lodge, 4
whatever you want to pick from that. City-controlled is a significant difference from 5
City-owned. For example, the Stanford Mayfield playing fields are not City-owned, but 6
they're dedicated parkland, I think. El Camino Park certainly is. I think we should take 7
the same approach on our other City-controlled land. Page 5, I didn't have any 8
comments. I think that might be it. That's it for Goal 1. 9
10
Chair Lauing: All the way through page 5? 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: For the redlines, yeah. 13
14
Chair Lauing: Actually I'll go last. Why don't we go down ... Commissioner Cribbs, did 15
you have any comments on "1"? 16
17
Commissioner Cribbs: No, except for I was glad to see that we added pickleball and 18
called that out. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I saw that one. 21
22
Commissioner Cribbs: That will make everybody happy. 23
24
Chair Lauing: I knew that was you when I was reading it. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: One could add rugby in there too, if you wanted to call all those 27
out. . 28
29
Male: Cricket. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: No so much cricket. I don't know whether for this document it's 32
important or not, but I really like giving examples of things in Palo Alto that we name as 33
something that we want to do. I was having trouble understanding what a City-owned, 34
park-like space is, for instance, in that 1.B.12. If that could happen. I like the ones that 35
are someplace else in other cities, but it would be great to have some examples in Palo 36
Alto. I think that's all I have on "1." 37
38
Chair Lauing: Did you have any, Jim? 39
40
Commissioner Cowie: All of the prior comments makes sense to me. I have nothing to 41
add. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
1
Vice Chair Knopper: I concur. 2
3
Chair Lauing: I don't know, 1.A.2, if "mindfulness" is the right word. I don't know what 4
that communicates. 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: The comment was to include things that are more for the individual teen as 7
opposed to things like leadership and community service. It was your comment, I think, 8
Commissioner Hetterly, to focus more on the teen as an individual instead of something 9
that seems curriculum based, I think. Mindfulness was an example. We can use other 10
examples as well. 11
12
Male: Health would work there. 13
14
Ms. O'Kane: Health, mm-hmm. 15
16
Chair Lauing: That's good. I like that. We've expanding 1.H to talk a lot about culture 17
and so on, which is fine. I think that's it for "1." "2," should we go the other way? 18
Commissioner Cribbs, do you have any comments on changes to "2"? 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. On 2.A, Cubberley is down as Number 3, 2.A.3. It seems to 21
me that Cubberley is a really important something that we should be really looking at. I 22
think it should either have its own position somehow or it should be Number 1 in that 23
group. It feels like we're losing sight of Cubberley in this report. If there's a way to make 24
Cubberley more prominent, that would make me very pleased. 25
26
Ms. O'Kane: Do you think it would be more appropriate as a policy than a program or 27
keep it as a program but just raise maybe to a higher level? 28
29
Commissioner Cribbs: At the least, I'd like to keep it as a—if we keep it as a program, it 30
would be better to be higher in the numerical order. Perhaps we could look at making it 31
its own area. While we're talking about Cubberley, I didn't see anything about pools in 32
there either, and we did have quite a long discussion last month about pools. 33
34
Chair Lauing: Wait for the ad hoc committee. We added pools. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Okay, I'll wait. 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: It's in Attachment B. 39
40
Commissioner Cribbs: Actually I did see that, but I wanted to make sure we got that out 41
there. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
1
Chair Lauing: In 2.A, we could move 2.A.3 up to 2.A.1, and then just ... 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: You could make it a policy, to collaborate with the School 4
District to develop and implement a vision and Master Plan for the future of the 5
Cubberley Community Center. That might elevate it to a policy. 6
7
Chair Lauing: As a policy? 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: I think "implement" should be in there. I think "implement" 10
should be there one way or the other, no matter whether you call it a policy or program. 11
12
Chair Lauing: That can work. Did you have others, Anne? 13
14
Commissioner Cribbs: No. That's it. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Jim. 17
18
Commissioner Cowie: Nothing to add to that. 19
20
Chair Lauing: Abbie. 21
22
Vice Chair Knopper: I'm sorry. No, I'm fine. 23
24
Chair Lauing: There was a lot of work again on turf fields. Could you just kind of give 25
us the executive summary on what you're trying to capture here this time that wasn't there 26
before? 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: For the fifth policy, 2.C? 29
30
Chair Lauing: Correct. 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: One of the comments that was made—I think this was your comment, 33
Chair Lauing—was that there's a lot of text here. What we tried to do is just consolidate. 34
We didn't add anything. We tried to just condense it into fewer programs while still 35
capturing the same intent. 36
37
Chair Lauing: That's what I was looking for, what was your objective. That's fine. 38
Commissioner Hetterly. 39
40
Commissioner Hetterly: I have some questions about that also. Is it the intention for that 41
policy and the associated programs to be only about artificial turf fields? Deleted 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Program 2.C.3 and 2.C.5 seem to be about maintaining and upgrading our natural turf 1
fields. Deleting them means there's nothing else in here about that. I would argue for 2
restoring 2.C.3 and 2.C.5 and somehow delineating that these are about artificial turf and 3
this is about natural turf. You changed the policy; you deleted natural to leave just turf 4
fields. I wasn't sure if when you say turf fields, do you mean just synthetic turf or all 5
fields. Some clarity around that, I think, would be helpful and restoring the programs to 6
invest in the quality of our turf, particularly, on athletic fields. 7
8
Ms. O'Kane: The new 2.C.4 is the same language—it combines "3," "4" and "5." The 9
strikeouts of "3," "4" and "5" should all be represented in the new 2.C.4. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: I had that crossed out for some reason. 12
13
Chair Lauing: It's got soil in there. 14
15
Daren Anderson: Irrigation. 16
17
Vice Chair Knopper: Irrigation, drainage, soil. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: I see. 2.C.4 is a consolidation of those previous "3," "4" and 20
"5"? 21
22
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. 23
24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we say "quality natural turf standards"? That just applies 25
to natural turf, right? 2.C.4. 26
27
Commissioner Hetterly: I found 2.C.4 somewhat confusing. You're going to complete 28
an assessment. I don't think we have to include in the program that we're going to review 29
the recommendations of the assessment. I'm not going to belabor that. That's fine. I 30
think that we do need to have some clarity around when we're talking about natural turf 31
and when we're talking about synthetic turf. 32
33
Chair Lauing: 2.C.4 is grass, right? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 36
37
Chair Lauing: Isn't Keith's comment correct that we should say "natural turf" there? 38
Quality natural turf. 39
40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Ms. O'Kane: We can look at that and just make sure that we've captured everything. The 1
reason why the policy natural was taken out is because it represents both synthetic and 2
natural. We'll just go back and make sure that we're representing both, I guess. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: My only other question under that policy was 2.C.1 seems to 5
presume that synthetic turf fields will always be replaced with synthetic turf fields, that 6
we wouldn't convert to natural. I don't know if that's where the community is going to be 7
over the next 20 years. 8
9
Mr. Anderson: When we originally wrote that, when I originally wrote that, it had a kind 10
of "if" clause, meaning if the science proves it's science, if it's sustainable. Maybe we 11
could look to revise that so it captures the analysis (inaudible) to happen. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: That's it for "2." 14
15
Chair Lauing: On "2," Keith? 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Let's see. I agree 2.C.4, there seems to be too many words in 18
there. Can we just trim that down and kind of get to the point? Also on 2.D.1, Kingsley 19
Island. Where is Kingsley Island? In the dog parks, this is ... 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: (crosstalk) Embarcadero goes under. 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Where is it at? 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. This is 2.D.1. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: Kingsley is a little, tiny non—it's not parkland. It's just a triangular piece 28
of land right there at Embarcadero and the overpass. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it south of Embarcadero? 31
32
Mr. Anderson: It's 0.27 acres. Yes. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: From the south side there, okay. That's really ... 35
36
Commissioner Hetterly: It's (inaudible) Street, Embarcadero goes under here and 37
whatever this little side street creates a triangle up above the (crosstalk). 38
39
Mr. Anderson: It's just a passive piece of turf. 40
41
Commissioner Reckdahl: We think it's big enough to have a ... 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
1
Mr. Anderson: It's 0.27 acres, so it's bigger than Hoover is right now. 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: That was it. 4
5
Chair Lauing: On "3," you want to keep the floor? Keith, you got anything on "3"? 6
7
Commissioner Reckdahl: No, no comments. 8
9
Commissioner Hetterly: There are no redlines on "3." 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: On 3.C there's some ... 12
13
Chair Lauing: There's some blue lines. 14
15
Commissioner Hetterly: Blue lines. I do have a blue line comment. Did I miss blue line 16
comments before? 3.C, require that proposed privately owned public spaces that are 17
provided through parkland dedication fees meet Palo Alto design guidelines, blah, blah, 18
blah. Privately owned public spaces are not provided through parkland dedication fees. 19
They're only provided through the parkland dedication ordinance. If we got the fees, then 20
it would go to publicly owned, public spaces. That needs to be corrected. That’s it. 21
22
Chair Lauing: I have nothing further. 23
24
Vice Chair Knopper: I just had a quick question. It says "implement the Healthy City 25
Healthy Community Resolution." Are you going to asterisk that or sidebar it and just 26
kind of go through what that means? 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: Yeah, I can (crosstalk). 29
30
Vice Chair Knopper: I don't know. Just maybe as a little reminder, have a little sidebar 31
reminder. 32
33
Ms. O'Kane: Yes. I think that's a good recommendation to do. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Jim, Anne, anything on "4"? 36
37
Commissioner Cowie: No. 38
39
Chair Lauing: On "5," (inaudible). 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: I have something on "4." 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
1
Chair Lauing: Sorry. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I actually felt "4" was kind of confusing all throughout. Policy 4
4.A, connect people to nature and outdoors through education and recreation 5
programming, is great. I'm wondering about 4.A.2 and 4.A.6. Maybe those should be 6
moved to Policy 4.D. Let me back up a second. I had problems with 4.D, which is about 7
promoting, expanding and protecting habitat and natural areas in the parks. Three out of 8
five of them are all about storm water management, and then there's one about shade and 9
one about training, which don't really have a lot to do with habitat and natural areas. 10
They don't really serve to the promote, expand, protect purpose of the policy. I would 11
say, in fact, 4.D.3 probably belongs in Goal 6 and possibly 4.D.2 and 4.D.4. I'm certainly 12
open to discussion about that. I was trying to think of other programs that could go under 13
this policy, that were more consistent with what I think the policy was trying to get at. 14
Things like preserving a balance between passive and natural areas within parks or 15
minimizing impacts of lighting. There are all sorts of other protecting nature things that 16
are sprinkled throughout the document in other places. That made me think—then I 17
thought maybe we should combine it with 4.E, which is about native trees and planting 18
and plant palettes. Then, I thought maybe it makes sense to delete 4.D and spread those 19
programs that are under it into the other areas—to the other policies under this goal. I 20
kind of wanted to hear other people's thoughts about that. I hate to have a policy to 21
promote, expand and protect habitat and natural areas hanging out there with no meat 22
under it. Also, I wondered why it didn't include open space, why it's just in parks. 23
24
Ms. O'Kane: As I was looking at this, I had the same thought. I do feel like there might 25
be even some redundancy with 4.D and 4.E, even 4.F which is about the Urban Forest 26
Master Plan. A lot of these probably—there's a lot of overlap and redundancy. I agree. 27
28
Commissioner Reckdahl: 4.B also, the connectors. Really all 4.B is saying is take that 29
habitat and put it in connectors, so it's really consistent. You're just adding one more 30
condition on that habitat. 31
32
Commissioner Hetterly: While I'm talking about things that weren't redlined already, I 33
would say move up Policy 4.G about the Comprehensive Conservation Plans. I would 34
make that the first policy under Goal 4. I think that is kind of a core program that's going 35
to guide how we do all the stuff in all the other policies and programs in this goal, at least 36
as far as open space goes. 37
38
Ms. O'Kane: To clarify, move forward the whole policy, 4.G? 39
40
Commissioner Hetterly: Yeah. 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Ms. O'Kane: Make it 4.A. We can go back and look at Goal 4 again and revise that, if 1
that works? 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be great, yeah. Thanks. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that some of the stuff is really good. The swales and 6
things like that are something that we should be going for. We shouldn't throw them 7
away, but we should find better spots for them. 8
9
Ms. O'Kane: I agree. 10
11
Chair Lauing: Where'd we leave off? "5," (inaudible) changes there, except 5.A.7 and 12
5.E.1. Keith. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: Nothing. 15
16
Chair Lauing: Jennifer. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: 5.E.1 I thought was a little awkward. I wasn't sure why you 19
wanted to limit it to—why it ever said on weekend mornings. I guess I'd open it up a 20
little bit more and say something like "partner with PAUSD to open middle and high 21
school recreation facilities for community use (basketball, badminton, blah, blah, blah) 22
during the evening, weekend and summer hours." I don't think that changes the 23
substance of it. It just felt a little confusing. That's all I have on "5." 24
25
Chair Lauing: My only comment on "5" is I think 5.A.7 is a really good add, minimize 26
impacts to wildlife. I think it's really nicely tersely stated. Anyone down here have any 27
comments? "6," (inaudible) on there. Anne or Jim? 28
29
Commissioner Cowie: (inaudible) anything. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: No. (inaudible) 32
33
Commissioner Cowie: You do? Go ahead. 34
35
Commissioner Cribbs: I did. I like the addition of the redline at the bottom, 6.D.18, a 36
lot. 37
38
Commissioner Cowie: I love 6.D.18. Love it and would love to see that put into effect. 39
I think it's a brilliant idea and could have a major positive impact on the community. 40
41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to follow up on that. Given your enthusiasm for 6.D.18, 1
should we maybe move it up in a programmatic section rather than burying it in the 2
maintenance section, maintenance and management? 3
4
Commissioner Cribbs: I would love to see that happen. I think it's a great vision to put 5
in people's minds and give people an opportunity to do something about a problem that 6
everybody complains about. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: Can we do that? 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: We can. I was wondering if it would fit under Goal 3, because Goal 3 does 11
talk about social connections. That's one thing that I had added to that new program, that 12
it would establish those neighborhood social connections. I'm not sure if that entirely fits 13
in that location. I agree that putting it at the bottom of 6.D is sort of burying it a little bit. 14
Trying to find the right place for it. 15
16
Commissioner Hetterly: I think Goal 3 works pretty well. 17
18
Vice Chair Knopper: Goal 3, it would work with the social connection aspect of it, for 19
sure. 20
21
Commissioner Hetterly: I have other comments on "6" if nobody .... 6.G, I keep asking 22
to include the Baylands Master Plan on that list of plans. I'm assuming that it's not for a 23
reason, but I'd like to know what it is. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: I think because it's a future plan, and it's already addressed in another. 26
27
Mr. Anderson: There's an older document. 28
29
Ms. O'Kane: You're referring to that older ... 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: An existing Baylands Master Plan. I would like to add that. On 32
the back page, Policy 6.J, about the asset management program. It has sort of an 33
awkward program under it about researching what other people are doing. I would move 34
that policy to a program under Policy 2.A, instead of back there, because it's about 35
sustaining the community's investment in recreation facilities. As I understood the asset 36
management program, it was designed to keep track of what we had to do in order to 37
sustain those investments and make it happen. Right? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Mm-hmm. 40
41
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be my suggestion. You don't need a program under it. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
1
Chair Lauing: Any others on "6"? 2
3
Commissioner Reckdahl: In looking back at 2.A, right now it just calls out recreation 4
facilities. Is that intentional, that you didn't want parks in there? 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: I think we could add parks to 2.A. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I think we should. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: We don't have an equivalent version of that for parks anywhere 11
else? I don't see it. 12
13
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't think so. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: I think that makes sense. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Also, like 2.A.2, do you also want to call out—they talk about 18
recreation facilities. Do you want to say parks and recreation facilities or do we ... 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: Just take out "recreational." Either way. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Anything on those or should we move to the ad hoc policy changes, 23
suggestions? 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: I do have some unredlined comments. Do you want me to hold 26
those 'til after we do the ad hoc? 27
28
Chair Lauing: Yeah, maybe, just to make sure they aren't covered. The ad hoc met a 29
couple of times. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: Did everyone get a redline version? There's a redline over on 32
the table. 33
34
Chair Lauing: I think sort of the driving things (inaudible) policy additions and then 35
what comes after that. We keep wanting to keep this really strategic and thinking about 36
the next 25 years and as much as possible now and in the future get all these decisions 37
and prioritizations driven by hard data where that's available. That sometimes means that 38
we need to repeat it 5 years from now or whatever. There's some of that in here. We 39
really feel like we want to be able to prioritize by demand and need for these things, not 40
just impressions. We took a look at some of the policies and thought there were some 41
additions that would address those kinds of questions. Also, there were some things that 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
were left out as the Commission at the last meeting actually noted. The first change that 1
we're suggesting is 1.G. By the way, this is the ad hoc, just to remind you again. 1.G 2
says "every 5 years quantitatively evaluate demand and capacity of major recreation 3
facilities specifically including pools, gyms, tennis courts, teen centers, appropriate 4
attention to geographical distribution and adjust plans as appropriate to accommodate 5
significant demographic or demand changes." That's to capture that something's going to 6
change in the next 25 years. We don't know what it is. I had a CFO once who said, "I 7
know this budget is wrong. I just don't know where in terms of what's going to happen in 8
the next year," which is totally correct. That's one that we suggest. You other two just 9
jump in on these as we mention them. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: Could I jump in on that one, Ed? 12
13
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 14
15
Commissioner Cowie: The only thing I would ask that we consider is that we say "at 16
least every 5 years." That way, you're not locking yourself into exactly 5. There might 17
be some big real estate development that's bringing in a bunch of people, and you don't 18
want to wait 5 years to do it. 19
20
Chair Lauing: I think that's really good. 21
22
Commissioner Cowie: That's a comment I would make on all of the sections that say 23
"every 5 years" or every whatever. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Or every 2 years or whatever. 26
27
Commissioner Cowie: Whatever period, I would just say "at least every." 28
29
Chair Lauing: Yeah. "A minimum of" or whatever the correct wording should be. The 30
next one is 4.A.2. We've had a lot of discussion about that around this conference table. 31
I wanted to present it tonight. Let's make sure that that's part of the educational process. 32
We added "modern, interactive exhibits," which we've also talked about. Let's use the 33
multimedia and not just have a few dead squirrels up there. Let's really try to learn some 34
stuff at those interpretive centers. The next ones are over on 5.C. I'm sorry, 5.D. This is 35
a whole new policy, because we wanted to call out that as we acquire or create new 36
land—we were all credited for creating 10 1/2 acres in Palo Alto when we were able to 37
have that land bank created with the golf course. I say collectively, Council and 38
everybody said we created 10 1/2 acres, which we did. We are feeling that it's important 39
to spend the appropriate amount of time and study figuring out the best usage of that, 40
because you can't make 10 1/2 acres every day. We created a suggested policy here. 41
With those that are big projects, as specified there, detailed consideration should be given 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
to those three as examples. As I said, 10 years from now, there'll be three more there 1
maybe. I think also embedded in here is an understanding that we don't have all the 2
answers yet. As we try to get this Master Plan to closure, the suggestion is that we need 3
more data and also that there's no hurry. Let's do it right. We said that already to Council 4
in the study session on the 7.7, which was a controversial message to them. We 5
understand that, but we only get to do this once usually, so let's be diligent about it. 6
That's the context of that one. Comments there, because this is a significant add? 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: I think maybe Cubberley doesn't belong there since that's not a 9
new acquisition. I think the intention of including it was Cubberley is a big chunk that 10
we haven't done what we need to do around. I would say maybe take that out—don't 11
make it a program under newly acquired parkland. Along with Commissioner Cribbs' 12
comments, pump up the Cubberley piece over in 2.A. 13
14
Vice Chair Knopper If you change the policy wording a little bit, you can keep it there 15
and also put it in 2.A. Instead of just "explore best uses for newly acquired parkland," 16
"explore best uses for parkland that hasn't"—I don't know. I'm trying to wordsmith late 17
at night. Synapses not firing. For parks that don't have a specific designated need or 18
designated ... We haven't figured out what the 10.5 is going to look like yet or the 7.7, 19
and we haven't figured out what Cubberley really is going to be yet either, what it's going 20
to morph to. What I'm suggesting is we just kind of reword. If anybody has words .... 21
22
Chair Lauing: What would you—you worked on Cubberley for a while. What would 23
you call that if you were going to redo the policy statement there? If it's not acquired 24
parkland. 25
26
Commissioner Hetterly: I wouldn't. I would move it to 2.A and make it a policy with ... 27
28
Chair Lauing: Already heard that one. Now we're just saying if you were going to 29
include it here, is there a way to do that or you just think it's ... 30
31
Commissioner Hetterly: Explore best uses of newly acquired parkland. It's neither 32
parkland nor newly acquired. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Let's look at the goals, Goal 2 and Goal 5, in the blue text and 35
look just at the description of the goal to try and figure out where Cubberley would 36
belong. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Go ahead, Jim. 39
40
Commissioner Cowie: I have an attempt at answering your question, Ed. I know the 41
word "exploit" or "exploitation" or "exploiting" seems odd in the context of natural space. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
I think the concept is actually take advantage of the assets that we have, whether they're 1
newly acquired or existing doesn't really matter. I think that theme applies to all three of 2
those sub-bullets, that we haven't taken advantage of the assets that we have to their 3
fullest capacity, whether it's Cubberley or the other space. I think you could have a 4
consistent theme that way. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Go ahead, Rob. 7
8
Rob de Geus: I support Commissioner Hetterly's suggestion that it go in Goal 2. I think 9
it fits better there. In the goal, it talks about capacity and other things. The Cubberley 10
item, I think, would be more meaningful in Goal 2 as I read it. 11
12
Chair Lauing: That's cool. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: I had mentioned—when I was reading this on 5.D.2, the "over time," I 15
don't know why we would say "over time." My hope would be that we include in the 16
Master Plan some specific guidance, direction on what we might do on the 10.5 acres. It 17
actually feels like now is the time at least to take a first shot at that. I would say the same 18
thing with Cubberley to the extent that we can do that. 19
20
Chair Lauing: The reason that that's there, I think, from the ad hoc's perspective—it's a 21
good debate—is the question about do we have enough hard data to suggest that there are 22
needs that are obvious versus it should remain a land bank within the best meaning of that 23
word so that it's a land asset that sits there until we really know how we want to use it. 24
That's why that says that, meaning in the next 3 months before this Plan is approved, I 25
don't know if we can come up with enough—you can have a list this long of options for 26
there, but there's not to my knowledge and to the ad hoc's knowledge any data that says 27
this is the perfect usage because there are these demographic changes and these growth 28
changes and that kind of stuff. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: I don't know that we'll ever have perfect data. We've been at this for a year 31
and a half, talking with the community about parks and recreation and interests and 32
needs. I don't know at what point we'll have more information than now to at least put 33
something up there as a recommendation. It may not be that specific. For example, a 34
couple of things that have come across are multiuse athletic fields; rectangular fields in 35
particular seem to be of high interest. I was talking to Daren about this today, more 36
natural spaces and natural areas for habitat. That's a big thing. It seems to me at least 37
those two things ought to be considered for the 10 1/2 acres and maybe others. If I was 38
on Council, I would want to hear from this Parks Master Plan what are we thinking for 39
the 10.5 acres. If we go and say we still don't know and it's really just a land bank, I don't 40
think that'll be very satisfying even for us. I would like to take the time now to start ... 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Commissioner Hetterly: I agree with that. I think our expectation when we started the 1
Master Plan was that there was going to be focused attention to these three issues in 2
particular were identified as critical priorities to sort out the details and come up with a 3
plan. I think that the planning process so far has kind of left those on the side, because 4
those are some of the hard ones to deal with. I think the reason the ad hoc wanted to add 5
it here is to make sure that somewhere in this Plan there's something about those three 6
things that we thought were important. I would argue that we should say more than what 7
it says here and actually at least identify a next step in how we're going to determine the 8
optimal usage if we can't come up with a recommendation based on the analysis that's 9
already been done. Just so that there's a clear path forward for how we're going to answer 10
these questions. 11
12
Commissioner Cribbs: I like the three that you've chosen there altogether. I'd like not to 13
move them any place, not to move Cubberley. I think these are the three that are the crux 14
of what we need to think about and actually have a path, at least a suggestion to continue 15
the conversation. The conversations have been going on for a long time. It would be 16
great to have some definite things. By leaving them altogether, they stand out for me. I 17
like it that way. Maybe we change the wording in the policy to take out the newly 18
acquired parkland and just call it something else. I'm not sure what it is. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: That'd be okay. If I had my way, I don't know that I would 21
include them necessarily as a policy, but I would call them out—I would highlight them 22
in the Master Plan discussion, saying these are three key priorities of the community that 23
we have to figure out what to do with and this is what we think is important at those 24
various sites. 25
26
Vice Chair Knopper: If we do that for the 10.5, which I completely, respectfully 27
understand why you're mentioning that, they're going to say what about the 7.7. We 28
know that we put that on hold until the hydrologic study comes back, which we haven't 29
done yet because that got delayed. These are all hot button issues for individual Council 30
Members. How much do we want to make specific suggestions? Rob. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: I think some specificity is required. I would like to see—we're going to 33
talk about this—the concept plans' high-level potential amenities. I'd like to see the 10.5 34
acres sort of represented there with the Baylands Athletics Center as a campus and what 35
could we do. It may not be specific, and I don't think we'll design it exactly, but say here 36
are the themes that came through our process that we think ought to be considered. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: Here's some options. We may look at those and say none of 39
those options work for us, but at least we (inaudible) something. 40
41
Mr. de Geus: It's a good starting point. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: The thing that bothers me about the Baylands Athletic 2
Complex is that we're going to lose a lot of land where that gravel parking lot is. That's 3
going to have ripple effects even independent of this 10.5 acres. I'm not sure if we even 4
have enough land to get vehicle access down to the softball fields anymore. That's a 5
(inaudible) we have to chew on. 6
7
Chair Lauing: We'll have to come back to that one at some point. The reason that it said 8
newly acquired parkland is it was kind of tying back to as we acquire new parkland, 9
which is also in there, we don't have to before we acquire it say this is what we're going 10
to use it for. The value of having more parkland is fine, and then we can backfill to 11
should that be a neighborhood park or should we do something special in there. That was 12
also part of what was in that pithy little policy statement. I understood why you might 13
want it to be changed. The next one is 6.A. Again, here you could say "at least every 5 14
years actively review demographic, trends of City population by segment for critical 15
drivers of facility usage." Again, we called out some of the specifics there, teens, seniors, 16
ethnic groups. 17
18
Commissioner Hetterly: We'd add "at least" at the front of that? 19
20
Chair Lauing: Following Jim's new policy, yeah. On 6.B.2, which is under the cost 21
recovery policy for recreation programs, there's a suggestion that we state that we want to 22
invest in and market City facilities to increase revenue, which of course is what cost 23
recovery is about. That's kind of generic. We didn't name facilities at this point or 24
budget or anything. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: Before we leave this document, this is not a part of a redline. If 27
we look at 5.F.4, is there another way to say that, that might be more diplomatic? Work 28
with Stanford to create or increase access to athletic facilities and other recreational 29
facilities for Palo Alto residents. 30
31
Chair Lauing: What's undiplomatic? 32
33
Commissioner Cribbs: If I were Stanford and I was reading this ... 34
35
Mr. de Geus: You could say "mutually beneficial." 36
37
Vice Chair Knopper: "Partner with." 38
39
Commissioner Cribbs: Pardon me? 40
41
Mr. de Geus: "Mutually beneficial." 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
1
Commissioner Cribbs: Something like some mutual kind of discussion (inaudible). 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: "Collaborate with Stanford" or "partner with Stanford." 4
5
Chair Lauing: "Partner with" is close, but maybe you can work on it. I think that was the 6
only one. If those are all added, it just kind of shifts a few of the policies to different 7
numbers, because these get in there, like 5.D and 6.A. Everything else stays that we've 8
already gone over; these would just be added. Are these acceptable to the Commission, 9
that these be added to the working document? 10
11
Mr. Anderson: Could I just ask? If staff's able to come back to you with—I don't want to 12
call it a design concept for the 10 1/2 acres, that might alter that, if you found that it was 13
in keeping with the rest of the concept plans and maybe doesn't need to be its own 14
standalone. 15
16
Chair Lauing; I think the suggestion around the table here that we should have some 17
options, maybe that aren't all spec'ed out or budgeted out but there are options, is fine for 18
that. 19
20
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think I'd still want it called out. Just to remind us that this is 21
a big thing, you can't be above it, don't take your eyes off of it. 22
23
Chair Lauing: I'm just not clear on what you're saying. What needs to be called out? 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: The 10.5 acres. Daren is saying that if they in their book 26
added another page for the 10 1/2 acres to provide options for it, do we need to have this 27
explicitly called out in 5.D. My opinion is that it should be explicitly called out in 5.3, 28
the 10.5 acres—I shouldn't use pronouns here. The 10.5 acres should be explicitly called 29
out in 5.D regardless of what other work we do on the 10.5 acres. I think it's a big deal, 30
and we just have to make sure that it's explicitly stated. 31
32
Chair Lauing: I'd go with that. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's my opinion. 35
36
Chair Lauing: As long as we're back on that point, to me the distinction between the 7.7 37
and 10.5 is massive, because the 7.7 is already in Foothills. It's clearly going to be 38
contained. It's X miles away in terms of access. That should be an easier opportunity to 39
work on. The 10 1/2 acres, I kind of put on my stewardship hat when I think about that. 40
I think we have all collectively in this City created 10 1/2 acres; let's make sure we're 41
using it for the right things. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
1
Mr. de Geus: I agree. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Kind of going a little bit slower on that would be what my judgment 4
would suggest. 5
6
Mr. de Geus: If it helps, we don't have any funding to do anything on the 10 1/2 acres. 7
8
Chair Lauing: That always helps. 9
10
Vice Chair Knopper: I think there's a bullet point about private funding somewhere. 11
12
Chair Lauing: The other stuff that the ad hoc talked about and talked about with Kristen 13
is going into—when we get into the outline of the Plan and how it's eventually going to 14
be written, again if there's demographic, population, verifiable data that's driving that, 15
that should be really up front. What I think of is sort of the findings in this section. 16
Here's what's driving some of these decisions. Some of that can be recreational trends 17
like pickleball or whatever. That is also true, that we're reacting to recreational trends. 18
That's in your note that you just put out too. To the extent that this whole thing is going 19
to have credibility, it needs to be data driven and not just five people showing up at the 20
community center and telling folks what they like. That one, and then it goes on to major 21
gaps in community preferences, as we've been talking about here. Those tend to be the 22
drivers. Some things just need more research before we can really move on them. I 23
know you guys also have the prioritization scoring and budgeting yet to be done. I don't 24
know actually where that is on the time table, but that's crucial because ultimately I think 25
tonight we could all raise our hand and come up with the top ten things to do, that nobody 26
would disagree with because they are obvious. Some are directly data driven and some 27
are just an up-swelling of community support and so on. It's those next 50 that are going 28
to be harder. You asked about the evaluation or scoring system beyond what's there. The 29
ad hoc is suggesting that we need something a little bit more than that. When you're at 30
low, medium and high and then after that it kind of tails off to we have to look at timing 31
and we have to look at budgets, that's all true, but that's a little tactical compared to in a 32
strategic Master Plan what do we want to put forth collectively to Council and say this is 33
what we need to do, now we've got to figure it out. I don't know where you go to get 34
beyond low, medium and high. It feels like there ought to be something, because 5 years 35
from now, at least 5 years from now, you have to look at it again and say what does the 36
next 25 years look like. Our suggestion is we do need to see more of a—I don't want to 37
use the word scoring, but how are you going to prioritize these things? It's not a new 38
question. Let's work on that. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: It's a typical problem, I think. I think it's impossible to create an 41
implementation plan for 20 years really. In reality, we're going to have to do several 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
plans along the way. The further you go out, the less data you have and you know things 1
are going to change. We can make sort of an implementation execution plan that's the 2
Master Plan for the next 3 years. Then, we have to reassess what's changed, what's 3
different. I don't think we can plan out in any great detail 20 years of how these are 4
going to be prioritized. That's my sense. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Don't you think there's a material difference between what the priorities 7
are and, frankly, if you can get them done in the next 10 years? If we had done some 8
research that showed that we didn't have a golf course and the City thought it was a 9
phenomenal idea and then we looked at the budget and said we're not going to get $11 10
million to put a golf course out there, we're putting up an $11 million golf course. Of 11
course, that's just a revision. As I just said, you always have to take into account timing 12
and what else is going on that you might leverage some of that stuff. If it's strategic, it's 13
strategic. That seems like it should still be the focus, and some of these tactical things 14
you absolutely have to just go with it year by year. 15
16
Vice Chair Knopper: May I ask a question? You guys might have covered this last 17
month. This is a lot of data. This is something that we've been living with for 18, 19 18
months. There are days it's mind-boggling for me still with the different nuances. What 19
is the expectation of the Council Members of what the document we're presenting at our 20
study session in September, what are they expecting to see? In my opinion, to give 21
them—I know Peter's very proud of that binder, and he's not here. That is a big binder, 22
and there's a lot of information. It's not streamlined; that's a working document. As a 23
Council person, it would be untenable. What is that expectation? Do you know? 24
25
Mr. de Geus: You want to go ahead? 26
27
Ms. O'Kane: I'll start. When Planning went to Council with the Community Services 28
Element of the Comprehensive Plan, we're gauging a little bit on Council's comments on 29
that chapter of the Comp Plan. We assume we'll get similar comments on the Master 30
Plan. One of those comments was when will things be done and how much is this going 31
to cost. I think Council would be hesitant to approve a 20-year Master Plan without 32
knowing what am I approving, when is this going to be done and how much is this going 33
to cost the City. From that perspective, I think they would definitely be looking for that. 34
As Rob said, I agree that it's difficult to say in 15 years we're going to need a new 35
swimming pool in south Palo Alto, because we don't know in 15 years if we're going to 36
need that. Those are the types of things that are hard to prioritize now. To put that into 37
the Master Plan, I think the hope is that Council isn't looking for that level of detail. 38
Where we're headed, I think, is to say that these are the things like the first 5 years. We 39
can really hone in on the first 5 years and what we think we could prioritize in those 5 40
years. Post the 5 years, we're going to get a little bit more gray as far as what the 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
prioritization is. We're hoping that Council would support that structure. Do you have 1
anything to add, Rob? 2
3
Mr. de Geus: I agree with that. I would say also that what we're going over here is sort 4
of the meat of the Plan, the goals, policies and programs. That's all of the other 5
supporting materials that feeds this and gets us to this point. This is where they're going 6
to focus, which is not that dense. That's why we're spending a lot of time on it. They 7
want to appreciate that the goals feel right for their understanding of the community and 8
their network, and the policies and programs are the right ones that are going to advance 9
those goals. I'm sure they'll have edits, but that's (inaudible). 10
11
Chair Lauing: What do you think they're going to be looking for in terms of the way that 12
we prioritize the projects over the next 10 years? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: Remind me. I think we did share with them our criteria already, that the 15
community preferences are very high gaps, and filling gaps was the highest need, those 16
five. We got good support from them on that already. As we think about the next 5 years 17
and then beyond in terms of prioritization, that's the filter that we'll be looking through. 18
That's the one that staff's continuing to go back to as we think about what should go first. 19
20
Chair Lauing: The study session that you're going to do now is 3 months away. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: It's unfortunate. We really wanted to get to them before the break, but 23
(crosstalk). 24
25
Chair Lauing: Sort of two things. One is that we all collectively want to do the wrong 26
things for 90 days and also that it'd be great if we had all the right things ready to go to 27
make you look good. The one thing I suggested to Kristen is maybe you guys should sit 28
down with the Mayor and go over this and say, "Are we on the right track?" I'm happy to 29
come or not come. Just so we have that kind of guideline, because that's—as you say, 30
this is accessible. If he goes, "What? That's not what I want to see in September," then 31
that's one thing. If he goes, "Right on, just make it a little bit more detailed, and we're 32
ready to go." 33
34
Mr. de Geus: I think that's a good idea. Maybe the Mayor and Vice Mayor together and 35
have a couple of you join us. That'd be good. We always worry about getting too far 36
ahead of the Council and trying to find that—they're busy with a lot of things. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I think he could give good direction and has been attentive to what we do. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: I would hope that we could spend—given that we have a little bit more 41
time, perhaps we can use that time to think a little deeper about the 10 1/2 acres, 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Cubberley and see if there's anything more we can add as a staff and Commission with 1
respect to what we might do there that would help support the Master Plan. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Not being able to meet with Council for 90 days gives you the right door 4
opener to Mayor Burt to say, "Let's just do a 30-minute chat with you." 5
6
Mr. de Geus: I'll mention that to the City Manager. That's a good idea. We did think 7
about sending forward an information report that had this in it. After reflecting on it, I 8
was not comfortable with it, because he needs to put it in some context as to how we got 9
there. If they just read that, I think that wouldn't have gone well because we have gone a 10
long way here. We didn't do that. I like this idea of a sit-down where we can just walk it 11
through. 12
13
Chair Lauing: You could test the level of specificity on budgets and on programs. 14
You've got programs of partnering with the boys and girls scouting organizations. That's 15
specific, and if that's what they want, that's great. If they go, "We don't need that," then 16
great info. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: One thing that really bothers me about the Master Plan right 19
now is it's a 20-year Master Plan; it's not a 3-year Master Plan. All the demographics are 20
just talking about how demographics have changed previously. There's no projections at 21
all going forward. When we went to Council in January—was it—the demographics 22
portion just was looking backwards. It's like we're driving through the rearview mirror. 23
There's no projections of how demographics are going to change going forward. If we're 24
not going to do that, then make it a 3-year Master Plan. If we really are trying to say this 25
is a 20-year Master Plan, then we need some demographic projections, both population 26
and age and other characteristics going forward. That's lacking right now. 27
28
Ms. O'Kane: It will be in there. Find the right data and using the right data and ensuring 29
we're using the same data as the Comprehensive Plan is important. It will be part of the 30
Master Plan. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's very good. One of the things is that they talked in the—33
I pulled up a packet that we went over in January on demographics. They talked about 34
aging population. Trees don't grow to the sky. Aging populations don't continue to age. 35
After a while, they either move out or die. You have new residents replace them. You, at 36
some point, will start getting younger; that would be quite possible for the next 20 years. 37
If we now are beefing up all of our senior stuff because we think we're going to have this 38
onset of huge number of seniors, and they all pack up, sell their houses, and move to 39
Sacramento, all of a sudden we may have a bunch of preschoolers. We may be building 40
up the wrong programs. I think it's crucial that we really try to at least give a shot at 41
what's going to happen. Predictions are very hard. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
1
Commissioner Cribbs: There was a study that was done—is it 2009, Rob—on the aging 2
of Palo Alto. 3
4
Mr. de Geus: A white paper by Richard James and Lisa Hendrickson. 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: It may be a little old now. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: This being subsequent studies to that. There is quite a lot of data about the 9
aging population and also about Palo Alto in particular, that they age in place and stay 10
here. Over the next certainly decade, we're going to see significant increases in the senior 11
population. That data is pretty clear. 12
13
Chair Lauing: There's school data. 14
15
Mr. de Geus: The school data, they go 5 years out and not much further. It becomes very 16
fuzzy after that. The current thinking of the School District is they don't need to add any 17
additional schools. The data does not support that, even for Cubberley. 18
19
Commissioner Hetterly: They also don't anticipate the same amount of new housing that 20
the City is starting to plan for. That'll change too. 21
22
Chair Lauing: All these things, to support Keith's point, affect important decisions like 23
how many more athletic fields we need. If there isn't a growing population of kids, then 24
we don't need athletic fields. If we want more variety but there's not really demand, that's 25
okay. Let's give the Council the data to say this is a "nice to have," not an absolute "we 26
have to have" this. Perfectly acceptable. They need some real data to consider that. Any 27
other things on these policies? Otherwise, we're going to move to the ... 28
29
Commissioner Hetterly: I have a ... 30
31
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. We did say that we would come back to Commissioner 32
Hetterly. 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: There are not many or huge. Page Number 6, Program 2.B.3 35
suggests pop-up open mikes in open space. I think maybe we want to change that to 36
parks. Page 9, convene and lead a—Program 3.A.1 about the Healthy Community 37
stakeholder work group, you might want to include citizen representation in that group. 38
Finally, there are a couple of places where you mention neighborhood parks. One of 39
them was Policy 5.A on page 12, which is about activating underused parks. 5.A.5 is 40
"invite and encourage local businesses to use them for weekly or monthly outings and 41
lunches." Is that something we—is that sort of a marketing endeavor that we want to 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
target only to underused parks or are we looking to invite and encourage greater business 1
use of all parks? I would argue underused parks because later on there's a section about 2
limiting private ... 3
4
Ms. O'Kane: Private events. 5
6
Commissioner Hetterly: Thank you. I was going to say (inaudible), and I know that's not 7
the right word. Just think about that. I don't have strong feelings about it, but it was 8
unclear. On page 13, this is my last comment. Policy 5.C, this is under Goal 5 about 9
innovative programs, services and strategies for expanding the system. Policy 5.C is 10
"expand the parks and rec system for repurposing of land," blah, blah, blah. It kind of 11
stands here as the only expansion piece for park-related parkland in this goal. It made me 12
wonder about Policy 1.B, which is the parkland standard and a bunch of other expansion 13
things. Is this redundant to having it here when it's basically a summary of the variety of 14
strategies identified in Goal 1? 15
16
Ms. O'Kane: Rob and I have talked about whether 1.B belongs in Goal 1 or is it more 17
appropriate to put that in Goal 5, because it is about expansion. Goal 1 talks about 18
geographic distribution. We've gone back and forth on that. 19
20
Commissioner Hetterly: I don't know if you need this as a policy here in Goal 5 or if you 21
just include a reference to the park expansion efforts identified in Goal 1 or you just leave 22
it as it is. It's a little confusing, having the same thing in two different places in a much 23
smaller form. That's all. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Is that it? 26
27
Commissioner Hetterly: Mm-hmm. 28
29
Chair Lauing: The next segment of this Master Plan is to kind of review and comment on 30
the—what are they called? Site plans? 31
32
Ms. O'Kane: Actually before that ... 33
34
Commissioner Hetterly: The outline. 35
36
Vice Chair Knopper: The outline. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I'm sorry. 39
40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
Ms. O'Kane: We included the draft outline just to obtain feedback. It is fairly high level. 1
This describes what the overall structure and format of the Master Plan is going to look 2
like. We're open to any feedback or comments on the outline at this time. 3
4
Commissioner Hetterly: I have some comments on the outline. 5
6
Chair Lauing: Commissioner Hetterly. 7
8
Commissioner Hetterly: My immediate takeaway was that we have basically 62 pages of 9
text and then 40 pages of the site plans and the appendix. Out of that 62 pages, only 24 10
of it was newsworthy. There's a lot of pages dedicated to describing the process, 11
describing the system. If I were sitting on Council, I would want to know the what, the 12
why and the how. That, to me, is the needs, and opportunities is the why, why are we 13
doing anything. That, I think, needs to—I don't know if 12-16 pages is sufficient space to 14
cover that. I think that's where you want to have more than just what was in the City 15
Council January presentation. In terms of key findings, you want to get into the kind of 16
stuff that Commissioner Lauing was talking about, about what are the unmet needs and 17
the gaps, what are the community preferences, what are the changing demographics, 18
basically asking the question why we need a Plan. The answer is we need a Plan because 19
we have these gaps and these unmet needs and these desires in the community. I think it 20
needs to flesh that out thoroughly in this section so that we'll know why we want to do 21
anything. I think the policies and programs that we just talked about are kind of the what, 22
what we're going to do to address those needs and exploit those opportunities, and these 23
are the policies and programs we've identified. The implementation, which is very short, 24
is how we're going to do it. I expected the implementation section to be much meatier, 25
because it's the action plan, the what are we going to do. We know this is what we want. 26
We know this is how we want to get there and what are the steps. I would expect to see 27
in implementation the short, medium, long-term vision. That might even include, Rob, if 28
you're talking about realistically we can only plan for 3 years, but we might want to 29
highlight in the implementation plan there's a decent chance that given demographics or 30
shifting populations, that we're going to want to add a pool at some point within the next 31
15 years or consider a new gym. These are big ticket items that are in the medium or 32
long-term that we ought to start planning for now in case we do want to move forward 33
with them. Also, the money, the budget estimates for the various projects, we haven't 34
seen and that's still yet to be done. I would think that would go there. I would expect the 35
implementation section to also cover things like the 7.7 acres and the 10 1/2 acres and 36
Cubberley. I think that Section 7 would be a meaty section, not a flimsy section. That's 37
it. 38
39
Vice Chair Knopper: I think this document would be a perfect opportunity, Rob, for the 40
meeting that you and Ed were just talking about with regard to the Mayor and Vice 41
Mayor to come in, again trying to align their expectation of what they're going to be 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
seeing, what order and say, "This is what we're thinking the outline should look like of 1
the presentation. What do you think?" I thought Jennifer made some very valid points. 2
You're probably going to want to put up front the implementation or put closer to—they 3
know the summary. They know why we did a Master Plan. Make that shorter and you 4
get to the point. They want to see the meat and the potatoes of all the money they spent 5
with the consultant and the outreach in the community. Maybe the Mayor can say, "Why 6
don't we move this up front, because I know Council Members would be more interested 7
in that?" I just think this would be a useful working document for that meeting. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Your comments were virtually identical to what I was going to say. I just 10
want to add two words as the only adds. I think the highlighting of the key findings, 11
which you have written in here, is absolutely correct for the needs and opportunities. The 12
first thing that's on there is demographic and recreation trend analysis, which we've been 13
talking about. That's totally critical. Under policies, programs and projects, the only 14
thing there is that it seems like that's where you want to state the major priorities, at least 15
the top 15 because you know that's going to come out. I would somewhere get the word 16
"priority" in there. I agree, also word for word, that that is very short. In the 17
implementation, I'd rather see sort of this little timeline that we go over, where there's 18
these projects in a 5-year, 10-year and 15-year range. Maybe the implementation is 19
actually even an appendix, so you're not down to the level of signing up the boy scouts to 20
do the maintenance or whatever. You're showing that here's the 15 and 25-year plan, 21
where these things are probably going to fall, what we now know, but that pool could 22
move out 8 years. I'd like to see that as kind of the framework almost for the 23
implementation and less details. Maybe you can get it into 6-8 pages. I was almost 24
identical with what you said. Others? Other comments? Keith, on the outline? The site 25
concept plans. I put a check mark there when we hadn't covered the Master Plan outline 26
yet. We can now move to the site plans. Kristen and Keith and I talked about this a little 27
bit. What they're looking for here is kind of a high-level of things, not a review of 22 28
parks, because each park will come back to us for a full. We might not see these parks 29
again for 5 years based on where they are in the Plan. I think the comments they're 30
looking for are exceptional things. For example, the style now is to have the older kids' 31
playground and the newer kids' playground together. If you think that's terrible, now 32
would be a good time to know that. If there's something else that you think is fantastic, 33
that looks new, that's the kind of highlights, I think, that we're looking for, not page by 34
page through this. At least that's what we discussed. That works for you? 35
36
Mr. Anderson: The only thing I'd chime in on that is something Rob and I discussed 37
today. There should be nothing that's a surprise in those concept plans. They should all 38
be populated through these programs. There shouldn't be any difference there. 39
Everything you concur with here should be (inaudible). There might be things that don't 40
apply, like a policy perhaps that isn't relevant to a concept plan. Everything else should 41
be something you've seen and talked about and be correctly matched. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
1
Mr. de Geus: Related to that is if there's something in here that's specific, but it's not 2
represented in any of the concept plans, then that would be another gap we'd want to see. 3
4
Chair Lauing: If we missed water play or something in parks. 5
6
Ms. O'Kane: At the May meeting, I think everyone who wanted one of these—it's the 7
book of the plan—took one away. I know there were two Commissioners that weren't 8
there. If you'd like one, I can pass them down to you. I also have them here online. If 9
we want to look at a particular park, I can pull it up on the screen. Could I do a little bit 10
of an introduction first? I do want to just remind everyone that what you see in the 11
concept plan is not necessarily everything that would happen in the park system. It's all 12
conceptual. They're all potential. What we did is we took information that we received 13
from the community outreach process and all the data that we have, and we said these are 14
the things that, based on that community outreach, could go in a park or these are the 15
things that—there isn't another park in the area that provides this amenity, so this may be 16
a good park to put it in. What do you think? We can't emphasize that enough. If you 17
look at some of the parks, like Hoover Park, it looks like we're adding a lot of different 18
amenities to the park. That isn't the case. It's just these are the things that we think could 19
fit into that park based on what we've heard, based on what's happening around in that 20
neighborhood, so tell us your feedback. I just wanted to start out with that reminder. 21
22
Chair Lauing: If you just look at the drawings, we (inaudible) to about six blades of 23
grass. Although, most of those of things are actually already there. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: I will also add one other thing. We have been collecting comments from 26
the community, both in person at various venues and then also online. If the community 27
or anyone goes paloaltoparksplan.org which is the Master Plan website, all of the site 28
plans, the existing conditions and the potential amenities are shown on there. There's 29
also an electronic comment form that people can submit their comments to us. I think 30
right now we plan to keep that open until mid-July, mid to late-July, to get as many 31
comments as we can. We'll also have the books at the community centers and have our 32
office staff sort of engage people. Now is a really good time to do that with summer 33
camps going on. There is a lot of visitation at our community centers. We'll also have 34
them at the libraries. We're trying to get as much feedback as we can. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Would you send out another notice to the neighborhood 37
associations that this is open still? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: Yes, definitely. 40
41
Chair Lauing: (inaudible) to jump in. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had some comments. For the dog parks and restrooms, 2
Daren, you went through and did a nice job of saying where could we put this and where 3
does it make sense. There's other features like community gardens or picnic shelters. 4
Did you do similar things for those features? 5
6
Mr. Anderson: Yes. Not quite so holistically. With the dog park one, we literally 7
walked the parks and visualized it. We were kind of doing it concurrently and thinking 8
could a community garden also go there, but the focus was dog parks. I think yes, to 9
some degree it had the same analysis. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: For example, some of the layouts had covered picnic shelters. 12
Was it kind of arbitrary which parks had those and which ones had plain picnic areas or 13
was there some special reason why parks had picnic shelters and some had picnic areas? 14
15
Mr. Anderson: Some of it had to do with how much exposure there is, like tree canopy, 16
that kind of thing. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good question. I saw—I'm trying to find it now. I'm 19
not sure which one it was. It was creek access marked on a park where they had a 20
concrete creek next to it. With that, were we thinking that we could get permission to 21
have access? 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Peter had learned that at some point in the future, Public Works was 24
looking into naturalizing that creek. That would be much further down the line. 25
(crosstalk). 26
27
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do you remember which park that was? 28
29
Mr. Anderson: I want to say—I can dig it up. Give me a minute; I'll find it. I think it's 30
Boulware. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes, you're right. It is Boulware. I'd also noticed on Johnson 33
Park, the slide is very popular and it's unsafe. 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Maybe I can explain that one. That one is a tricky one. We've struggled 36
with it because it's not compliant. This is the large, concrete slide. It's very, very 37
popular. Many years ago, it fell out of compliance. More than a decade ago, they 38
disallowed that kind of thing. That's the reference to it not being safe; it's not compliant. 39
However, we think we've got a way to make it compliant. It's a little more difficult to 40
explain right now. Essentially you could add a mound to it to bring it into compliance. 41
We bring in some earth and reshape it a little bit. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is it unsafe because you can fall off the side? 2
3
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 4
5
Commissioner Reckdahl: The going down the slide portion is not considered unsafe? 6
7
Mr. Anderson: It's considered legal. You can have that. Different people have chimed 8
in from the community saying, "We don't care." The way it's actually used is kids will 9
bring up pieces of cardboard and stand up and surf down it. Safe is a relative thing. 10
11
Commissioner Reckdahl: My gut is that if this wasn't there and we tried to propose it, I 12
think there would be—there's no way we could get it through. Now, it's a tradition. If we 13
got rid of it, people would be upset. 14
15
Mr. Anderson: It's been discussed before and shot down. I think we've gotten creative 16
and can find a way to save it and make it accessible. 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Our lawyers are happy with that? 19
20
Mr. de Geus: They will be. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing is what about public art? What's the policy 23
towards public art? I've noticed a couple of parks have public art. Bowden Park has 24
that—that's right on Alma. Is our goal to have art in 10 percent of the parks or 90 percent 25
of the parks? What's the thought? 26
27
Mr. de Geus: I don't know that we have a percentage, but definitely more public art in 28
our park system. 29
30
Chair Lauing: We didn't specify it in the policy. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Is it represented in there at all? 33
34
Chair Lauing: It's in there. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: It should be. 37
38
Vice Chair Knopper: It is. 39
40
Mr. de Geus: That's what I thought. In working with the Public Art staff and that 41
Commission, we really want to be thinking about public art from the inception, 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
rethinking the design of a park itself so that it becomes part of the fabric of the design and 1
not just an afterthought where a piece of art is put on a pedestal somewhere in the park. 2
There's just some really creative artwork that's being designed and developed as part of 3
park spaces around the country. 4
5
Mr. Anderson: To that point, we specifically added $30,000 to the scope of the Baylands 6
Comprehensive Conservation Plan to add an element of public art in the master planning. 7
The way it's done currently—you might remember recently the Mercedes dealership on 8
Embarcadero was to add a piece of public art. The Public Art Director and lead staff had 9
said, "Wouldn't it make so much more sense to have it planned out for all the Baylands, 10
where different things would go if we were to add it? What time would be better to do it 11
than when you're looking at the entire preserve and planning out where it would be 12
acceptable, where it could send an interpretive message and where it could be in concert 13
with wildlife and habitat?" 14
15
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good point. You mentioned that—when I go up on 16
Byxbee, I still get disoriented up there. I go there quite often. When you get up top, all 17
of a sudden you're like, "Which way?" It's not orthogonal; things are kind of curvy. 18
Some of the public art really is nice points of reference. On the flat part there, if we 19
could have something that would be visible, that would help. When we get those islands 20
in, that will help with your bearings too. Public art isn't just to look at; it's also for 21
bearings. 22
23
Mr. de Geus: That's right. Good point. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing was adult fitness areas. I really like the concept 26
of adult fitness areas. I hardly ever see people using them. Am I just there at the parks at 27
the wrong time? In the mornings, are they being used? 28
29
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if we have any good, modern equipment. If you go to 30
Mountain View, they're very, very popular. What park is that? I can't think of the name 31
right now. The newer equipment and newer designs seem to get a lot more access and 32
use. 33
34
Mr. Anderson: Ours is circa 1980, late '70s park-horse style, really, really not interactive 35
or interesting or fun. The newer styles that I'm seeing—San Francisco is a great example 36
where it's almost like an outdoor gym. Rather than hitting the pull-up bar and then a mile 37
later getting to the leg-stretch station, you're there with a group of people doing 38
something interactive and social. That's the norm you're seeing, whether it be near a 39
child's playground where they've got four or five or six different pieces of athletic 40
equipment that could be used or like I'm describing in San Francisco where it's actually 41
like a little gym. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
1
Mr. de Geus: It's lower impact. 2
3
Mr. Anderson: Or a variety. That San Francisco one is actually kind of high-end, where 4
you're getting real athletes. Others are a little more welcoming to your first-time 5
exerciser. Both are good. 6
7
Chair Lauing: If I recall correctly, that didn't poll very well in our community 8
preferences. Maybe it's because they haven't seen equipment past 1980. 9
10
Commissioner Reckdahl: One spot I think would be good for adult fitness would be the 11
Baylands Athletic facility. You have all those people going out on the levee running or 12
biking. They might stop and stretch or exercise there. That right now is currently not in 13
the Plan. 14
15
Mr. Anderson: I might just add one little important piece to this. Although it didn't 16
maybe poll as high, an ongoing problem we've had for many years now is trainers and 17
people using playgrounds for athletic uses. Where this would be a perfect fit and since 18
we don't have it, they're out on a swing doing a modified version of a pushup or a dip or 19
something that's really not appropriate. We'd be addressing that problem too, should we 20
be adding these kind of facilities. 21
22
Commissioner Hetterly: I think there's also a growing interest in the senior population to 23
have that kind of facility, that's accessible to them. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Another thing about athletic facilities, whether it be a soccer 26
field or baseball field, having a small play structure nearby is useful. It's quite often 27
siblings that have to come—they're dragged along to the game, and they're just going stir 28
crazy in the stands. At Baylands, if they had a small play structure between the softball 29
and baseball field, I think that would get a lot of use. 30
31
Mr. de Geus: See, we're going to design that 10.5 acres in no time. 32
33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Even though the Baylands is kind of a strange place for a play 34
structure, I think it would get use. The last thing is I was looking at the layouts for Werry 35
Park and Cameron Park (inaudible) four parks in College Terrace. When we do a 36
remodel, do we do all four parks' design together or do we do them piecemeal? 37
38
Mr. Anderson: I think it could vary depending on the scope of those projects. 39
40
Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things is that, while sometimes you want to shift 41
stuff around and if you could swap one facility here, that might make the layout of the 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
whole thing better. I just was looking at them individually, and all these site plans were 1
listed individually. I don't know if we were thinking big picture when we laid the 2
layouts. That's it. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Comments on these? 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the fields, the 7
enhanced play level, Level 1 and Level 2. I think at Hoover Park, there's the softball, the 8
T-ball, the soccer. How is that all going to fit into those fields? 9
10
Mr. Anderson: Good question. The Level 1, Level 2 differentiation. The way we're 11
thinking about it—you saw that one policy where it said do a field analysis. Associated 12
with that, we'll be bringing it up to a higher level. It's rather expensive. We're looking at 13
that right now and how do we prioritize which field. For Hoover, for example, it might 14
be just a piece of it that's brought up to that really high, competitive level, where you 15
have to bring in new drainage, you have to bring in new irrigation and maybe even 16
enhanced maintenance practices to keep it to a certain level. There'd be a second level, 17
Level 2, where it might be more like what we're doing currently with some slight 18
modifications. We're kind of still playing with that. I don't know that that's fully dialed 19
in. Hoover specifically, which way would it go, I think we also probably need a little 20
more analysis, especially as we get to the prioritization stage where we put all the field 21
improvement options out there. Real quick you're at this number that's just not 22
sustainable. We need to whittle it down to something. I think we've got the outreach 23
done already to kind of guide us in the direction of focusing in on where you'd prioritize 24
those different levels. We just need to sit down and look at it a little more closely now. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: On the big bubble, for instance, if you have a number of different 27
kinds of sports going into that bubble, is it all going to go there or are you going to send 28
some sport someplace else? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. Some of it will be like El Camino where it's 31
multi. For example, that synthetic field is not soccer or lacrosse; it's both. Likely with 32
the south field at El Camino, it's not just softball; you could also play soccer there, 33
because that's a removable fence. I think to some degree some of those are intended that 34
they could both coexist in the same spot. I guess to Kristen's point earlier, the layout of 35
those bubbles doesn't have to necessarily be quite so precise as in this is a clear-cut 36
boundary on where this is going to go. I think it's meant to be a little bit flexible. If that 37
makes sense. 38
39
Commissioner Cribbs: I just was worrying that we were going to get fewer opportunities 40
within the bubbles. 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
Mr. Anderson: The intent is the other way around. 1
2
Commissioner Cribbs: I was hoping. 3
4
Chair Lauing: Is that it? 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah, for now. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Jim? Abbie? 9
10
Vice Chair Knopper: Just a quick question about the Rinconada pool. It says activity 11
area, expanded pool. Could you just talk about that whole pool area really quickly? 12
What are you thinking? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: The pool doesn't have a lot of seating area. It's really tight, and there's 15
hardly any grass area for people to sit or lay out a blanket. There's definitely some 16
interest in expanding just the space where people can gather and sit and do those types of 17
things. The other thing that we've heard from the pool users is the pool is not quite 18
regulation length. It's like ... 19
20
Commissioner Cribbs: This is true. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: ... a yard short or a foot short. I don't know precisely, but there's some ... 23
For the swimmers that are really athletes like Anne, that's frustrating, and for the 24
competitive swim team that uses the pool. There's an interest in making it regulation. 25
26
Commissioner Cribbs: One way it really hurts is if you're having a meet, and they have a 27
lot of meets at Rinconada. You start to certify the records that people break, and if the 28
pool is short or it's long, it's a problem to be certified. 29
30
Mr. de Geus: The buildings there—the locker rooms are old. The pool was renovated in 31
the 1990s, but the buildings are from the 1960s. They really need some work. We'd love 32
to put a—I think most of you have seen it. In the long-range plan for Rinconada Park is 33
to have a community room, like a fitness room there either on the second story where we 34
could have aerobics and other things throughout the day and evening there. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there enough room there to do a 50-meter pool? I know that 37
was kind of looked at when we renovated the pool before, and it didn't work. No? 38
39
Mr. de Geus: We haven't looked at it closely enough, but probably. 40
41
Commissioner Cribbs: I think there's room. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
1
Mr. de Geus: It all depends on what ... 2
3
Vice Chair Knopper: You've just got to take (inaudible). 4
5
Mr. de Geus: Rinconada Park, there's so much happening there. It's already squeezed as 6
we know with the Junior Museum discussion. 7
8
Chair Lauing: Did you have comments? 9
10
Commissioner Hetterly: Yep. I have heard of practically a million concerns from Bol 11
Park about that bike pump track. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: That's gone. 14
15
Ms. O'Kane: We have as well. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: All right, I'll leave that where it is. Also, the native habitat 18
areas, I want to make sure that they're located in places where they'll be most successful 19
for establishing habitat. I don't know all the science of where is best. People who do 20
should be consulted before putting them just where there's space, for example. For the 21
sports fields, my inclination for where you might prioritize Level 1 fields is where they 22
face the most arduous wear and tear. I would guess that's soccer primarily. I would start 23
with the soccer fields. If those are also lacrosse and baseball and softball fields at other 24
times, that's great. I wouldn't say don't do it because there's softball there. I think the 25
soccer fields would be, in my mind, a priority for the higher-durability fields. 26
Community gardens, I think, is one of those things that we value as a community, but we 27
want people to use them. They're best located near the homes of people who are going to 28
use them. I wonder if it doesn't make sense rather than picking places where they could 29
fit, setting up a program where a neighborhood could petition to look at their park for a 30
community garden, so that you're not building it until you know you have some demand 31
for it in that location. The other comment I've heard a lot of is "you're trying to do 32
everything in my park." I understand that's not the intention, but there is concern about 33
trying to do too much in one space. I'm wondering what is the next step for the concept 34
plans. Now, you've sort of thrown out "these are all the things that we think could be 35
viable," all types of activities for that park. When you get your feedback from whoever 36
you're getting it from, how do you then pick and choose? What's the next step? What 37
does the next iteration look like? 38
39
Ms. O'Kane: The next step is to, like you said, take all the feedback that we've heard. 40
Right now, we're also doing the implementation plan. We're putting together what will 41
things cost now and in the future. We're going to take all these pieces and put them 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
together and revise these concept plans based on the information that we have, the 1
community information but then also the financial information that we've gathered, and 2
include the gaps analysis that we have from MIG through the community outreach and 3
also their existing conditions reports and also look at what staff thinks is the most 4
appropriate amenity to add to a park based on the institutional knowledge that staff has. 5
That is our next step, to review. It will be pared down quite a bit. Like you said, it looks 6
in some parks like we're trying to put everything into a park. That's not what it's going to 7
look like. It is going to be, I think, difficult. It's going to be a difficult process to get to 8
the next phase or the next rendition of these plans. Like I said, we're just going to take 9
everything that we've gathered so far and revise them based on that information. 10
11
Commissioner Hetterly: It sounds like that is basically your prioritization process. 12
Right? What you're doing is you're looking at all the options and you're saying for this 13
park, these are the most important things to put there. Is that right? 14
15
Mr. de Geus: Yep, that is right. And using those criteria. Is it filling gaps? Is it 16
community preference, given what we understand and have heard? And the additional 17
feedback we're getting from the survey, feedback from the Commission. One thing that I 18
would still like to do—I don't know if we decided we were going to do this, but I'll 19
mention it—is site visits to each park. We certainly want to do that as staff, and we 20
thought it might be interesting to have Commissioners join us, not as a Commission but 21
just a couple of Commissioners to sort of truth test some of these concepts by walking the 22
park and looking, being on the ground. You can learn a lot that way. Also, just talk to 23
park users that are there. We want to do that over the next month and a half as well. 24
25
Ms. O'Kane: When we do get to a park and when we get to that point where that amenity 26
is being proposed to be added, we'll still go through the normal community outreach and 27
public review process. There is that opportunity at that point to hear even more feedback 28
from the community, especially the neighborhood around that park. This isn't the end of 29
the outreach and engagement. 30
31
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's one of the comments I heard from people, like "Why 32
didn't I hear about this?" They thought it was all shovel ready and ready to construct. 33
They didn't realize this is not even proposed; it's just kind of potential thinking on the 34
back of the envelope. 35
36
Chair Lauing: Their park might not get done for 10 years. 37
38
Commissioner Reckdahl: Boulware Park has been on the CIP list forever. 39
40
Ms. O'Kane: I actually have a follow-up question to both Commissioner Reckdahl and 41
Commissioner Hetterly. You both said that you've been hearing a lot of feedback. Was 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 48
that through the neighborhood associations? I'm just curious how you're hearing the 1
feedback. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: I've been hearing it just from people I know. Most of them, it 4
came to their attention because the neighborhood association brought it to their attention. 5
6
Commissioner Reckdahl: For me it wasn't—there was some public meetings. They 7
heard about the public meetings; they went down there. It wasn't through the 8
neighborhood association; it was just they heard of the public meetings. I think they told 9
other people and there was some telephoning going on, because the message was getting 10
distorted as it went on. 11
12
Commissioner Hetterly: I'd just throw out there, some of the neighborhood associations 13
are quite diligently coming up with plans to oppose all these terrible plans for their park. 14
That's the kind of thing to be aware of. 15
16
Chair Lauing: (crosstalk) starting with restrooms? 17
18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes. There still is the concern—it's just the "not in my 19
backyard" type thing. "If we put a restroom in, all the homeless from 20 miles around are 20
going to go to my neighborhood park." Then, we realized that you're putting-what? Six 21
or eight ... 22
23
Mr. Anderson: Seven. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: ... seven restrooms over the whole city. It's not going to be 26
concentrated in any one area. Then, I say, "If you go to a park, do you like having 27
restrooms there?" "Yeah, I do, but not in my park." They want their cake and eat it too. 28
29
Ms. O'Kane: I think we may need to do some more outreach. Not just sending out the 30
plans to the neighborhood associations, but to sort of restate what the intent of these are 31
and just be more clear on their purpose. 32
33
Chair Lauing: To the extent that you can nullify the timelines that this is (a) a done deal 34
or even (b) scheduled. These are conceptual. 35
36
Ms. O'Kane: I think we need to do that. 37
38
Chair Lauing: Like a concept car that's going to come out 10 years from now. One 39
question I had was what hard data are we getting from Magical Bridge that might be 40
useful in terms of implementing any of the policies that we're talking about. It's getting a 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 49
lot of usage. Are we getting a lot of data from kids about what they use and how the stuff 1
is holding up? Anything there that helps infuse some of these decisions in other parks? 2
3
Mr. Anderson: I'd say we're certainly learning what's popular, which play amenities are 4
really, really popular. The other key finding is there's no abating it. It's not the shiny 5
new car thing where it wears off after 3 months, and it's let's go back to the old one. This 6
is it, and they love it. Every day of the week, any time of day, it's packed. That was a 7
key finding. I was convinced it was going to trail off after 3 months, and I was wrong. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Bell curve. 10
11
Mr. Anderson: I was wrong. I made a bad play on not wrapping up the maintenance 12
level sooner. It needed more trash cans. It needed more frequent cleanings. If we were 13
to add a comparable one somewhere else, especially if we do it on a small scale, like you 14
only add one other one in another 5 years, that again is going to be a beacon. You're 15
going to have to expect a prolonged increase in maintenance to sustain it and keep it up. 16
The other thing I learned is there were elements there that were really artistic and 17
beautiful, but not sustainable, not intended to be a real play structure. I'll give you just 18
one example. There are these decorative metal fronds that come off of it. Those failed 19
within days, and we again and again tried to repair them and just learned don't replicate 20
that. It's not sustainable in a playground that gets that level of use. 21
22
Mr. de Geus: I would say also that it's attracting people from the region. They're not just 23
Palo Alto residents. People are coming from as far as Morgan Hill and further, past San 24
Francisco, just to come to this playground. 25
26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are these able-bodied or disabled? 27
28
Mr. de Geus: It's both. The people that travel the farthest are the families that have 29
disabilities. 30
31
Commissioner Cribbs: I was in San Diego for a conference, and we were talking about it 32
in San Diego. This group was wanting to put a park like that. "Did you know they had a 33
park in Palo Alto called ..." and I said yes. It's a real compliment. 34
35
Vice Chair Knopper: That's so great. 36
37
Mr. de Geus: It is great. The Friends of the Magical Bridge Playground are very active 38
too. Their support for the playground and sort of cheerleadering for the playground is 39
having more people come. They're doing a concert series every Friday night, like 18 of 40
them where they have magicians and musicians come. That's certainly causing more 41
people to attend as well. We did get budget added for 2017 to support the new 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 50
playground. We actually didn't increase the maintenance budget given this new 1
playground that really requires a lot of attention. We're glad to have that added. 2
3
Commissioner Hetterly: Just one last thing on the Friends of the Magical Bridge 4
Playground. They've been kind of on this perpetual road show talking about it 5
everywhere. I think they've created a foundation now to create models that can be 6
duplicable elsewhere. 7
8
Mr. de Geus: That's right. 9
10
Ms. O'Kane: I was recently talking to the founder of the Magical Bridge Playground. 11
She said they're getting contacted by people around the world, like Brazil, everywhere, 12
saying, "Can you help us do this in our community?" It's such a great thing. 13
14
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the model going forward? If we wanted to add more, 15
would we have another Magical Bridge Playground or would we just add one or two 16
things scattered around all of our playgrounds? 17
18
Mr. Anderson: I'm not sure. I think it might be both. I think at all of our playgrounds, 19
we're looking to add really popular amenities that people are going to love and are all 20
inclusive. That one seems like a no-brainer to me, that every renovation of a playground 21
would have some element of that. We've talked to the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks 22
who are interested in do we do another one and how could they support that. I think 23
that's certainly viable in the future as well. 24
25
Chair Lauing: Anything else on the site plans? 26
27
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'd like to comment. One, I thought it was kind of ironic that 28
the bowling green had a bocce court next to it. 29
30
Mr. Anderson: They're always quick to say, "Were not bocce (inaudible)." 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Exactly. There's a little animosity between the groups. The 33
other thing I appreciated was El Camino Park had a space for a dog park in there. That 34
was something I appreciated. 35
36
Commissioner Cribbs: I wanted to just ask about Lytton Plaza and the table tennis tables 37
that are going there. How many? Do you know? 38
39
Mr. Anderson: Good question. 40
41
Commissioner Cribbs: It's a little detail. How are they going to get stored at night? 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 51
1
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. I don't know the answer. We have a hard enough 2
time just with the umbrellas, keeping umbrellas there. The ping pong tables I've seen 3
were very large concrete ones that are difficult to move around and intended to be 4
stationary. I'm not sure quite what Peter had envisioned for that one. More to come. 5
6
Commissioner Cribbs: It's a really cool thing to think about anyhow. If you were to go 7
to China, you would see 24 at least in every park. It's pretty remarkable. Lots of people 8
playing. 9
10
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 11
12
Chair Lauing: The next item is any other ad hoc committee or liaison updates. Any other 13
reports? 14
15
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 16
17
Chair Lauing: The next item is the Director's report, before we get to comments and 18
announcements. You're on. 19
20
Ms. O'Kane: Rob, do you want to start with your announcements and then I'll follow up? 21
22
Mr. de Geus: Sure, I can. I didn't prepare that much, but a couple of things that I wanted 23
to share. We did get the budget approved for 2017 for the department and the City, 24
which is great. We got a few things added related to parks and recreation. We got some 25
additional funding for Daren and his open space group with the addition of Byxbee Park 26
and other things. They're such a small team with a huge workload, so we got some 27
additional open space technicians. We also got some additional funding for teen 28
programs and for the Bryant Street Garage Fund in particular. I mentioned Magical 29
Bridge. We got additional funding to support the maintenance of the playground. 30
Overall, a very supportive Council for our budget. There was also a variety of arts and 31
human services and other elements. Did we send the budget to the Commission? If we 32
haven't sent you the link, we'll send that to you. You can just go directly to the chapter 33
and see what was approved. The Chili Cook Off is this Monday, coming Monday. 34
Anyone judging? Really? 35
36
Vice Chair Knopper: I have a lot of food allergies. Let me just say that is the reason why 37
I can't judge. Otherwise, I would. I swear. 38
39
Mr. de Geus: We'll be there. It'll be a lot of fun. Staff worked hard on it. We're looking 40
forward to it. I think we have 13 or 14 chili teams. That's exciting. The golf course, we 41
got our permit. I just sent you an email. Kristen, if you could pull up the picture that I 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 52
sent you. The permit's in. We've gone to Council and got their approval for a funding 1
plan. 2
3
Chair Lauing: Don't tell us this if it isn't true, Rob. 4
5
Mr. de Geus: It's true. It's true. We're closing the course on July 1st. Next week. 6
7
Commissioner Hetterly: Friday. 8
9
Vice Chair Knopper: This Friday. 10
11
Commissioner Cowie: That's 2 days, 3 days from now. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: This Friday, yeah. That's right; it is this Friday. With about a 15-16 month 14
window of getting the project completed. Pretty excited about that. Do we have any 15
pictures ... 16
17
Chair Lauing: When's the groundbreaking? 18
19
Mr. de Geus: That's Joe (inaudible) with a silver platter and the permit from the Water 20
Board, giving it to Jim Keene, the City Manager. We finally got there. There'll be a 21
groundbreaking for both the flood control project, which is also starting at the same time, 22
and the golf course project in July. We'll let you know when that is, if you want to come 23
out. 24
25
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is there any constraints about construction like we saw in Lucy 26
Evans? 27
28
Mr. Anderson: There is for the creek project, yes. 29
30
Commissioner Reckdahl: The creek project. 31
32
Mr. de Geus: Not so much the golf course. 33
34
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we have certain times—how about the golf course? We 35
can do it year round? 36
37
Mr. Anderson: Right. We have more latitude for us. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: Is that levee that goes around the golf course, along the creek, 40
going to be closed as of July 1st also? 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 53
Mr. Anderson: No. I think they've got a couple more weeks before they shut that down. 1
We'll send out notifications and include an email to the Commission. 2
3
Mr. de Geus: I also wanted to give you an update on one of our staff members. I don't 4
know if you shared the news about Lacee. Lacee Kortsen, Senior Community Services 5
Manager, is having twins. She had her twins. She had a C-section, and she had a stroke 6
while she had the twins. She's not doing well. She's paralyzed on the left side. This 7
happened 2 weeks ago now. I think she's still in the hospital. The twins are healthy, 8
doing very well. She's got a long road to recovery. We're all visiting her and sending her 9
our best wishes. I know that she's come to see you several times. She's a very strong 10
person, healthy and young. A lot of things going for her. It's going to be a long road. 11
12
Chair Lauing: Are you going to backfill with some interim staff? 13
14
Mr. de Geus: We have the Superintendant of Recreation that we added back to the 15
budget table of org last year. Thank goodness, otherwise Kristen would be there 16
managing the Mitchell Park Community Center. We have Stephanie Douglas that's 17
stepped in and is managing all of Lacee's programs for the time being. I'm visiting her 18
tomorrow actually, so I'll let her know I talked to you all and that you're sending your 19
best wishes. 20
21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is she at Stanford? 22
23
Mr. de Geus: She was at Kaiser Redwood City, and she was moved last week to Valley 24
Medical. She's at Valley Medical now. 25
26
Ms. O'Kane: Santa Clara Valley Med in San Jose. 27
28
Mr. de Geus: Did you have anything in addition to that? 29
30
Ms. O'Kane: No. Just I was going to mention the Chili Cook Off. I don't have anything 31
else. I do want to add that in your packets this month you received the 2-month look-32
ahead calendar and also the work plan for the year of upcoming agenda items. That's 33
how we're going to do it moving forward. We're happy to hear comments if you think we 34
could organize it differently or present it in a different format. We're happy to do that. If 35
you don't find it helpful at all, we're happy to hear that too. Just hoping it sort of provides 36
a more long-term look ahead at the Commission. 37
38
Chair Lauing: I'd just love a bigger type. 39
40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 54
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1
2
Chair Lauing: Other comments and announcements or questions? Are we still frozen on 3
the dog park because we need Council approval? That was in the last set of minutes that 4
we talked about. I thought the idea was to go with the one. It doesn't have to be tied to 5
the Master Plan. 6
7
Mr. de Geus: We haven't talked about that since we planned at the study session making 8
that one of the focus areas where we've come to some decisions or clear 9
recommendations about moving forward to sort of test the water with them, so we could 10
then move it along. Since that got pushed now to September ... 11
12
Chair Lauing: I think you could bring a PIO by September. Go do this. 13
14
Mr. de Geus: We have to (inaudible) about that. I know that you're all interested in 15
moving that forward. 16
17
Commissioner Hetterly: We could send them a memo from the Commission. 18
19
Mr. de Geus: We could do that. 20
21
Chair Lauing: We've kind of committed to the community, and they're excited about it 22
now. Then, we start stalling this again. The bottom line is it doesn't have to be—to do 23
two dog parks, it doesn't have to be tied to the Master Plan. That can be in parallel. 24
25
Commissioner Hetterly: We should at least get moving on the community outreach and 26
the PIO. 27
28
Chair Lauing: The hydrologic study? 29
30
Mr. Anderson: We're waiting for purchasing to get the signatures on the contract, and 31
then we'll be getting going on that. 32
33
Chair Lauing: The contractor you mean? 34
35
Mr. Anderson: Pardon? Yes. Our purchasing department processes the signatures 36
necessary. 37
38
Mr. de Geus: It's gone to Council. 39
40
Mr. Anderson: Council's approved it, so it's just the signing now. 41
42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 55
Vice Chair Knopper: I know you've told me in the past. How long is ... 1
2
Mr. Anderson: One year, next June. 3
4
Chair Lauing: I was just going to say that I went to the Air Force Band concert. Those 5
are always great in terms of community and music and sun. There was no wine drinking 6
in the park. The Mayor was there, which I've seen him there before. He got up and made 7
thank you's and so on right towards the end. It was just a nice (inaudible). 8
9
Mr. Anderson: I had one other announcement that is Byxbee Park Hills. A while back 10
the Commission worked on an interim plan. About two-thirds of that plan is complete. 11
The trails are in. The earth for the vegetated islands is in, which is really kind of cool. A 12
notice to proceed, to have the contractor come in and put the irrigation and the plants in 13
will proceed on July 18th. We're hoping about 3 months or so, 3-4 months, we'll have 14
benches, signs and these planted islands installed. It'll be a nice milestone checked off 15
for that park and kind of looking more park-like. 16
17
Commissioner Reckdahl: What's the status on the boardwalk? They're going to come 18
back with a PIO? 19
20
Mr. Anderson: I'll come back to you next time with that. 21
22
Commissioner Reckdahl: I forgot where we left it with the boardwalk. 23
24
Mr. Anderson: I'll have to double check. I'm sorry. 25
26
Chair Lauing: Any other comments or announcements? 27
28
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JULY 26, 2016 MEETING 29
30
Chair Lauing: The next item on the agenda is planning for the July meeting. We've had 31
some discussion about whether we should have a July meeting relative to the 32
postponement of the study session. Not the gyms; I'm getting way ahead of myself. The 33
Zoo is supposed to come back to us in August. We definitely want—that's kind of their 34
earliest, so we want to accommodate that by doing that in the August meeting. If we're 35
going to take a summer break, July is the time to do it. Just thinking in terms of the 36
discussion tonight, we could tentatively say it's on or its off based on what we hear if we 37
get a session with the Mayor. If we're on target, then that's probably okay. If we're not 38
even close, then we may need three meetings in July. Any thoughts? I think the only 39
agenda item that we know about is the Master Plan. We could just say tentatively we can 40
skip July, do August, unless there's feedback that we should really have that meeting to 41
move the ball forward on the Master Plan. No comments? Here's a comment. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 56
1
Commissioner Cowie: I'm not sure what "tentatively off" means. 2
3
Chair Lauing: That we should basically say we'll hold the date. 4
5
Commissioner Cowie: We'll hold the date how long? 6
7
Chair Lauing: Until we get, I guess—I don't know. It depends on when—I know there 8
has to be a limit on that. It depends on when we could get a Mayor appointment. 9
10
Mr. de Geus: I can't imagine the Mayor giving us a completely different direction nor 11
would that be appropriate for him to do that. They're not meant to direct staff in that 12
way. 13
14
Chair Lauing: To your point, Jim, we couldn't wait until after that meeting to put it back 15
on. He's not going to say come in the morning. 16
17
Mr. de Geus: Unless there's something specific, I don't think that we could plan to have 18
the meeting related to the Master Plan even. I don't know that there would be that much 19
to discuss unless we target a specific target, like the 10 1/2 acres or Cubberley or have a 20
deeper discussion about some of these. 21
22
Chair Lauing: Other than the agenda items that you guys already have, which is the 23
timeline for the projects or the budgets for the projects or a more elaborate scoring 24
system—I don't like that word either. If you want to present something like that and you 25
think you can have it ready in 30 days, then we can hold it. 26
27
Mr. de Geus: Is everyone here in July? 28
29
Chair Lauing: Is that the 26th or something? 30
31
Ms. O'Kane: The 26th. 32
33
Mr. de Geus: I'm back. 34
35
Chair Lauing: Kristen, I might be in Cuba by then based on the travel agent that we 36
talked about before this meeting. Why don't we just suspend it? Have you already—37
sorry. I didn't know you had a comment. Go ahead. 38
39
Commissioner Hetterly: That's fine with me. My comment was there is an item that I 40
may like to see on the agenda. It doesn't have to be in July; it could be later. I wanted to 41
bring it up. Just last night, the City Council agreed to a buy-back deal for the easement to 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 57
the ITT antennae field in the middle of Baylands Park. It's 36.5 acres that once this 1
purchase-sale is completed, the City will have unfettered rights and access to that entire 2
parcel. I think that we should put it on our agenda to start a process to dedicate it as 3
parkland to kind of fill that gap. 4
5
Chair Lauing: That'd be awesome. 6
7
Commissioner Reckdahl: We need to add a program in the Master Plan to address it. 8
9
Chair Lauing: Further into August, are there any other agenda items that we think we 10
should have in August? 11
12
Commissioner Cowie: I just want to get clarity on July. You said suspend it. Does that 13
mean cancel? 14
15
Chair Lauing: Cancel. 16
17
Commissioner Cowie: We're canceling it right now. 18
19
Chair Lauing: Yeah. 20
21
Commissioner Cowie: It's not coming back on? 22
23
Chair Lauing: Yeah. You can go away that night. Make a dinner date. One item that 24
you had put on there as tentative was the Urban Forest Master Plan. I think we've already 25
seen that three times. 26
27
Ms. O'Kane: That was a recommendation from Commissioner Moss, to bring that back 28
now that it's final. I think he was unclear as to whether that was appropriate based on 29
previous presentations on the Master Plan. I think he was open to either way. It's just on 30
here as a placeholder right now. 31
32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Would they be taking our input or is it final? 33
34
Ms. O'Kane: No, it would be informational. 35
36
Mr. de Geus: I could send you the link. 37
38
Commissioner Hetterly: I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's a good use of staff's time to 39
come to us after the decision has already been made. 40
41
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would agree. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 58
1
Commissioner Hetterly: I would encourage Commissioner Moss to check the Council 2
video, because he'll get the whole presentation, and everybody else on the Commission 3
with an interest in the Urban Forest Master Plan can get the full briefing on the video. 4
5
Chair Lauing: We'll just stay in touch on other agenda items for August. The Zoo is 6
definitely coming. Anything else? 7
8
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9
10
Chair Lauing: Why don't we adjourn in honor of your colleague, so you can tell her that 11
tomorrow. 12
13
Mr. de Geus: I will. Thank you. 14
15
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner ** and second by Commissioner ** at 16
9:37 p.m. 17
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016
SUBJECT: BAYLANDS ITT TRANSMITTER SITE – TRANSMITTAL OF JUNE 27, 2016 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AND NEXT STEPS
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2016, City Council approved the purchase of a 36.5 acre exclusive easement from Global Wireless at the
Former ITT site located in the Baylands. The City currently owns the underlying fee title to the Property and after
completing the purchase, it will have full ownership, control and possession of the site. In conjunction with the sale of
the easement, Global Wireless will quitclaim all rights and interest to the property and will transfer title and interest in
all furnishing, fixtures, personal property and improvements remaining on the property after it vacates the site. There
are currently five buildings on the site, which were determined in 1998 to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Refer to Attachment A for detailed background on the Former ITT Property and Baylands ITT Transmitter Site.
DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS
Although the Baylands Master Plan advocates for a “unification of the Baylands”, the 36.5 acre site has not been
dedicated as parkland due to an historical exclusive easement held by Global Wireless. Chapter 3 of the Baylands
Master Plan (2008) includes a discussion and policies related to the Former ITT property including the following policy
related to the antenna field - “Remove the antenna field, replace with marshland and incorporate this area into Byxbee
Park.” Now that the City will have full ownership, control and possession of the site, staff will begin the process of
dedicated this remaining piece of the Baylands as parkland.
Further discussion with the Commission and City Council will need to be agendized in the future to determine the fate of
the existing buildings and antennas that are on the site.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Council Staff Report - Approval of the Purchase of an Exclusive Easement at the
Former ITT Site –June 27, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: Baylands Master Plan (2008) – Former ITT Property Policies
City of Palo Alto (ID # 7030)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/27/2016
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of the Purchase of an Exclusive Easment at the
Former ITT Site
Title: Approval of the Purchase of All Rights, Title, and Interest Held By Globe
Wireless at Property Known as Baylands ITT Transmitter Site, Assessor Parcel
Numbers: 008-05-001 And 008-05-004 From Globe Wireless Located at 2601
East Bayshore Road
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the purchase and sale agreement
(Attachment A) and quitclaim deed (Attachment B) to purchase all rights, interest, title,
interest including exclusive and non-exclusive easements that were part of the
Corporation Grant Deed (document number 5887315, recorded on December 29, 1977),
executed by ITT Communication; and all furnishings, fixtures, personal property and
improvements at the ITT Transmitter Site Property from Globe Wireless for the amount
of $250,000 plus closing costs.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any documents required to complete the
agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report transmits a proposed agreement for the purchase and sale of all rights, title, and
interest to 36.5 acres of land commonly known as the “Baylands ITT Transmitter site,” (the
Property) as shown on Attachment C. In addition, all furnishings, fixtures, personal property,
and site improvements at the Property from Globe Wireless would be purchased.
On December 12, 1977, ITT World Communication, Inc., donated approximately 69 acres and
sold approximately 83 acres for a total of 152 acres in the Baylands to the City of Palo Alto (the
City). In the grant deed (Attachment D), ITT reserved an exclusive easement to use and occupy
36.55 acres of the property for a “Public Coast Station” (radio antenna operation). The purchase
price was $1,300,000 of which the City of Palo Alto paid $1,000,000 and the Santa Clara Valley
Water District paid $300,000. Globe Wireless, the successor to ITT World Communication, KFS
City of Palo Alto Page 2
World Communication Inc., and the holder of the current easements, recently contacted the
City with an offer to sell all rights and interests held at the Property for the amount of
$250,000. Globe Wireless has secured a new property in Rio Vista, California known as the
Voice of America site to continue its operation.
In conjunction with the sale of the easement, Globe Wireless will quitclaim all rights and
interest to the Property and will transfer title and interest in all furnishing, fixtures, personal
property and improvements remaining on the Property after it vacates the site. The City
currently owns the underlying fee title to the Property and after completing the purchase, it will
have full ownership, control and possession of the site.
BACKGROUND
In 1921 the Federal Telegraph Company leased 200 acres of marshland and built a radio-
telegraph transmitting station to serve as the hub of a coastal network of stations and perform
ship-to shore communications. In 1928, the property was sold to Mackay Cable & Wireless and
in 1930, to ITT. The station transmitted overseas cables, telephone calls, and other
communications until the advent of satellite transmission. The site served as a “bounce” station
for ships lacking satellite equipment. The high water table and moist soil aid transmission
bounce and thus made this a good location for this function.
(For additional historical information, Please see: State of California – The Resources Agency –
Department of Park and Recreation – Primary Record).
In the early 1970s, the Property was recognized as an integral part to rehabilitate the Baylands.
The City rezoned it as agriculture-conservation to reflect the city’s long term vision for the
property and began negotiations for its purchase. The ultimate goal was to open the area to
the tides and allow it to revert to the salt marsh it was prior to diking. The City began
negotiation with ITT World Communication (ITT) to acquire the site in 1977 (CMR: 327:07).
Later in the same year, the title of the 152 acres of diked marshland was transferred (sold and
donated), by grand deed, (Attachment C) to the City and in conjunction with the sale, the City
granted an easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. (CMR: 355:07).
In 1978, the planning Commission by a vote of 4-0 recommended the approval of pre-zoning of
the Former ITT Property from A-C-D (Agricultural Conversation –Design Control) to P-F-D (Public
Facility –Design Control). The former ITT Site, excluding the 36.5- acre easement for the
antenna field was dedicated as parkland on May 3, 1982. The ordinance refers to it as the “John
Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area Addition”.
As part of the terms and conditions of the sale, ITT reserved an exclusive easement over the
36.5 acres known as “Parcel I” for the continued use, operation and maintenance of a coast
communication station “Public Coast Station” (radio antenna operation) under a license from
the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). ITT also maintained a non-exclusive easement
over Parcel 2, a fifty (50) foot wide road, for ingress and egress to East Bayshore Road. The
purchase price for the 152 acres was $1,300,000 of which the City of Palo Alto paid $1,000,000
and the Santa Clara Valley Water District paid $300,000. The agreement required that ITT must
City of Palo Alto Page 3
consolidate all of its improvements onto “Parcel I” within one year of its obtaining all required
permits (CMR: 447:08).
On September 29, 1992, the City Council approved (CMR: 409:92) the recommendation of the
Palo Alto Historical Association to rename the marshland formerly known as the “ITT Marsh” as
the “Emily Renzel Marsh”.
In 1990, KFS World Communications (KFS) acquired the ITT easement. In 1992, Ken Jones, the
owner of KFS approached the City with a proposal to relocate the facility to another location
within the Bay Area and sell KFS’ rights to the City for $550,000. The City Manager requested
Council direction (CMR: 545:92). The Council discussed buying back the easement, and
instructed the staff to continue discussion with KFS and requested more information since the
two parties were unable to agree on a price.
On January 7, 1993 staff returned to Council (CMR: 116:93) with additional information
regarding the economic utility of the ITT site should the site revert to the City. On September
16, 1993, the City Council approved a purchase and sale agreement, (CMR: 462:93), approved a
Budget Amendment Ordinance (4172), authorized the purchase of all the rights, interest and
all site improvements for the amount of $370,000, and allocated $42,000 for the demolition
expense. The agreement was not completed since KFS was not able to secure another location
to relocate its operation and secure approval from FCC. The City reappropriated $412,000 that
was allocated for the completion of the purchase.
In FY 2014, Globe Wireless, the successor to KFS approached the City with an offer to sell all
rights and interests held for the Property for $370,000. City staff continued to negotiate this
proposal and subsequently Globe Wireless lowered their offer to $250,000 for all rights and
interest for the Property.
DISCUSSION
Easements
An easement is a right created by a grant, reservation, agreement, prescription or necessary
implication, which one entity has in the land of another. As previously stated, the exclusive
easement held by Globe Wireless is a perpetual exclusive easement to use and occupy the
Property. According to the terms of the original Grand Deed: “Grantor reserves to itself, its
successors and assigns, for as long as Grantor, its successors or assigns continue to operate on
parcel One (I ) pursuant to license issued by the Federal Communication Commission, or
successor agency, a public coast station as defined in 47 CPR 81, or successors regulation,
(herein after “Public Coast Station”), and for a period of 90 days thereafter, the following
easements [to operate the Pacific Coast Station].”
As the 36.5 acre land parcel was essentially landlocked, part of the agreement also included a
non-excusive easement over a fifty (50) feet wide road providing access to the site. This
easement road virtually bisects the property in half. In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water
City of Palo Alto Page 4
District has a non-exclusive easement and non-interfering easement over approximately 5.29
acres of the subject site for a flood control easement.
In the past twenty five (25) years, the City of Palo Alto has explored the purchase of the
easements rights held by various companies and their successors in order to have complete
possession, use and control over this sensitive and important property. The City Council did
approve the purchase of the easement rights in 1993 and allocated funds to complete the
transaction. For a variety of reasons, the deal was not completed and the use of the Property
remained with KFS and subsequently acquired by Globe Wireless when the two companies
merged. In mid-2014, the facilities and equipment at the site was vandalized and power has
been turned off. On December 5, 2015, the City notified Globe Wireless that the easement had
expired as there had been no use for 90 days. Globe disputed this but nevertheless offered to
sell easement rights to the City for the previously negotiated price of $250,000.
After consulting with City Attorney’s office, staff approached Globe Wireless to: terminate
easements rights and all rights and interest to the Property via purchase and mutual
agreement. Globe Wireless’ offer to sell is an opportunity for the City to gain control,
possession and use of this Property in the Baylands at a price that is lower than what the City
approved to pay for the easement rights in 1993. The purchase will connect and restore the
property to the original ITT acreage. The City can then develop plans to allow public access and
restore the property according to Bayland Master Plan guidelines.
Terms of Current Offer by Globe Wireless
Price
The purchase price is $250,000 all cash for all rights and interest held for the Property ($6,850
per acre). City to accept the property “as is”. Purchase is subject to Council approval.
Land
The subject property is situated within the Baylands Master Plan Area (Former ITT Property
Chapter 3. In 1978, the City adopted the Baylands Master Plan as a long-range plan for treating
the Baylands as an integrated whole and balancing ecological preservation with continued
commercial and recreational use. The overall goal was to preserve and enhance the unique
irreplaceable resources while providing a framework and guide for future actions in the area.
The Baylands was divided into the yacht harbor, airport, golf course, the former ITT site, landfill,
duck pond and Lucy Evans Bayland Nature Interpretive Center areas and natural marshlands
preserve.
A. Zoning: Public Facilities District (PF-D).
B. Interior Portions: Open Space Controlled Development
C. Exterior Portion: Public Conservation Land
D. Interior Portion: Not dedicated Parkland
E. Exterior Portion: Dedicated Parkland
City of Palo Alto Page 5
On – Site Improvements
The buildings and antenna field are in the middle of the site, surrounded by and separated from
the wetlands by levees and a fence and entrance is prohibited. There are five (5) buildings and
twenty two (22) antennas on the site. Most of the antennas are wooden poles with copper
wire; others are metal including a 60 – foot tower. The buildings consist of the following: 1)
Transmitting Building built in 1920’s is approximately 170 X 42.5 feet, for a total of 7,225 square
feet. It features an elevated concrete floor with crawl space underneath. It is partitioned into
two office space, a machine shop, central control room and one restroom, 2) Warehouse
Building: it measures 84 x 30 feet totaling 2,520 square feet. It contains two small storage
rooms with an entry door, as well as one open garage area with a ten foot overhead door for
access, 3) Two Machine Shop & Garage: They measure 72 X 24 feet, 1728 square feet and 24 X
24 feet, 576 square feet respectively, 4) There are two utility building: The larger one is 16 x 12
feet, 192 square feet and the smaller one is 8.75 X 11.75 feet, 102 square feet.
Environmental Assessment
Phase One (1) environmental site assessment was completed on June 16, 2015. The site is not
listed on any regulatory database related to use, storage, or release of hazardous materials
reviewed during the investigation nor does there appear to be any agency listed site in the
vicinity that have significant potential to impact soil, groundwater, or soil vapor quality. Further
testing was recommended and a Phase II testing will be completed in the next six months.
Inventory
Titles and interest in all finishing, fixtures, equipment, and personal property will transfer to the
City. Staff completed a visual inspection and video filming of all finishing, fixtures, equipment,
and personal property at the Property on May 18, 2016.
Property Appraisal
The perpetual exclusive easement rights were appraised by a City hired appraiser on October 5,
1992. The value was determined to equal $11,144,000. In the opinion of the appraiser, there
was virtually no substantial difference between the market value and the exclusive easement
value of the land parcel. The property was appraised for highest and best use as land to develop
smaller light industrials/research and development buildings, although the land will be
developed according to the Baylands Master Plan Guidelines.
TIMELINE
Staff will open escrow immediately after the Council approval. The completion of the
transaction will take approximately 20 to 30 days to complete. After closing, staff will explore
potential use options within the allowable parameters and will schedule a study session with
the Council to seek directions and inputs for future plans for this Property.
RESOURCE IMPACT
To obtain the rights cited above, it will cost the City $250,000 plus up to $3,000 in closing
expenses. Staff recommends using the General Fund’s Budget Stabilization Reserve for the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
purchase. Future improvements on the site will be proposed through the City’s annual Capital
Improvement Plan budget process.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policy and the Bayland Master Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Authorization of the purchase of all rights, titles and interests held by Globe Wireless at the
Property is Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review
under CEQA guidelines section 15301 (existing facilities). Further environmental review will be
conducted in connection with any future use of the facility.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Purchase and Sale Agreement Globe Wireless (PDF)
Attachment B: Quitclaim Easement ITT Property (PDF)
Attachment C: Former ITT Property_Area Map (PDF)
Attachment D: Former ITT Corporation Grant Deed, Dec 1977 (PDF)
98
20
0
8
•
Ba
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Fo
r
m
e
r
I
T
T
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
ie
s
(p
a
g
e
1
o
f
2
)
Th
e
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
s
a
u
n
i
f
i
ca
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
s
;
i
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
F
o
r
m
e
r
I
T
T
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
m
u
s
t
a
l
s
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
“
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
”
,
“
F
l
o
o
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
”
,
a
n
d
“
A
c
c
e
s
s
&
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
”
c
h
a
p
t
e
r
s
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
.
Th
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
I
T
T
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
g
o
e
s
b
e
-
yo
n
d
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
f
i
t
s
p
e
r
-
fe
c
t
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
g
o
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
Ba
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
Pl
a
n
—t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
a
n
d
i
r
r
e
-
pl
a
c
e
a
b
l
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Th
i
s
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
i
s
f
l
a
t
a
n
d
l
o
w
,
j
u
s
t
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
se
a
l
e
v
e
l
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
a
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
-
ti
v
e
a
s
i
t
c
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
n
v
i
-
ro
n
m
e
n
t
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
i
k
i
n
g
.
H
o
w
-
ev
e
r
,
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
w
i
n
t
e
r
r
a
i
n
s
w
e
r
e
h
e
a
v
y
,
p
o
n
d
s
fo
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
p
o
n
d
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
e
e
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
ne
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
g
u
l
l
s
,
d
u
c
k
s
,
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
e
b
i
r
d
s
.
Bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
,
r
o
d
e
n
t
s
,
j
a
c
k
r
a
b
b
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
sq
u
i
r
r
e
l
s
n
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
r
y
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
n
d
bi
r
d
s
o
f
p
r
e
y
,
p
h
e
a
s
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
m
o
u
r
n
i
n
g
d
o
v
e
s
a
l
s
o
vi
s
i
t
e
d
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
h
e
n
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
e
r
a
r
e
“
w
h
i
t
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
ki
t
e
s
”
n
e
s
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
y
s
t
i
l
l
u
s
e
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
a
s
t
h
e
i
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
In
1
9
9
2
,
b
a
y
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
s
p
i
p
e
d
i
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
ya
c
h
t
h
a
r
b
o
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
i
k
e
d
m
a
r
s
h
l
a
n
d
w
a
s
p
a
r
-
ti
a
l
l
y
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
,
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
t
i
d
a
l
fl
o
w
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
A
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,
i
t
i
s
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
p
r
o
d
u
c
-
ti
v
e
a
g
a
i
n
.
A
l
s
o
,
i
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
a
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
p
o
n
d
w
a
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
p
u
m
p
i
n
g
r
e
-
cl
a
i
m
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
P
.
Th
i
s
a
r
e
a
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
t
e
n
-
na
f
i
e
l
d
e
x
i
s
t
s
,
w
a
s
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
o
n
M
a
y
3,
1
9
8
2
.
I
t
w
a
s
n
a
m
e
d
t
h
e
E
m
i
l
y
R
e
n
z
e
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
on
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
9
,
1
9
9
2
.
Th
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
a
c
o
n
d
e
n
s
e
d
a
n
t
e
n
n
a
f
i
e
l
d
a
n
d
,
p
e
r
th
e
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
m
a
y
no
t
b
e
s
h
u
t
d
o
w
n
u
n
l
e
s
s
i
t
i
s
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
b
y
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
I
t
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
m
-
mu
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
n
k
t
o
s
h
i
p
s
a
t
s
e
a
w
h
i
c
h
s
t
i
l
l
d
o
n
’
t
ha
v
e
s
a
t
e
l
l
i
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
W
o
r
l
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
h
o
t
o
o
k
o
v
e
r
f
r
o
m
I
T
T
,
c
o
n
-
tr
o
l
s
3
6
.
5
a
c
r
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
th
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
a
y
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
d
o
s
o
i
n
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
e
l
y
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
Ba
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
•
2
0
0
8
99Former ITT Property
Fo
r
m
e
r
I
T
T
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
P
o
l
i
c
ie
s
(p
a
g
e
2
o
f
2)
Ma
r
s
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
1.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
s
a
l
t
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
ma
r
s
h
e
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
.
2.
C
l
e
a
n
u
p
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
a
n
t
e
n
n
a
f
i
e
l
d
.
3
.
U
s
e
e
a
r
t
h
f
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
s
e
r
v
e
as
f
o
o
d
f
o
r
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
t
o
s
o
f
t
e
n
t
h
e
g
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
fo
r
m
o
f
t
h
e
f
l
o
o
d
w
a
l
l
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
a
l
o
n
g
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
.
4.
K
e
e
p
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
h
e
w
a
y
i
t
i
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
wh
e
r
e
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
.
An
t
e
n
n
a
F
i
e
l
d
5.
R
e
m
o
v
e
t
h
e
a
n
t
e
n
n
a
f
i
e
l
d
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
m
a
r
s
h
-
la
n
d
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
i
n
t
o
B
y
x
b
e
e
Pa
r
k
.
(I
n
1
9
9
3
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
K
F
S
e
n
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
o
an
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
b
u
y
t
h
e
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
K
F
S
o
n
c
e
a
n
e
w
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
F
C
C
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
t
o
d
e
m
o
l
i
s
h
t
h
e
r
a
d
i
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
b
u
i
l
d
-
in
g
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
a
s
t
h
e
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
d
e
-
te
r
m
i
n
e
d
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
.
)
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016
SUBJECT: CITY OF PALO ALTO AQUATICS UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
No action to be taken.
BACKGROUND
For the past two summers (2015 and 2016), the City has struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to meet
community demand for the Lap Swim, Learn-to-swim and Summer Recreation programs at the Rinconada and JLS pools.
In 2015, CSD entered into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate its Learn-to-swim staffing
shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a
professional third party aquatics service provider who mobilized quickly to provide qualified professional swim
instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs.
In response to the staffing challenges in the summer of 2015, a recommendation was presented to both the Finance
Committee and Council to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to explore options for the delivery of aquatic programs
and services (Attachment A and B). CSD released the RFP in Fall 2015. The City received two proposals. After careful
review of both proposals by a team of aquatic professionals, CSD staff began evaluating short and long term options for
future program delivery with Team Sheeper LLC. In the spring of 2016, staff entered into a short term contract with
Team Sheeper LLC to manage the Learn-to-Swim program for the Summer 2016 season to maintain aquatics program
operations and allow staff sufficient time to fully analyze the options for managing the aquatics program.
DISCUSSION
Rinconada Pool is a valued community asset, receiving over 58,000 drop-in visits to its lap and recreation swimming
programs each year and providing swimming lessons to over 1,000 youth annually. In the past few years, City residents
have provided feedback that that they would like increased pool access. Residents have expressed a need for for an
extended swim season and would like to increase daily open hours. They would also like more access to youth
swimming lessons with more lessons available and at more convenient times during the week. The increased demand
for pool access and swim programs, together with CSD’s difficultly in hiring adequate lifeguarding staff to provide swim
lessons has led staff to analyze several options for management of the Aquatics Program.
Staff is currently evaluating several methods for aquatics management ranging from using Team Sheeper for some, all,
or none of the aquatics operations. City and customer costs, quality of service and customer satisfaction, and
diversity of programming and accessibility will all be important factors in this evaluation.
Over the next month, staff with continue this evaluation and will be conducting focus groups and conducting surveys of
our most frequent pool users and stakeholders. Staff will return to the Parks and Recreation Commission on September
27, 2016 with the results of our analysis for further discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Finance Committee Staff Report – October 20,2015
Attachment B: City Council Staff Report – November 9, 2015
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6211)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/20/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Recommendation to Solicit for Aquatic Services
Title: Community Services Department Recommendation to Release a
Request for Proposal to Explore Options for the Delivery of Aquatics
Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct the Community Services Department to
release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of aquatic
programs and services for the City of Palo Alto.
Background
During the summer season which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the
City of Palo Alto Aquatics program offers a variety of activities for the community
including family recreation swim, adult lap swim, youth swim lessons for ages
birth to 13 years, facility rentals for private pool parties, a youth competitive
swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and an adult competitive swim team
(Rinconada Masters).
Once the Palo Alto Unified School District begins their academic year typically in
mid-August which we call “late summer,” the Aquatics program continues to
offer the same activities excluding swim lessons. During this time, family
recreation swim and facility rentals are only available on weekends since a
majority of our staff are back in school and have limited work availability.
The Aquatics off-season program runs from mid-September through mid-May,
and includes limited activities offered daily such as adult lap swim, the youth
competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and the adult competitive
swim team (Rinconada Masters). In years past, the Aquatics program has
attempted to offer youth swim lessons during the fall and spring seasons but due
City of Palo Alto Page 2
to the difficulty hiring and retaining staff, youth lessons are only offered during
the summer season.
Discussion
The Community Services Department (CSD) would like to explore contracting out
additional aquatics services provided at Rinconada Pool, and potentially other
satellite pools in the community that the City rents during the summer.
Currently, the City has existing contracts to provide the Masters Swim Program
and the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program PASA, while City staff provides the year
round Lap Swim Program, Learn-to-Swim Program and Summer Recreation
Swim.
This past summer the City managed programs (Lap Swim, Learn-to-Swim and
Summer Recreation Swim), struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to
meet community demand. This has been a growing challenge for several years
and this summer it reached its tipping point. In order to meet the demand for
the 2015 summer swim lessons and the recreation swim program, CSD had to
enter into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate the staffing
shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve
a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a professional third party aquatics service
provider, who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional
swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs. As a
result CSD narrowly met its commitments to the parents that enrolled their
children in swim lessons in the spring. Currently CSD staff is managing the fall
aquatics Lap Swim Program and we continue to face difficulties with pool staff
shortages, which is also compromising the program and limiting community
access to Rinconada Pool.
There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty
hiring and retaining staff. The pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are
not as competitive compared to other employment opportunities for high school
and college students. The City offers mostly seasonal work opportunities and not
year round part time employment. The majority of the pool staff are students
and after summer they are no longer available to work. Those that live and go to
school in the area often continue working at the pool but this only represents a
small number of the aquatics staff.
Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of
ways. For example the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire Aquatics
program to Team Sheeper, Inc. and it now operates in a private public
City of Palo Alto Page 3
partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. While contracting out is gaining interest
from cities most cities within the area operate their aquatics program in-house or
through a hybrid model like the City of Palo Alto, whereby a portion of the
program is contracted out, typically their swim teams or clubs, while swim
lessons and recreation swim remain in-house. The City of Morgan Hill has a
unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As partners,
the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and
fitness, youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents
and the surrounding community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto
provides a hybrid program where the Aquatics program is predominantly run in-
house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA program which is provided by
contractors.
To address the issue of ongoing challenges to hire and retain aquatics staff CSD
is drafting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aquatics services for summer 2016.
If agreeable to the Finance Committee and City Manager’s Office, CSD will
release the RFP in late October 2015, evaluate proposals in December/January
and bring a recommendation to Council in early Spring 2016 for possible
contracting out of additional aquatics services.
Contractor(s) responding to the RFP would be able to submit proposals to
manage the Learn-to-Swim program, the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program, Masters
Swim Program, Lap Swim and Recreation Swim. Proposals would be accepted for
one, some, or all of these services depending on the applicant’s area of
expertise, capacity and interest.
An internal meeting between Administrative Services (ASD), People Strategies
and Operations (PSO) Departments and the City Manager’s Office was held on
September 22 to discuss the CSD proposal to issue an RFP for aquatics services.
Staff are in agreement with the approach outlined above, that would allow CSD
to explore alternative options for the delivery of aquatics programs service
through an RFP process.
Recognizing that an RFP for aquatics services could impact an SEIU regular staff
member, and several SEIU hourly staff, a Meet and Confer process is necessary.
As such PSO intends to notify SEIU at their monthly regularly scheduled meeting
on October 15 about the possibility of an RFP for aquatics services.
Rinconada pool is a magnificent community asset. Exploring options for how we
might better deliver aquatics programs and services to maximize community
City of Palo Alto Page 4
benefit is a prudent course of action in CSD’s view. By issuing an RFP to explore
options the City may be able to improve the overall aquatics program with
additional services and increased access to Rinconada pool for the Palo Alto
community.
Timeline
October 15, 2015 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible
RFP
October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the
RFP
November, 2015 – Pending Finance Committee and CMO direction, RFP
released
March, 2016 – Council action on the to be determined scope of aquatics
services to be contracted out
Resource Impact
The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as decribed in recent
Cost of Services Study, is below:
Total
Direct
Expenses
Total
Indirect
Expenses
Total Full
Costs
Total Fee
Revenue
Total
General
Fund
Subsidy
Direct
Cost %
Recovery
Full Cost %
Recovery
$623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57%
The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below
current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will
evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being
competitive in the marketplace.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehesive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient
Delivery of Community Services.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6296)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: From Finance: Aquatics RFP
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve the Release of a
Request for Proposal to Explore Options for the Delivery of the Aquatics
Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
The Finance Committee recommends that Council approve the Community Services
Department recommendation to release a Request for Proposal to explore options for
the delivery of the Aquatics Programs and Services for the City of Palo Alto.
Background
In the summer 2015, the City of Palo Alto’s Aquatics program was severley understaffed
and was in jeapordy of cancelling approximately 40% of the summer swim lessons. The
Community Services Department enterered into an emergency contract with Team
Sheeper, LLC to provide qualified, professional swim instructors and lifeguards at the
JLS Middle School pool. The fall 2015 Aquatics program is underway and the program
continues to experience staffing shortages and staff predict to have continuing staffing
shortages in the winter 2015 season. The Community Services Department requests to
explore alternative approaches to providing Aquatics services and programs to the
community by releasing an Request For Proposal (RFP). This matter was discussed at
the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee meeting.
Discussion
At the October 20, 2015 Finance Committee, staff presented the rationale for releasing
an RFP to explore alternatives for the delivery of Aquatics Services. The Finance
Committee unanimously approved the recommendation and the recommendation is
now before Council for approval. For more details on the rationale to release an RFP for
Aquatics services please see Attachment A - Finance Committee Report October 20,
2015.
Timeline
City of Palo Alto Page 2
October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the RFP
November, 2015 –RFP released
March, 2016 – Potential Council action on the scope of aquatics services to be
contracted out
Resource Impact
The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as described in recent
Cost of Services Study, is below:
Total
Direct
Expenses
Total
Indirect
Expenses
Total Full
Costs
Total Fee
Revenue
Total
General
Fund
Subsidy
Direct
Cost %
Recovery
Full Cost %
Recovery
$623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57%
The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below current
cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will evaluate fees for
that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being competitive in the
marketplace.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehensive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient
Delivery of Community Services
Attachments:
Finance Committee Staff Report (PDF)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct the Community Services Department to
release a Request for Proposal to explore options for the delivery of aquatic
programs and services for the City of Palo Alto.
Background
During the summer season which runs from mid-June through mid-August, the
City of Palo Alto Aquatics program offers a variety of activities for the community
including family recreation swim, adult lap swim, youth swim lessons for ages
birth to 13 years, facility rentals for private pool parties, a youth competitive
swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and an adult competitive swim team
(Rinconada Masters).
Once the Palo Alto Unified School District begins their academic year typically in
mid-August which we call “late summer,” the Aquatics program continues to
offer the same activities excluding swim lessons. During this time, family
recreation swim and facility rentals are only available on weekends since a
majority of our staff are back in school and have limited work availability.
The Aquatics off-season program runs from mid-September through mid-May,
and includes limited activities offered daily such as adult lap swim, the youth
competitive swim (PASA - Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics), and the adult competitive
swim team (Rinconada Masters). In years past, the Aquatics program has
attempted to offer youth swim lessons during the fall and spring seasons but due
to the difficulty hiring and retaining staff, youth lessons are only offered during
the summer season.
Discussion
The Community Services Department (CSD) would like to explore contracting out
additional aquatics services provided at Rinconada Pool, and potentially other
satellite pools in the community that the City rents during the summer.
Currently, the City has existing contracts to provide the Masters Swim Program
and the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program PASA, while City staff provides the year
round Lap Swim Program, Learn-to-Swim Program and Summer Recreation
Swim.
This past summer the City managed programs (Lap Swim, Learn-to-Swim and
Summer Recreation Swim), struggled to hire and retain adequate pool staff to
meet community demand. This has been a growing challenge for several years
and this summer it reached its tipping point. In order to meet the demand for
the 2015 summer swim lessons and the recreation swim program, CSD had to
enter into an emergency contract with an outside vendor to mitigate the staffing
shortages. Working on a very short timeline, CSD was able to write and approve
a contract with Team Sheeper LLC, a professional third party aquatics service
provider, who was able to mobilize quickly and provide qualified professional
swim instructors and lifeguards to support the Palo Alto aquatics programs. As a
result CSD narrowly met its commitments to the parents that enrolled their
children in swim lessons in the spring. Currently CSD staff is managing the fall
aquatics Lap Swim Program and we continue to face difficulties with pool staff
shortages, which is also compromising the program and limiting community
access to Rinconada Pool.
There are several reasons the City aquatics program is experiencing difficulty
hiring and retaining staff. The pay rates for lifeguards and swim instructors are
not as competitive compared to other employment opportunities for high school
and college students. The City offers mostly seasonal work opportunities and not
year round part time employment. The majority of the pool staff are students
and after summer they are no longer available to work. Those that live and go to
school in the area often continue working at the pool but this only represents a
small number of the aquatics staff.
Provision of aquatics services for cities in the region is delivered in a number of
ways. For example the City of Menlo Park contracted out their entire Aquatics
program to Team Sheeper, Inc. and it now operates in a private public
partnership as Menlo Swim & Sport. While contracting out is gaining interest
from cities most cities within the area operate their aquatics program in-house or
through a hybrid model like the City of Palo Alto, whereby a portion of the
program is contracted out, typically their swim teams or clubs, while swim
lessons and recreation swim remain in-house. The City of Morgan Hill has a
unique partnership with the YMCA to run their recreation programs. As partners,
the City of Morgan Hill and YMCA partner to provide high quality health and
fitness, youth, teen, family, and senior programs including aquatics for residents
and the surrounding community to enjoy. Currently, the City of Palo Alto
provides a hybrid program where the Aquatics program is predominantly run in-
house with the exception of our Master’s and PASA program which is provided by
contractors.
To address the issue of ongoing challenges to hire and retain aquatics staff CSD
is drafting a Request for Proposals (RFP) for aquatics services for summer 2016.
If agreeable to the Finance Committee and City Manager’s Office, CSD will
release the RFP in late October 2015, evaluate proposals in December/January
and bring a recommendation to Council in early Spring 2016 for possible
contracting out of additional aquatics services.
Contractor(s) responding to the RFP would be able to submit proposals to
manage the Learn-to-Swim program, the Palo Alto Youth Swim Program, Masters
Swim Program, Lap Swim and Recreation Swim. Proposals would be accepted for
one, some, or all of these services depending on the applicant’s area of
expertise, capacity and interest.
An internal meeting between Administrative Services (ASD), People Strategies
and Operations (PSO) Departments and the City Manager’s Office was held on
September 22 to discuss the CSD proposal to issue an RFP for aquatics services.
Staff are in agreement with the approach outlined above, that would allow CSD
to explore alternative options for the delivery of aquatics programs service
through an RFP process.
Recognizing that an RFP for aquatics services could impact an SEIU regular staff
member, and several SEIU hourly staff, a Meet and Confer process is necessary.
As such PSO intends to notify SEIU at their monthly regularly scheduled meeting
on October 15 about the possibility of an RFP for aquatics services.
Rinconada pool is a magnificent community asset. Exploring options for how we
might better deliver aquatics programs and services to maximize community
benefit is a prudent course of action in CSD’s view. By issuing an RFP to explore
options the City may be able to improve the overall aquatics program with
additional services and increased access to Rinconada pool for the Palo Alto
community.
Timeline
October 15, 2015 – PSO meets with SEIU to notify them of the possible
RFP
October 20, 2015 – Finance Committee presentation and discussion of the
RFP
November, 2015 – Pending Finance Committee and CMO direction, RFP
released
March, 2016 – Council action on the to be determined scope of aquatics
services to be contracted out
Resource Impact
The City cost recovery for aquatics programs and services, as decribed in recent
Cost of Services Study, is below:
Total
Direct
Expenses
Total
Indirect
Expenses
Total Full
Costs
Total Fee
Revenue
Total
General
Fund
Subsidy
Direct
Cost %
Recovery
Full Cost %
Recovery
$623,895 $259,043 $882,938 $507,150 $375,788 81% 57%
The intent of the RFP is to provide an enhanced level of service at or below
current cost. Should alternative proposals require additional funding, staff will
evaluate fees for that service to ensure cost recovery goals are met while being
competitive in the marketplace.
Policy Implications
This proposal is aligned with Comprehesive Plan goal G1: Effective and Efficient
Delivery of Community Services.
DATE: AUGUST 23, 2016
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SUBJECT: DOG PARKS
Additional off leash dog parks for the City of Palo Alto have been the subject of much
community, PRC and City Council discussion for at least a decade. The Master Plan process
has confirmed that this is an urgent unmet need, highly ranked as a priority for residents.
Following extensive study and working closely with community stakeholders and staff, the
PRC Dog Park Ad Hoc Committee developed a two prong recommendation presented in the
March 22, 2016 Staff Report to the PRC (Attachment A). The recommendation includes:
1. A specific Dog Park Policy and Program to be included in the Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan); and
2. Near term implementation of at least one new dog park in the interim period prior
to approval and execution of the Master Plan.
The March 22, 2016 Staff Report recommended two locations for near-term
implementation: Eleanor Pardee Park and Bowden Park, both located north of Oregon
Expressway where demand is high and no dog parks currently exist.
We ask that City Council agree to our recommendation to pursue at least one dedicated dog
park in advance of final approval of the Master Plan and provide direction to staff to
proceed with installing a much needed dog park north of Oregon Expressway consistent
with the Master Plan and Ad Hoc Committee findings.
The implementation process will require public outreach in the surrounding neighborhood,
a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO), bids from contractors and installation of fencing and
simple amenities. Remaining recommended dog parks would be evaluated and prioritized
with other park projects identified in the Master Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment A: March 22, 2016 Staff Report to the Parks and Recreation Commission
presenting draft Dog Park Recommendation
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 22, 2016
SUBJECT: DOG PARK POLICY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the Parks and Recreation Commission
(Commission) recommend the following policy and program regarding dog parks be included in
the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan:
Policy: The City will actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks in multiple
neighborhoods, equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the dog
parks will vary, but should strive to be at least .25 acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open
Space Preserves.
The following program will support the dog park policy.
Program: The City will evaluate and select at least six dedicated, fenced dog parks, equitably
distributed across north and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential locations:
1. Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)-Near Term
2. Bowden (North, .37 Acres)-Near Term
3. Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres)
4. Peers Park (North, .73 Acres)
5. Hoover (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre)
6. Robles (South, .47 Acres)
7. Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres)
8. Kingsley Island (North, .27 Acres)
9. Werry Park (North, .31 Acres)
10. Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres)
11. Heritage (North, .27 Acres)
12. *El Camino Park (North, .5 Acres)
*Additional research is needed regarding El Camino Park as a suitable location due to future
transit improvements in the proposed area.
*We acknowledge that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are inadequate in terms of size, and
they should not be counted in their current configuration towards the minimum of six dog parks
recommended in this program.
BACKGROUND
1
%SBGU
The Commission has been interested in expanding the number of City dog parks for many years.
Palo Alto has three dog parks: Greer Park (.12 acres), Hoover Park (.14 acres), and Mitchell Park
(.56 acres). The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as
part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the
Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations arise, a
comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in Palo Alto’s park
system. The staff report from the January 2016 Commission meeting provides additional
background information (Attachment A).
Advantages of Dedicated Dog Parks
Dedicated dog parks have certain advantages over other dog off-leash models, such as shared-
use. The shared-use model involves using an area, like a baseball field, as a dog park during
certain limited hours of the day. Shared-use areas can be fenced or unfenced. Feedback from
other cities that have used these models indicate shared-use dog parks (fenced or unfenced)
typically require enforcement and professional clean-up services. The approximate annual cost to
hire a contractor for enforcement and clean-up is $21,000 per site. Dedicated dog parks don’t
require these services. Shared-use models often result in conflicts between user groups. The City
of Menlo Park decided to end their shared-use dog park, and change to a dedicated dog park
because their Parks and Rec Commission identified concerns related to the joint use of the
softball field as a dog park and noted ongoing field condition issues. The Menlo Park City
Council agreed that the shared-use field was not optimal for athletic field users or dog owners,
and they approved a project to create a dedicated dog park.
DISCUSSION
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee performed a comprehensive analysis of the Palo Alto park
system in an effort to find suitable locations for dedicated dog parks. Locations with at least .25
acres that are not currently used for active or programmed recreation were prioritized. Twelve
sites have been identified as potential locations for dedicated dog parks. Seven of the locations
are located in north Palo Alto, and five are in South Palo Alto. Three of these sites have existing
dog parks, although there are recommended changes to improve those areas. The dog park at
Mitchell Park would be expanded. The dog parks at Hoover Park and Greer Park would be
relocated to larger areas within those parks. The existing small dog parks at Greer and Hoover
could be repurposed for some other recreational need identified in the Parks Master Plan.
Attachment B includes aerial photographs of the 12 potential locations, and a map of Palo Alto
with the potential sites circled in red, and neighboring Menlo Park and Mountain View dog parks
circled in blue.
Near-Term Dog Parks
Two of the recommended locations for dog parks, Eleanor Pardee Park and Bowden Park, are
recommended to be implemented in the near-term. There is funding in an existing capital
improvement project that could be used to add fencing, water for dogs, and benches to create
simple dog parks in these areas. Both parks are in the northern portion of Palo Alto (north of
Oregon Expressway), which doesn’t currently have any dog parks.
2
Eleanor Pardee Park's centralized location in north Palo Alto would allow walkable access from
several neighborhoods. It is a large park (9.6 acres) with sizable unprogrammed passive-use
areas with space to dedicate a large dog park with minimal impact on other uses, and with
significant buffer space for adjacent residences.
Bowden Park, while not large (2 acres), has an unprogrammed passive-use area that is currently
underused due to adjacency with busy Alma Street. The proposed dog park site will have
minimum impact on other park users and nearby residences as well as accessibility for multiple
neighborhoods given the proximity to California Avenue underpass. There is a capital
improvement project at Bowden Park that is scheduled to start in the next few months, and it
may be possible to time the dog park installation to coincide with the rest of the park renovation.
Process and Timeline for Adding Near-Term Dog Parks
The process for adding the dog parks would involve hosting a public meeting for the
neighborhood around each park to collect feedback on the proposed dog park; seeking a
recommendation from the Commission to approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the
dog park; seek approval from Council for the PIO; get bids from fencing contractors, and install
fencing. The other recommended dog parks would be projects that would be evaluated and
prioritized with other park projects identified in the Parks Master Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: January 26, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report
Attachment B: Maps of the Potential Locations for Dedicated Dog Parks
3
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016
SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATE ON DOG PARKS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this
issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in
meeting the community’s dog park needs.
BACKGROUND
The Commission has been interested in expanding the number of City dog parks for many
years. Palo Alto has three dog parks: Greer Park (.12 acres), Hoover Park (.14 acres), and
Mitchell Park (.56 acres). The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation
opportunities as part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks.
As a result, the Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park
renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be
placed in Palo Alto’s park system.
The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and
evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In
the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic
researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test
usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be
appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary,
shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer
Park, and Hoover Park.
On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the
Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal,
including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of
success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-
use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential
sites.
The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog
Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with
athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns.
1
"55"$).&/5"
a. The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that current off-
leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto are inadequate, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces, especially in North Palo Alto, dedicated for small dogs, and larger
spaces that allow large dogs to run, especially in North Palo Alto.
b. The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impacts to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They said
this would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of
shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and
Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am).
Approximately 75 people attended.
The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A
small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their
house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and
dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts
on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports
teams practice and compete.
The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations.
Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a
lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog
park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we
need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful.
Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant
mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas.
After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research.
1. Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, Hoover
Park, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see if
there are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and evening
hours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of the
field at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the least
conflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experience
with shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
2
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it
was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of
their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative
impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused
some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were
also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal
Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated
dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View
Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent.
Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks
At the October 27, 2015 Commission meeting (Attachment A), staff discussed potential near-
term dedicated dog parks. Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc
Committee decided to explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be
implemented quickly and simply, with existing funds, while waiting for the Parks Master Plan to
be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee investigated a few options for locations for additional or
expanded dog parks that could be implemented in the near term.
1. Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. It
would require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue the
possibility of using this site as a dog park.
3
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,570.
3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.
It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff raised security concerns that no longer make this site viable as a dog park.
DISCUSSION
The Ad Hoc Committee working on dog parks recommends expanding the Mitchell Park Dog
Park, and continuing investigating the possibility of creating a new dog park at El Camino Park.
The unfenced, shared-use model, currently being used by the City of Mountain View, and
proposed by MIG as a possible recommendation in the Parks Master Plan, is outside the scope of
the Ad Hoc’s work. The Ad Hoc recommends further investigation and policy discussion around
that option. The February Commission retreat may represent an opportunity for the Commission
to figure out the appropriate process for considering the unfenced, shared-use dog park concept,
including the role, if any, of an ad hoc committee.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: October 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report and Approved
Minutes of discussion on item 3
4
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2015
SUBJECT: SHARED USE DOG PARK PILOT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this
issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in
meeting the community’s dog park needs.
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 2009, staff hosted a community meeting about recreational opportunities
for dog owners. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. The dog owners
expressed a strong desire for off-leash dog recreation in all areas of Palo Alto to improve
walkability and connections among neighbors; for more grass surfacing in off-leash areas;
and for consideration of designated, non-peak hours for fenced athletic fields use by dog
owners for off-leash recreation.
The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as part of
any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the
Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations
arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in
Palo Alto’s park system.
The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and
evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In
the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic
researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test
usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be
appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary,
shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer
Park, and Hoover Park (Attachment A).
On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the
Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal,
including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of
success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-
use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential
sites.
1
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog
Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with
athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns.
a. The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that there are not
enough off-leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces dedicated to small dogs, and larger spaces that allow large dogs to run.
b. The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make a baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impact to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They said
this would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SHARED-USE DOG PARK
The Ad Hoc Committee researched what other communities have learned regarding
shared-use dog parks. The Committee reviewed a summary of the 2009 Palo Alto
community meeting, and the dog policies and rules for San Francisco and for dog parks
throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Committee consulted with the Palo
Alto and Menlo Park dog owners groups and city staff operating shared-use, off-leash dog
parks in Menlo Park, San Carlos, and Cambridge, MA. The following are some important
considerations for any shared-use dog park pilot learned from other communities:
1.Safety
Safety of both people and dogs is an important consideration for all dog parks. While other
communities have successfully allowed shared-use facilities without fencing, the Ad Hoc
Committee believes a self-contained field will provide better control of the dogs and
increase the comfort of nearby park users. Use rules must require appropriate supervision
of dogs and children during shared-use hours and prohibit aggressive dog behavior. In
addition, a waste cleanup plan should be in place before opening the pilot in order to
protect other field users from abandoned dog waste. Rules should be prominently posted,
and cleanup bags and trash cans should be provided. In addition, a double door entry will
provide security as dogs enter and exit the facility.
2.Size
The primary benefit of a shared-use facility for dog recreation is the potential for a grass-
surfaced space of significant size. A shared field would provide dog owners legal access,
during limited, underused hours, to a recreation space large enough to play fetch or just let
their dogs run, while also distributing the impacts of dog wear over sufficient acreage to
preserve the quality of the surfacing.
2
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
Palo Alto’s existing dedicated dog parks are all small: Greer - .12 acres, Hoover - .14 acres
and Mitchell - .5 acres. Both San Francisco and Menlo Park Recreation and Park
Departments cited 10,000 square feet (approximately .25 acres) as the minimum
acceptable size for a dedicated dog park, with San Francisco preferring a minimum of
30,000 sf (approximately .75 acres) and Menlo Park rating 1.5 acres or more as best.
At Mitchell, the City’s largest dog park, a little less than half the surface is grass and the
remainder is decomposed granite. Staff perennially reports problems maintaining the
grass, due to overuse for its small coverage area. Users regularly complain of disruptions
due to grass maintenance issues, but also strongly oppose eliminating this lone grass-
surfaced area for off leash dogs.
3.Location
Ideally, a dog park should be located within a neighborhood to allow users to walk to the
facility and build community around their shared interests, but sufficiently distant from
residences so that noise and activity levels are no more disruptive to neighbors than typical
park uses. It should not cause significant displacement of established recreational
activities, including passive recreation, and it should not cause a detriment to the facility or
surrounding environment such as digging and trampling. In addition, it naturally would be
preferred to open a new dog park in an area of town that is currently underserved.
If the goal is to test a large, temporary, shared-use area, options are limited to City-owned
parks with adequate space to minimize the impacts of wear and with minimal new fencing
requirements as fencing represents the primary start-up cost. Unfortunately, the only sites
that currently fit that bill are the three proposed sites (Greer Park, Baylands Athletic
Center, and Hoover Park), all of which fall in the midtown, east-west corridor, already
served by two small dog parks.
The proposed pilot locations would accommodate fenced, shared-use areas sized as
follows:
Baylands Athletic Center: Large field: --- 3.27 acres
Small field: ---1.30 acres
Greer Park: --- 2.09 acres
Hoover Park: Inside baseball field: --- .96 acres
Turf area outside baseball field: ---1.17 acres.
4.Costs
3
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
The primary expense of a new off-leash dog area is the purchase and installation of fencing
to fully enclose the area. All three sites proposed have significant existing fencing that will
help keep the cost of a temporary pilot to a minimum. All three would require a new
double-gated entry. Hoover and the Baylands Athletic Center would need a negligible
amount of new fence length. Greer would need more, but less than half the linear footage
required to enclose the entire field area. Staff estimates new fencing costs, including
double gated entries, as below. Staff is investigating temporary fencing as an alternative,
but do not anticipate significant savings from that option.
Baylands Athletic Center: $ 1,000.
Greer Park: $ 21,350.
Hoover Park (inside baseball field: $ 4,000.
Hoover Park (turf outside baseball field: $ 18,775
Additional start-up costs include the installation of waste stations, signage and optional
benches that will be the same regardless of location:
Signs: approx. $ 250.00 each
Waste stations: approx. $ 800.00 for two
Benches: approx. $ 1,500.00 each
There would be additional costs for water spigots for drinking water or additional cleanup
alternatives, and those costs will vary by location.
Beyond start-up costs, there would be marginal increases in ongoing maintenance costs in
the form of increased staff time.
5.Enforceability
Successful enforcement of rules and hours of use will be vital to justifying the compromises
made by neighbors and other users. In other cities, dog owner groups have successfully
minimized violations through spot monitoring and peer pressure. San Carlos, however,
reported that its dog owners group dissolved quickly, leaving the City to fund all expenses.
Where engaged and organized, dog groups have managed waste cleanup and ensured that
owners addressed aggressive and loud dogs immediately through community oversight
during use hours and volunteer sector-by-sector cleanup in advance of non-dog uses. In
recent years, the Menlo Park dog owners’ group has switched over to a professional
cleanup service hired and funded by the dog group through user donations at an
approximate cost of $6,000 per year. In addition to behavior and clean-up, it will be
important to communicate and enforce rain closures for this new user group.
Current enforcement of leash laws in Palo Alto operates on a complaint-only basis.
Enforcement officers are stretched thin, and according to Animal Services, cannot
guarantee stepped up enforcement for a pilot. The Ad Hoc Committee have looked at
targeted oversight using contracted staff for a pilot program, but in the long term, an
expanded leash law enforcement, City-wide, will be vital to securing and maintaining
4
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
community buy-in for a permanent shared-use site and additional dedicated dog parks.
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City develop and budget for a plan of
increased enforcement of the leash law City-wide.
As for waste clean-up, the City could request that the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group
coordinate, manage, and fund a professional clean-up service similar to Menlo Park’s
practice. It has been suggested, however, that the City maintains recreation facilities at no
cost to other users (un-reserved picnic sites, Skate Park, playgrounds, etc.) and that dog
owners should similarly be entitled to services within our city. Others contend that
organized field users contribute to maintenance through field rental fees that give them
exclusive use at reserved times. Given public sanitation concerns regarding shared use, a
professional clean-up strategy may be advantageous.
It would cost approximately $21,000 to hire a contract security firm to enforce the rules and
clean up the dog waste at one shared-use Dog Park for a 6-month pilot program. This is based on
12 hours per week for a period of 26 weeks.
6.Long-term Use
The Parks Master Plan consultants, MIG, and other cities reported that in many cases, once
a pilot is opened, it is very difficult to discontinue that use. Furthermore, once regular use
is established, there is often an increase in off-hour use of the site when not otherwise
occupied. In Menlo Park, the dog owners’ group was helpful in spot checking for off-hour
use and talking with violators about the risk of permanent closure.
The concern about the ability to curtail off-leash use at the end of the pilot, and the close
proximity of the affordable sites suitable for the pilot, are reasons for caution about
opening multiple pilot sites. Nonetheless, dual pilots at both the Baylands Athletic Center
and a neighborhood park, could provide useful data about usage and the desirability of
quite different models – one very large, mostly single use, facility with high fencing at the
outskirts of town versus a smaller, walkable site within a popular neighborhood park that
currently serves many diverse uses.
7.Metrics and Rules
Before initiating a six-month pilot program it is important to develop criteria that will
allow the City to collect and monitor incoming data associated with the pilot program.
Based on our discussions with other cities and review of their pilot programs, the Ad Hoc
Committee drafted a list of criteria to help measure the success and/or failure of a six-
month off leash dog pilot (Attachment B) and proposed rules for use of the facility
(Attachment C).
5
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
8. Pros and Cons of Potential Sites
Location Pros Cons
Baylands
Athletic Center
Proposed Size:
Large Field: 3.27
acres
Estimated New
Fencing Cost: $
1,000.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt.
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required
Size:
Significantly larger than other
options – better capacity and
reduced maintenance impacts.
Location:
High fencing – so even “jumpers”
can safely use.
Little noise impact – no adjacent
residences.
No nearby playground.
Less risk of inviting unauthorized
use due to remote location.
Location:
Not in neighborhood:
x Users will more likely drive
than walk, possibly
exacerbating morning
congestion at
Embarcadero/101 intersection;
x Harder for dog owners group to
spot check compliance;
x Less community building
among neighbors;
x May invite more non-resident
users.
Adjacent to delicate Baylands
ecosystem – errant dogs could pose
threat.
If pilot extends beyond 6 months,
potential construction of the Flood
Control project and the Golf Course
renovation could impede access to
the site.
6
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
Location Pros Cons
Hoover Park
Inside the
baseball field
Proposed Size:
.96 Acres
Estimated New
Fencing Cost:
$4,000.
Turf Area outside
the baseball field
Proposed size:
1.17 acres.
Fencing costs:
$18,775
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required
for inside the baseball field area
High costs for outside the baseball
field area.
Location:
Walkable to neighborhood.
Lots of current dog use in and
outside of existing dog park:
x Shared use pilot would allow
current users to become
“legal” during open hours;
x Increased attention to
enforcement, maintenance and
cleanup could improve
conditions for other users.
Location:
Frequent use of field by Key School.
Nearby playground.
Highest potential impact on others:
x Heavily used community park;
x Close proximity to multi-unit
housing.
Fencing:
Existing fencing is less than 4 feet
high in outfield - may have high
risk of “escapees.”
Size:
Smallest option, yet high current
unauthorized dog use:
x May be difficult to get dog
owners to stay in fenced area;
x Heavy dog usage would have a
greater impact on this small
field.
7
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
Location Pros Cons
Greer Park
Proposed Size:
2.09 Acres
Estimated New
Fencing Cost:
$21,350.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Location:
Little noise impact.
Walkable to neighborhood.
Few adjacent residences.
Existing dedicated dog park is
smallest in the city – currently
attracts mostly one-off users (and
professional dog walkers) rather
than gathering of dog folks.
Larger space could allow better
community building
opportunities.
Size: Midsized option
Fencing/Cost:
Biggest fencing need of all the
options.
Permanent fencing could change
the character of the adjacent picnic
area.
Location:
Current off-leash use is low – pilot
may attract more usage during
unauthorized times.
Nearby playground.
DISCUSSION
Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of
shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and
Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am).
Approximately 75 people attended. See Attachment D for notes from the community
meeting.
The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A
small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their
house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and
dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts
on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports
teams practice and compete.
The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations.
Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a
lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog
park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we
8
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful.
Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant
mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas.
After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research.
1. Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, Hoover
Park, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see if
there are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and evening
hours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of the
field at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the least
conflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experience
with shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it
was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of
their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative
impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused
some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were
also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal
Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated
dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View
Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent.
9
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
Palo Alto Consider Permanent Dog Parks
Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to
explore opportunities for permanent dog parks that could be implemented quickly without
investing too much money, nor waiting for the Parks Master Plan to be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee are investigating few options for locations for permanent or
expanded dog parks (See Attachment E).
1. Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. It
would require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue the
possibility of using this site as a dog park.
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,575.
3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.
It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff advises that they may need to use this landscaped area for future expansion
and that they have some security concerns because this is the site where the City gets its
power. Another complication is that Utilities pays a significant amount of money to the
City’s general fund for the lease of this site. CSD staff will continue to pursue the
possibility of using this site as a dog park.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed shared-use pilot locations
Attachment B: Metrics for evaluation of a pilot dog park
Attachment C:Proposed rules for pilot dog park facility
Attachment D: Notes from July 30, 2015 community meeting on dog parks
Attachment E: Proposed permanent or expanded dog parks
10
"55"$).&/5"
+BOVBSZ
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PETER JENSEN, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 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 36 parks and open space preserves covering approximately 4,165 acres of land,
which includes Foothills Park, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, and the Baylands Nature
Preserve. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
(Master Plan) was adopted by Council for the 2013 fiscal year. The purpose of this effort is to provide the
necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for the preparation of a long-range
(20-year) Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future capital
improvement projects and program enhancements aimed at meeting current and future demands on the
city’s parks and recreation facilities, recreation programming, the natural environment and facility
maintenance. The Master Plan will also include an implementation guide including funding and maintenance
needs for the near-, mid-, and long-term.
The Master Plan process consists of three phases:
1. Phase 1: Specific Site and Program Analysis and Community Engagement (complete): Development
of a comprehensive inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, developed natural open
space areas (picnic areas, parking lots) and recreational facilities and programs; analysis of current
and forecasted demographic and recreation trends, and analysis of community recreation needs.
Identify community and stakeholder needs, interests and preferences for system enhancements
using a proactive community engagement process.
2. Phase 2: Developing and Prioritizing Project and Program Opportunities (complete/ongoing):
Preparation of goals, policies, and programs; identification of capital projects, needed renovations
and other improvements; and implementation timeline of short (5-year), medium (15- year) and
long-term (20-year) projects and programs.
3. Phase 3: Drafting of the Master Plan, Review and Adoption (ongoing): Community, Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC), and Council review; and Council approval to adopt the Master Plan.
Phase 1, which includes technical assessment and community and stakeholder engagement activities, is
complete. The goals, policies and programs in Phase 2 have been developed and were reviewed extensively
by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). Staff is now finalizing an implementation timeline for capital
projects and program enhancements and has begun drafting the chapters of the Master Plan. Based on the
Master Plan outline that was presented to the PRC at the June meeting, a description and status of each
chapter of the Master Plan is included below.
2
DISCUSSION
Chapters 1 through 4: Introduction, Elements of the System, Needs and Opportunities, Our Desired Future
The first three chapters provide the basic foundation for the Master Plan including the elements of the
Master Plan (Parks, Trails, and Natural Open Spaces; Recreation Facilities; and Recreation Programming),
and summary and results of the technical assessment and community engagement process. Chapter four
presents the Principles - Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, Accessible, Flexible, Balanced, Nature -
that together describe the vision for Palo Alto’s parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system.
This chapter also presents the six goals that provide the foundation for the policies and programs, which
form the recommendations of the Master Plan. The first four chapters of the Master Plan should be
familiar in content to the Commission. Staff is requesting feedback from the PRC on Chapters 1 through
4 (Attachment A), specifically feedback on readability and flow, as well as ommissions.
Chapter 5: Goals, Policies and Programs
The Master Plan framework consisting of goals, policies and programs has been reviewed by the
Commission at various stages of development. All comments received at the June 28, 2016 PRC meeting
have been incorporated into the draft final version of Chapter 5 (Attachment A). Additional comments
were provided to staff by the PRC’s Master Plan ad hoc committee on August 15, 2016. The following
new programs have been added to Chapter 5 at the request of the PRC Ad Hoc committee.
4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones along creeks to enhance habitat value.
5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that can be added or
relocated to low use parks.
5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park.
5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community access to shared facilities.
One additional program was added by staff to capture previous discussions with the PRC Ad Hoc
committee on dog parks:
2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks focusing on safety and limits of use.
A summary of the revisions made to Chapter 5 based on comments received from the PRC during the
June 28, 2016 meeting, recent Ad Hoc committee comments, as well as additional revisions from staff
are included in Attachment B.
Chapter 6: Site Concept Plans
Site Concept Plans were developed for each of Palo Alto’s parks and recreation facilities. The Site Concept
Plans show potential improvements and amenities that could be added to enhance a park or facility. New
potential site amenities shown on the Site Concept Plans were derived from the park and recreation system
analysis and extensive community input with assistance of park and recreation staff who have detailed
knowledge of the community's preferences, common requests and feedback received from the public, as
well as the feasibility of proposed improvements. The project team has provided numerous opportunities
for the public to provide input on new potential amenities for each site. Outreach efforts included the City of
Palo Alto May Fete fair information booth on May 7, 2016, a community meeting that was held on May 25,
2016, and use of online site concept plan input forms from May 25th through August 9th. The site concept
3
plans were introduced to the Commission at the May 31st PRC meeting. A total of 271 comments were
received on the concept plans during the community outreach effort. A summary of the comments received
are included in Attachment B. The project team will use the information received in the community
engagement process to refine the site concept plans for inclusion in the Draft Master Plan.
Chapter 7: Implementation
Chapter 7 will inform staff, the PRC and City Council on strategic direction for implementing the Master
Plan. Chapter 7 will include an action plan, a discussion on current and future funding needs, a process
for evaluating future projects and a progress reporting methodology. The action plan will identify the
programs that will be recommended for implementation in the near-, mid-, and long-term. Near-term is
defined as starting within 5 years or less, mid-term is 6-10 years, and long-term is 11-20 years. Both
“keep-up” and “catch-up” projects that were identified in the Final Report of the Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC) will be included in the action plan as well as any new potential amenities or
enhancements identified through the Master Plan process. Near-term capital projects will be consistent
with the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Plan and will include initial cost estimates as well as long-
term operating costs. Chapter 7 will also include a separate discussion of large-scale capital projects that
may be considered a priority, but will take years and significant funding to implement.
When considering the priority of programs and the order in which they will be completed, the following
set of criteria will be used as an initial guide to identify the benefit of the proposed program to the
community and parks system in relation to other programs. Proposed programs will be ranked using a
range of low, medium, and high; on how well the programs meet the criteria. These criteria will not
provide a program score, but will be used to inform staff, the PRC, and Council on how a particular
program could serve community needs.
1. Fill existing gaps: Bring recreation opportunities (parkland, facilities, programs) to areas of the
City and to users where gaps exist.
2. Address community preferences: Target the highest priority types of projects and programs
identified through citywide outreach.
3. Respond to growth: Add features or programs, modify or expand components of the system to
prepare for and address increasing demand.
4. Maximize public resources: Create the most impact for each dollar of capital and operating
expenditure possible.
5. Realize multiple benefits: Advance the Master Plan principals, goals, projects and directions of
other City efforts.
While the first step provides guidance on prioritization; additional factors that influence the timing of
implementation will be considered, including the following:
Timing
Timing of programs in relation to other facility improvements will minimize disruption and increase
efficient use of resources. For example, planning for the installation of an adult fitness area to
coincide with other planned improvements within the same park minimizes disruption to the
neighborhood and is a more efficient use of City funds. The City currently has a future renovations
and improvements schedule for all parks and facilities. New proposed amenities for a specific site
will be added to the scope of planned improvements in the existing schedule. New amenities that
have high demand and limited access may be considered stand along projects if future renovations
4
are determined too far out. Examples of possible standalone projects include restrooms and dog
parks as well as the 10-acre development at the Baylands.
Resources
The capital improvements and future maintenance costs are a significant factor in planning for the
future of the parks, recreation, and open space system. The availability of funds for park,
recreation, and open space improvements will vary year-to-year and limit the level and extent of
improvements and expansion.
Feasibility and additional constraints
Additional constraints influencing program timing or completion may include difficult permitting
requirements, public safety access, and immediate needs based on a specific event or incident.
Property availability
For park expansion, property availability is a limiting factor. Lack of surplus land in Palo Alto and
the high price per square foot of land makes acquisition difficult without assistance from private
donations or other revenue opportunities.
Attachment D of this staff report presents an outline and roadmap of the implementation chapter. Staff
is requesting feedback on the approach described in Chapter 7.
ATTACHMENTS
A. DRAFT Chapters 1-5 of Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
B. Summary of revisions to Chapter 5
C. Summary of public comments on site concept plans
D. Memo: Chapter 7 Approach
NEXT STEPS
A City Council Study Session scheduled for September 19, 2016 will review the master planning process and
activities completed to date and obtain feedback on the goals and policies. Specific focus will be placed on
the policies that address dog parks and restrooms.
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.
PB
PALOALTO
MASTER PLAN
AUGUST 2016 DRAFT
PARKS TRAILS NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION
i
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public
Works Departments of the City of Palo Alto.
The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The Parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout
the planning process:
Jim Cowie
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
David Moss
Keith Reckdahl
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Pat Markevitch
CONSULTANT TEAM
MIG, INC.
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community
members who contributed their time, energy and ideas to this
effort, particularly the members of the stakeholder advisory group.
ii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
iiiii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
CONTENTS
MASTER PLAN
Glossary..............................................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2. Elements of Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces & Recreation System.......15
Chapter 3. Needs and Opportunities ....................................................................................................................31
Chapter 4. Our Future..................................................................................................................................................47
Chapter 5. Policies Programs and Projects.........................................................................................................59
Chapter 6. Site Specific Plans ...............................................................................................Under Development
Chapter 7. Implementation.....................................................................................................Under Development
Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................................................87
APPENDICES
A. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces and Recreation Inventory ............................Under Development
B. Community Engagement Summary...............................................................................Under Development
C. Geographic Analysis Maps.................................................................................................Under Development
FIGURES
Figure 1: Planning Process..........................................................................................................................................4
Figure 2: Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Spaces Map ..................................................................20
Figure 3: Participation in Palo Alto Recreation Program Areas ..................................................................25
Figure 4: Park Walksheds Map......... ......................................................................................................................40
Figure 5: Prioritization Challenge Results...................................................................................................43-44
Figure 6: Park Search Areas Map...........................................................................................................................52
Figure 7: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes Map.............................................................................................54
Figure 8: Natural Systems Map..............................................................................................................................56
TABLES
Table 1: Parks and Natural Open Spaces Inventory.........................................................................................19
Table 2: Palo Alto Facilities........................................................................................................................................22
iv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
viv
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Creek/Riparian Enhancement: conceptual enhancement
opportunity for all of the creeks passing through Palo Alto.
Element: one of three divisions of the plan for analysis purposes:
parks, trails and natural open space, recreation facilities, recreation
programs.
Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Route: a concept to improve
routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to
create a network of high quality on and off street connections
that link parks. These routes are envisioned to have enhanced
crossings, street treatments and other improvements beyond the
bicycle infrastructure outlined in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Streetscape and plantings are also linked to the idea of Pollinator
Pathways.
Facility: A built feature in a park or preserve that adds, supports or
enhances a recreation activity.
Goals: A broad statement of direction describing the desired end
state. Goals are qualitative in nature, and collectively should achieve
the system envisioned by the principles.
Mean Projected High Water 3ft Sea Level Rise: the line at which
water meets the land surface at the mean high water point
projected in NOAA models for 3 feet of sea level rise.
Natural Open Space Preserve: a category of park land that is
designated to protect and provide access to nature. The four
natural open space preserves are: Baylands Preserve (which
includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park and
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve.
Park Connector: a conceptual second tier of enhanced bicycle and
pedestrian route that links the major routes to a few isolated sites.
Park Search Area: the inverse of the park service areas, highlighting
the areas outside of a ½ mile walk from any park land. These areas
are the targets for strategies to add to the park system.
Policy: A values-based framework that provides clear direction and
guides an action toward achieving the goal. Policies state what will
be done, but not how.
vi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
Pollinator Pathway: utilizing the Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian
Route network, the concept for these pathways features plantings
and tree canopy along the streetscape to enhance habitat
connections for birds and insects with multiple benefits including
enhancing pollination.
Principles: A fundamental basis that describes a desired state or
preferred direction. Collectively, the principles articulate the Palo
Alto community’s vision for the future parks, trails, natural open
space and recreation system.
Recreation Program: a class, league, camp, tour or event that
facilitates participating in an activity
Riparian Connected Parks: sites with a creek (natural or
channelized) passing through or adjacent.
Urban Canopy Target Area: the lowest canopy coverage
neighborhoods in the Urban Forestry Master Plan (0-30%
coverage).
viivi
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
This is under development for the September draft.
viii
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary
This is under development for the September draft.
CHAPTER1
PURPOSE AND INTENT
It has been fifty years since Palo Alto has taken a comprehensive look at the community’s needs for park lands, natural open spaces, trails and recreation. The visionary 1965 plan shaped our community’s present day parks and recreation offerings, and led to the creation of the Baylands Athletic Center, expansion of athletic fields throughout the city, and an expansion of Greer Park. It called for parks within one-half mile of every residential development, and established City standards for the amount of neighborhood and district park acreage.
Today Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors value and enjoy the City’s high-quality system of parks, recreation programs, trails and natural open spaces. To build on and continue the legacy of a
INTRODUCTION
2
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
EVOLVE THE SYSTEM TO SERVE A LARGER AND MORE DIVERSE SET OF COMMUNITY NEEDS
32
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
strong parks system, the City developed this Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) to guide
ongoing investment in one of the community’s most treasured
assets.
Over the last five decades, the City has completed a series of
planning efforts that impact parks and recreation; implemented
capital improvement projects to maintain and renovate City
facilities; and applied development impact fees for parks,
community centers and libraries. In recent years, several major
projects have been completed including the all-new Mitchell Park
Library and Community Center and the Magical Bridge Playground,
both of which opened in 2015 to community acclaim. Palo Alto has
the opportunity right now to evolve the system to serve a larger
and more diverse set of community needs and tackle challenges
created by the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. A
particular focus will be finding and creating additional spaces for
parks and recreation to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and bring parks and recreation activities within walking
distance of all residents.
The park system of the 21st century calls for holistic guidance for
managing, improving and expanding park and recreation facilities
to keep programs, services and facilities relevant to present and
future populations; appropriately balance recreation and natural
open space conservation; and identify funding to meet these
challenges. For this reason, Palo Alto prioritized the development of
this Master Plan.
The Master Plan presents the vision for the future of Palo Alto’s
parks, trails, natural open space and recreation system, based
on guiding principles, goals and concepts developed through a
rigorous analysis of the existing system and a robust community
engagement process. It builds on this framework with a set
of policies, projects, programs, and site specific plans with
recommendations for future renovations and capital improvements.
It also includes guidance on how to prioritize future recreation,
programming, environmental and maintenance investment to meet
our community’s changing needs and evolving demands for the
next 20 years.
4
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
Planning Process Overview
The planning process to develop the Master Plan included the
following tracks, as shown in Figure 1.
• Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Proactive
engagement of the public and a broad range of
stakeholders to identify community needs, interests and
preferences for system enhancements.
• Technical Assessment and Analysis: A comprehensive
inventory and analysis of all Palo Alto parks, trails, natural
open spaces and recreational facilities and programs;
an analysis of current and forecasted demographic and
recreation trends; and an analysis of community recreation
needs.
• Developing and Prioritizing Projects: Preparation of
recommendations; identification of capital projects,
needed renovations and other improvements; and
prioritization of projects into an implementation timeline of
short (5-year), medium (10- year) and long-term (20-year)
ranges.
• Plan Review and Adoption: Public review and approval
process to adopt the plan.
FIGURE 1: PLANNING PROCESS
54
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
The process was led by the project team, consisting of city and
consultant staff. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) was
involved throughout the process, serving as strategic advisors and
participating in-depth in reviewing the assessment and analysis
tasks.
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The Master Plan was designed to be community-driven, to
ensure that Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system reflects
the vision and supports the needs of our residents and visitors
over the next twenty years. A robust, layered outreach strategy
was implemented through each step of the planning process.
Engagement methods included a wide variety of tools and
activities, offered within a range of formats, time frames and
levels of interaction, to engage with Palo Alto’s diverse community
members in ways that were comfortable and convenient for them.
Master Plan community engagement methods, described in the
following section, included:
• A project webpage
• Public information updates through a variety of online and
print communication channels
• A community stakeholder advisory group
• A series of face-to-face “intercept surveys” at popular
locations and community events
• A variety of interactive community workshops
• A series of online surveys
• Interviews with City staff and community experts to better
inform topics that emerged from community engagement
• Consultations with the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) and other appointed commissions
• City Council updates and study sessions
The process and findings for each of the community engagement
activities are detailed in summary reports on the City website. The
summary of the key findings from the community engagement are
included in Chapter 3 of this plan.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
GOALS
• Increase community
awareness of the project;
• Inform the community
about the challenges and
opportunities of the project;
• Provide easy access
to project information
and opportunities for
participation;
• Offer a range of
communication and
engagement tools to match
interests and preferences;
• Ensure the final Master
Plan reflects community
priorities, preferences and
values; and
• Get community buy-in to
support plan adoption and
its short-, mid- and long-
term implementation.
6
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
PROJECT WEBPAGE
A Master Plan project webpage, hosted on the City’s website with a
project-specific web address (paloaltoparksplan.org), served as the
information portal and document library for the planning effort.
PUBLIC INFORMATION UPDATES
The project team disseminated public information updates through
the City’s established mailing lists, newsletters and social media
accounts. These updates informed the community about upcoming
meetings, online participation opportunities and project status.
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
The Stakeholder Advisory Group provided an informed sounding
board for ideas and provided updated information about related
efforts and organizations. This group was also asked to help boost
participation in other engagement activities by passing along
information to existing networks and constituent groups about the
Master Plan process. This group consisted of representatives from
local advocacy groups, recreation organizations, local employers
and landowners, community service providers and others. To
respect the time of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory
Group, the project team designed the process to solicit this group’s
input at strategic times during the project.
Project webpage
76
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
INTERCEPT EVENTS
During the summer of 2014, the project team and PRC members
conducted six “intercept surveys” to collect input from visitors
outdoors at parks, farmer’s markets and community events. This
approach is effective at engaging all age groups, especially families
with children, and allows for informal and educational discussions
with the public. It also facilitates interaction with people who do
not typically attend public meetings, due to schedule conflicts or a
lack of awareness. The project team selected intercept times and
locations to reach a cross-section of Palo Altans. More than 200
people learned about the park system and the Master Plan effort
and informed the planning team about their values and motivations
as related to parks, natural open space and recreation.
ONLINE MAP-BASED SURVEY
During the summer of 2014, the project team hosted an online,
interactive, map-based survey using the Mapita application.
This tool allows community members to respond to a series of
questions and provide geographically tagged comments on specific
parks, facilities and transportation routes throughout the City.
A total of 487 respondents provided comments on park quality,
barriers to access, needs and opportunities. This effort generated
a rich data set about how people use the park system, how they
Site-Specific Comments on Bol Park from the Online Map-Based Survey
8
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
travel to the places they go, and what their experience is like,
including site-specific data. Figures 3 and 4 are example graphics
from the map-based survey.
COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS
In fall and winter 2014, the project team conducted three
interactive public workshops in different areas of Palo Alto,
attended by about 65 community members. Participants took
part in a visual preference survey about the character and design
of parks using real-time keypad polling. This activity, facilitated
in small groups, provided opportunities for in-depth discussion
of what features participants would like to protect, preserve,
improve or add to Palo Alto. The project team collected polling
data, recorded group discussion and collected additional input on
comment cards. For example, the image below shows the level
of participant support (combined from all three workshops) for a
landscape with integrated natural plantings.
ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
Over 1,100 people completed an online survey developed by the
Visual Preference Survey Result from a Community Input Workshop
98
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
project team in close consultation with the PRC. This tool collected
data on community priorities and preferences to inform the
development of recommendations and actions. The survey was
available online and in hard copy, in both English and Spanish, from
mid-November to mid-December 2015.
FOLLOW-UP STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
As the planning process unfolded, the project team identified
issues for which additional knowledge from staff and community
experts would be beneficial to understanding needs and
identifying potential recommendations. Between October 2014
and March 2015, 16 follow-up stakeholder interviews were
conducted to gather additional data and explore issues in depth.
The interviewees included City and partner staff, volunteers, and
community members across a variety of topics:
• Community Gardening
• Aquatics
• Cubberley Community Center tenants
• Junior Museum and Zoo
• Palo Alto Art Center
• Children’s Library
• Palo Alto Children’s Theatre
• Middle School Athletics
• Palo Alto Dog Owners
• Avenidas
• Palo Alto Youth Council
• Boost drop-in programming
COMMUNITY PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE AND WORKSHOP
To obtain community input on how to prioritize enhancements
within areas of focus, the project team implemented an online
interactive exercise called the “Community Prioritization Challenge”
from August 28, 2015 to February 15, 2016. A total 731
respondents provided feedback through this activity.
The online exercise was supplemented by an in-person workshop
held on February 11th, 2016, which was lightly attended (5
10
participants representing different recreation interest groups) but
included a rich conversation about priorities. The online exercise
was mirrored by a printed display board that listed the twelve areas
of focus, on which each participant was asked to place five sticky
dots to indicate preferred investments.
SITE CONCEPTS REVIEW
The project team reached out to the community at the May Fete,
on May 7, 2016 to review preliminary site concepts, illustrations of
how the recommendations of this plan could play out across each
park and preserve. The site concepts were presented as bubble
diagrams, indicating areas within the site and the general type of
improvements recommended. Shortly after this initial event, on
May 25th, a workshop was held to provide another opportunity to
comment on the concepts. Approximately 30 people reviewed the
concepts at the workshop. Further comments were received from
other City of Palo Alto department staff (including Public Safety
and Planning) as well as the Park and Recreation Commission. To
Community Prioritization Challenge
1110
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
expand the opportunity to comment, the project team created and
advertised an online comment form that provided the opportunity
to provide site-specific feedback on the concepts. Over 200
comments were received through this form. These concepts have
been refined and are presented in chapter 6 of this plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON PLAN
The project team created an online feedback form to collect
comments from the public on the draft Master Plan. As comments
were made, they were logged to track the source of the comment,
specific feedback or recommended changes for consideration,
and aggregated feedback to identify patterns. Comments were
discussed with staff and the PRC to determine appropriate action.1
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (PRC)
The planning team engaged the PRC throughout the Master Plan
effort, from the initial scope development and consultant selection
through every step of the process. This commission’s involvement
was critical to understanding the full range of issues in the
community and in shaping further community engagement.
CITY COUNCIL
An important part of the Master Plan process was City Council
involvement. Council members represent Palo Alto residents and
are the policy and decision-making body of the city. As an initial
step, the project team made a presentation to the City Council and
the Park and Recreation Commission in a joint study session. This
presentation introduced the goals and objectives of the planning
process as well as preliminary plans for community engagement
and system analysis. As the planning process progressed, City
Council was provided updates through periodic reports and two
study sessions.
1 This step has not yet complete as of the drafting of this chapter.
It will be revised and updated to reflect the results of this stage in
the process.
12
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION
Technical Assessment and Analysis
The project team completed a detailed analysis of all aspects of the
system to inform the Master Plan. The multi-layered approach to
analysis, the interconnection between the community engagement
and the analysis tasks (each feeding the other) and the coordination
with related concurrent planning efforts ensured that this Master
Plan is based on sound information and the best available data.
RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS
• The layers of assessment and analysis included:
• Physical inventory of parks, preserves and facilities,
• Recreation program inventory and analysis,
• Geographic analysis,
• Demographics and recreation trends analysis,
• Planning environment summary, and
• Sustainability review
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
To assist in referencing and using the large amount of data
developed during the process, tabbed binders were created
for each member of the PRC and project team with all of the
completed documents, numbered for quick reference. An outline
of the deliverables for the Master Plan process became the table
of contents for the binder. To facilitate broader distribution of the
data binders (and reduce paper use), the project team developed
a “digital binder,” available on the City website, which consists of
a table of contents with hotlinks to each section. This working
reference has been included in the delivery of this plan as the
Technical Supplement, carrying forward the detail of these working
documents.
Project Development and Prioritization
As major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis and
the Community and Stakeholder Engagement processes were
completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review
of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master
Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together
in preparation for the critical track of Developing and Prioritizing
1312
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation INTRODUCTION Palo
Alto
Projects. The process for review, designed by the project team with
the input of the PRC, resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with
supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities.
This matrix served as the basis for developing, evaluating and refin-
ing the projects and programs contained in this Master Plan.
The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of
possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined,
more accessible way. The matrix served as a key reference point
to assess and validate elements of the Master Plan as they were
developed. The complete matrix can be downloaded from the City
website.
Plan Review and Adoption
The final steps in the Master Plan process involved the drafting
of this plan document and formal review by the staff, PRC,
stakeholders, the public and City Council. While the project team
worked to draft the plan content, the policy, program and project
recommendations as well as strategies for implementing the
plan were developed with the input of the staff that manage
construction, operations and maintenance in the system. This
work formed the basis for the final chapters of this plan and set a
recommended path forward which was reviewed and adopted by
Palo Alto’s City Council.2
2 This step has not yet complete as of the drafting of this chapter.
It will be revised and updated to reflect the results of this stage in
the process.
CHAPTER2
ELEMENTS OF PALO ALTO’S PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION SYSTEM
FROM ITS EARLIEST YEARS, THE COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO
HAS INVESTED IN THE SYSTEM OF PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL
OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION, LEAVING A LEGACY OF UNIQUE
AND HIGHLY VALUED LANDS AND FACILITIES. Philanthropic donations, unique partnerships and forward-thinking acquisitions have positioned the system at the forefront of community identity. The level of investment has created a complex system that provides many different recreation opportunities, as well as important natural functions and habitat for wildlife.
To facilitate the analysis and understanding of Palo Alto’s resources, the project team defined three elements that comprise the citywide system of parks, natural open spaces, trails and recreation facilities and programs. These three elements were
16
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
THE LANDSCAPE OF PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND TRAIL CONNECTIONS PROVIDE THE SPACE WHERE RECREATION FACILITIES, NATURAL HABITAT AND PROGRAMS TAKE PLACE.
1716
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
broken down further into constituent “components” to provide a
reference framework for system analysis, community engagement,
and development of Master Plan recommendations. Each of the
elements is described below, providing a view of the system today
and highlighting key features.
Parks, Trails and Natural Open Spaces
The landscape of parks, open spaces and trail connections provide
the space where recreation facilities, natural habitat and pro-
grams take place. Most of Palo Alto’s park sites are set in an urban
context, within neighborhoods connected by city streets. However,
the largest portion of the land in the system is held in natural open
space preserves. An expanding network of trails and bikeways
supplements the sidewalks and streets that connect these assets
together. The analysis related to this element includes the proxim-
ity of park lands and recreation activities; opportunities to experi-
ence and protect natural habitats; trail connections and the comfort
and accessibility of the sites.
The System Today
Palo Alto owns over 173 acres of urban park land distributed
throughout the city as well as over 4,000 acres in natural open
space preserves. The majority of the parks in Palo Alto are neigh-
borhood parks, primarily designed to support the everyday activ-
ities of local residents. Some parks also feature unique facilities
such as community gardens and dog parks. There are several parks
that draw visitors from across the city and from neighborhing
communities. These typically have a higher concentration of facil-
ities, including high quality sports fields. Some of these parks are
designed for a specific use and do not serve immediate neighbors
(e.g., Baylands Athletic Center, El Camino Park and Stanford Palo
Alto Playing Fields), while others, like Greer, Mitchell, and Rinco-
nada Parks, also function as neighborhood parks. City parks are
diverse in size and amenities, but many are older and/or have aging
facilities. Palo Alto parks are highly developed with maintained
landscapes across their entire acreage. Native species and less
manicured landscapes are generally not present. Due to the era
18
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
when they were built, many parks don’t have flexible spaces that
allow different uses to be layered in. Rather, they provide a collec-
tion of spaces designed for a single activity. With design interven-
tions, many existing parks have the potential to support more use
and activity.
There are four natural open space preserves: Baylands Preserve
(which includes Byxbee Park), Esther Clark Preserve, Foothills Park
and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. These sites are large, rich in
native species of plants and animal habitat and have extensive
internal trail systems. With the exception of Esther Clark Preserve,
the preserves also have recreational and interpretive facilities.
The existing trail system is largely within park lands but several
segments of designated or off-street trails connect parks and other
community destinations. Most significant among these are the Bay
to Ridge and San Francisco Bay regional trails. The public trail sys-
tem is further enhanced by privately owned trails with public access
such as the recently completed Stanford Perimeter Trail.
The Existing Public Parks and Natural Open Space map (Figure 8)
depicts all City-owned park sites and natural open spaces. Palo
Alto U¬nified School District sites are also acknowledged on this
map due to the long-standing partnership and their importance as
park-like places. A detailed inventory of these sites can be found
in Appendix A, and a complete set of site maps can be found in the
Technical Supplement.
PALO ALTO PARK ACREAGE
Urban Parks: 174
Natural Open Space Preserves: 4,030
NATURAL OPEN SPACE PRESERVES
Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee Park)
Esther Clark Preserve
Foothills Park
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve
1918
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Park or Natural Open Space Ownership Acres
Baylands Athletic Center City of Palo Alto 6
Bol Park City of Palo Alto 13.8
Boulware Park City of Palo Alto 1.5
Bowden Park City of Palo Alto 2
Bowling Green Park City of Palo Alto 1.9
(Juana) Briones Park City of Palo Alto 4.1
Cameron Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Cogswell Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.5
El Camino Park City of Palo Alto 12.2
Eleanor Pardee Park City of Palo Alto 9.6
El Palo Alto Park City of Palo Alto 0.5
Greer Park City of Palo Alto 22
Heritage Park City of Palo Alto 2.0
Hoover Park City of Palo Alto 4.2
Hopkins Creekside City of Palo Alto 12.4
Johnson Park City of Palo Alto 2.5
Kellogg Park City of Palo Alto 0.2
Lytton Plaza City of Palo Alto 0.2
Mayfield Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Mitchell Park City of Palo Alto 21.4
Monroe Park City of Palo Alto 0.6
Peers Park City of Palo Alto 4.7
Ramos Park City of Palo Alto 4.4
Rinconada Park City of Palo Alto 19
Robles Park City of Palo Alto 4.7
Scott Park City of Palo Alto 0.4
Seale Park City of Palo Alto 4.3
Stanford - Palo Alto Playing Fields City of Palo Alto 5.9
Terman Park City of Palo Alto/ PAUSD 7.7
Wallis Park City of Palo Alto 0.3
Weisshaar Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
Werry Park City of Palo Alto 1.1
SUBTOTAL CITY PARKS 174
Baylands Preserve (including Byxbee)City of Palo Alto 1,986
Esther Clark Preserve City of Palo Alto 22
Foothills Park City of Palo Alto 1,400
Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto 622
SUBTOTAL NATURAL OPEN SPACES 4,030
TABLE 1: PALO ALTO PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACES INVENTORY
20
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Williams Park
San F r a ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r e ek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
0 10.5
Miles
²
Figure 8: Existing
Public Parks &
Natural Open Space
04.01.2016 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
FIGURE 1: EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE MAP
2120
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Williams Park
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
0 10.5
Miles
²
Figure 8: Existing
Public Parks &
Natural Open Space
04.01.2016 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
22
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Recreation Facilities
From community centers to sports fields to community gardens,
Palo Alto’s recreation facilities add variety to the experiences pos-
sible at each of Palo Alto’s parks and natural open spaces. Twelve
types of recreation facilities are found throughout the system, in
addition, other specialized recreation facilities such as the skate
park at Greer Park, the lawn bowling green at Bowling Green Park,
and El Camino Park serve specific recreation needs.
The number and type of facilities at each park and preserve are
summarized as part of the detailed inventory of the system found
in Appendix A.
Play Areas
The most common, and expected, feature in a Palo Alto park is a
play area. Typically play areas include a manufactured playground
structure and may or may not include swings or other features.
Mitchell Park has particularly unique play experiences that include
both a historic Royston-designed “gopher holes” play area and the
Magical Bridge Playground, a destination play area designed to be
universally accessible for children of all abilities.
Basketball and Tennis Courts
Courts, primarily for basketball and tennis, are incorporated into
many of Palo Alto’s parks. Most of the courts are provided singly
or in pairs of facilities with the exception of Mitchell and Rinconada
parks with 7 and 9 tennis courts respectively. These concentrations
of tennis courts provide a higher capacity for play and the potential
to host tournaments.
Rectangular and Diamond Sports Fields
The city owns, manages and maintains dozens of rectangular and
diamond sports fields located throughout the city. Rectangular
fields accommodate a variety of sports including soccer, and foot-
ball. Diamond fields are designed for particular levels of baseball or
softball play. Most of the higher level sports fields are concentrated
adjacent to Cubberley Community Center or in field complexes such
as the Stanford-Palo Alto Playing Fields and the El Camino Park
sports fields. The City also maintains sports fields on several School
PALO ALTO RECREATION
FACILITIES
• Play areas
• Basketball Courts
• Tennis Courts
• Rectangular Sports Fields
• Diamond Sports Fields
• Picnic Areas
• Off-Leash Dog Areas
• Community Gardens
• Swimming Pools
• Community Centers
• Special Purpose Buildings in
Parks
• Other Indoor Facilities
• Golf Course
Number of Facilities in Palo
Play areas 29
Basketball Courts 14
Tennis Courts 24
Rectangular Sports Fields 22
Diamond Sports Fields 10
Picnic Areas 39
TABLE 2: PALO ALTO FACILITIES
2322
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
District sites. Some of the sports fields have lighting that allows for
extended play in the evening, a feature that increases the playable
time on a field but is not appropriate for all locations. In addition to
the formally developed sports fields, many parks feature a large
multi-purpose turf area that functions as a sports field for league
and casual sports activities. Reserved use of fields and tennis
courts is governed by the City’s Field Use Policy, which specifies the
preference for local, youth play and limits private use.
Picnic Areas
Most of Palo Alto’s parks also include at least one picnic area. Most
of these are small clusters of tables intended for first-come-first-
served use. Foothills Park, Rinconada Park, and Mitchell Park have
designated picnic areas that are available for reservation to accom-
modate larger gatherings.
Off-Leash Dog Areas
Three off-leash areas are provided for park users to exercise and
socialize dogs. All three sites, Mitchell Park, Hoover Park and Greer
Park are separated and fenced (per City policy) to keep off-leash
dogs away from other users and areas of the parks.
Community Gardens
The City also provides four community gardens, two in parks (at
Johnson Park and Eleanor Pardee Park), one adjacent to the Rinco-
nada Library, and one adjacent to the Ventura Community Center.
These facilities are separated into plots and assigned (based on
an application and permitting process) to individuals for gardening
edible and decorative plants.
Swimming Pool
The Rinconada Pool, located in the park of the same name is the
City’s only public pool facility. This outdoor facility includes a wading
pool with spray and waterfall features, a small slide and a zero
depth “beach” area. A second pool features 14 lanes and two diving
boards. These facilities offer recreation swimming, lessons and
private pool parties through the spring, summer and late summer
and lap swimming year-round.
24
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Community Centers Special Purpose Buildings and Other Indoor Facilities
Palo Alto maintains both general and specialized indoor recreation
facilities. The two largest facilities are the Cubberley Community
Center and the Lucie Stern Center which offer a wide variety of
programs. However, neither was designed nor built primarily as a
recreation facility or to provide the mix of programs they currently
offer. The majority of the Cubberley site is owned by the Palo Alto
Unified School District, with the balance owned by the City. This site
is home to a wide range of programs, largely run by partner organi-
zations. This facility is also home to the only gymnasiums sched-
uled by the City. The future of this site, and a future redevelopment
of the facilities there for school and community use, is the subject
of ongoing collaboration between the City and the School District.
The Lucie Stern Center is a historic building, which opened in 1934
and shares a campus with the Junior Museum and Zoo as well
as the Children’s Theatre, and is adjacent to Rinconada Park. The
formal ballroom and community rooms are ideal for events and
meetings of varying sizes and are used for a wide range of indoor
recreation activities, such as regularly scheduled fitness and well-
ness classes. This building is also home to the administration of
Community Services and the Recreation Services division.
The brand new Mitchell Park Community Center, adjacent to the
new Mitchell Park Library, is designed for flexibility with some
specialized spaces. The building includes a teen center that faces
the park (and the middle school beyond it) as well as several large
spaces that can be configured into multiple class or meeting rooms.
An outdoor courtyard and the large El Palo Alto room host numer-
ous personal, business, and community events.
Other buildings and major facilities are more specialized focusing
on a narrower range of functions and representing a significant
community investment in one area. This includes the Palo Alto Arts
Center, which hosts the visual arts programming provided by the
City, as well as visitor centers and other interpretive facilities at
Palo Alto’s natural open space preserves.
2524
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Day
Camps
Youth
& Teen
Sports
Camps
Adult Fitness
Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
Adult Special
Interest Classes
Middle
School
Athletics
Youth
& Teen
Sports
Youth & Teen Sports
Aquatics
Adult
Sports
Youth & Teen
Special Interest Classes
Community Gardens
Recreation Programs
The programming of recreation activities, ranging from sports and
fitness to specialized classes, is the most flexible and dynamic ele-
ment of the system. Many programs can be held in the most basic
of meeting rooms or outdoor spaces, making programming the
best way to utilize and activate existing facilities and spaces.
Palo Alto benefits from a mix of public, non-profit, and private
recreation program providers, each working in specific segments
of the recreation marketplace. In many cases, programming is
provided by private providers (often small businesses) within a City
of Palo Alto facility or a City program may be held in a partner fa-
cility such as a school district gym. These partnerships create new
opportunities to reach new participants and promote Palo Alto as a
place to learn, exercise and have fun.
PALO ALTO RECREATION
FACILITIES
• Adult Aquatics
• Adult Fitness
• Adult Special Interest Classes
• Adult Sports
• Day Camps
• Middle School Athletics
• Open Space/Outdoor
Recreation
• Youth and Teen Aquatics
• Youth and Teen Sports
• Youth and Teen Special
Interest Classes
• Youth and Teen Sports Camps
• Special Events
• Therapeutic Recreation
• Senior ProgramsFIGURE 3: PROGRAM AREAS BY NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
26
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Recreation Services
The Recreation Division of the Community Services Department of-
fers more than 1,300 classes, teams or camps across the fourteen
program areas. These programs served over 13,000 participants
in 2014-15. Over half of this number were youth and teen focused
swimming programs and day camps. The Recreation Division cate-
gorizes its recreation programs into 14 areas, by age and topic.
Sports programs, particularly middle school athletics and adult
sports, are operating over capacity with full teams and wait-lists
for most offerings. These programs are not easily expanded, as
they rely on limited gym and field space. Middle school athletics are
further constrained by a lack of coaches.
Other Providers
The City of Palo Alto also offers programming through other divi-
sions of Community Services, including the Art Center, Children’s
Theatre and Junior Museum and Zoo and separate entities including
the Palo Alto Library. Programs offered by these other divisions
serve thousands of additional adults, youth and teens. Many of
these programs have waitlists, partly because of limited space in
the specialized buildings associated with these divisions.
In addition to the City, the other major providers of recreation pro-
gramming in Palo Alto include the Palo Alto Unified School District
as well as many private businesses and non-profit organizations:
• Avenidas
• Abilities United
• Ballet and Dance Studios
• Brad Lozares Golf Shop at Palo Alto Golf Course
• Community Sports Organizations (Little League, Soccer
Club, Lacrosse, etc.)
• Master Gardeners and Garden Shops
• Martial Arts Studios
• Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC)
• Palo Alto Family YMCA
• Private Childcare Providers
• Private Gyms and Fitness Centers
• Stanford University
• University Club of Palo Alto
• Women’s Club of Palo Alto
2726
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Technical Assessment and Analysis Process
The project team completed a detailed analysis of all aspects of the
system to inform the Master Plan. The multi-layered approach to
analysis, the interconnection between the community engagement
and the analysis tasks (each feeding the other) and the coordination
with related concurrent planning efforts ensured that this Master
Plan is based on sound information and the best available data.
RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS
The Recreation Program Analysis was completed in two parts:
• Inventory: In Part I, the project team inventoried program-
ming offered by the Community Services Department, as
well as the recreation activities provided throughout Palo
Alto by various agencies, organizations, businesses and
other community providers.
• Registration Analysis: In Part II, the project team worked
with Community Services staff to export data from the
City’s registration system, to analyze the most recent year
of program registrations (spring 2014 to winter 2015).
To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to
meet demand, the project team reviewed and analyzed reservation
data including minimum participation, program registrations and
waitlists, and also considered the observations of staff and consul-
tants.
GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The project team developed a geographic analysis of the parks,
trails and natural open spaces system to evaluate its walkability
and accessibility. This process included development of a Geo-
graphic Information Systems (GIS) model of the streets, sidewalks,
trails and pathways, surrounding park system sites and using ESRI
Network Analyst to delineate “walksheds” or areas in which parks
are easy to walk to. The model was used to analyze access to parks
and activities.
TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT
To assist in referencing and using the large amount of data de-
veloped during the process, tabbed binders were created for each
28
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
member of the PRC and project team with all of the completed
documents, numbered for quick reference. An outline of the deliver-
ables for the Master Plan process became the table of contents for
the binder. To facilitate broader distribution of the data binders (and
reduce paper use), the project team developed a “digital binder,”
available on the City website, which consists of a table of contents
with hotlinks to each section. This working reference has been
included in the delivery of this plan as the Technical Supplement,
carrying forward the detail of these working documents.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
As major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis and
the Community and Stakeholder Engagement processes were
completed, the PRC and the project team began a detailed review
of the accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master
Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together
in preparation for the critical track of Developing and Prioritizing
Projects. The process for review, designed by the project team with
the input of the PRC, resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with
supporting documentation) identifying needs and opportunities.
This matrix served as the basis for developing, evaluating and refin-
ing the projects and programs contained in this Master Plan.
The matrix process allowed the PRC to review the large number of
possibilities against the extensive data available in a streamlined,
more accessible way. The matrix served as a key reference point
to assess and validate elements of the Master Plan as they were
developed. The complete matrix can be downloaded from the City
website.
Plan Review and Adoption
This step has not yet complete as of the drafting of this chapter. It
will be revised and updated to reflect the results of this stage in the
process.
The final steps in the Master Plan process involved the drafting
of this plan document and formal review by the staff, PRC, stake-
holders, the public and City Council. While the project team worked
to draft the plan content, the policy, program and project recom-
mendations as well as strategies for implementing the plan were
developed with the input of the staff that manage construction,
2928
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation SYSTEM ELEMENTS
operations and maintenance in the system. This work formed the
basis for the final chapters of this plan and set a recommended
path forward which was reviewed and adopted by Palo Alto’s City
Council.
CHAPTER3
NEEDS & OPPORTUNITIES
THE MASTER PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE,
DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY FOCUSED PROCESS THAT
INCLUDED AN ARRAY OF ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND
OUTREACH STRATEGIES. This process resulted in a detailed understanding of Palo Alto’s current system of parks, trails, natural open spaces, recreation facilities and recreation programs and services, the opportunities that system presents, and the current and future needs of the community it serves.
The following sections provide brief descriptions of the analysis completed and key findings from the process. More detailed versions of the reports and work products summarized here can be found in the Technical Supplement on the City website.
32
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENHANCEMENTS TO PARKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY INCLUDING MORE TYPES OF PLAY EXPERIENCES AND ENVIRONMENTS.
3332
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Community Engagement Results
The project team, with support from the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), successfully collected and analyzed input
from hundreds of residents and stakeholders through a variety of
community outreach methods. The following sections describe the
goals and structure of the Master Plan community engagement
process, its key topics and themes and brief summaries of each
method.
KEY COMMUNITY TOPICS AND THEMES:
The following topics and themes were referenced multiple times by
the community, City staff, partners and decision makers. They were
critical in shaping the overall analysis of the system, and provided
direction for the development of the Master Plan principles, goals,
policies and recommended actions.
• Respondents value, support and appreciate their parks
system. They recognize that it is a high-quality system.
• Respondents believe that strategic enhancements and
improvements are needed to better meet evolving needs
and trends, adapt to growth and changing demographics,
and to continue to provide world-class experiences to
residents.
• Limited land availability and high cost is seen as the major
limiting factor to pursuing new park opportunities.
• Providing accessible and safe active transportation
(walking, biking, etc.) routes to natural open spaces,
community centers and parks is a high priority.
• Enhancing physical and mental well-being is a critical
function of parks for Palo Altans. Loop trails, bicycle and
pedestrian paths to parks, and places to relax are top
priorities, along with exercise equipment or additional
classes.
• Protection of nature is very important to residents. There
is widespread support for the continued protection,
enhancement and restoration of open spaces and wildlife
habitat.
• Residents also want to feel connected to nature in their
urban parks. There is interest in adding nature play
elements and wildlife habitats to more traditional parks.
34
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• There is widespread interest in bringing community
gardens, dog parks and aquatic facilities to new areas
of the city to improve access to these amenities for all
neighborhoods.
• Residents strongly support improved and additional
restrooms in parks. In addition, there is a clear preference
for features and amenities that support comfort,
convenience and longer stays at parks, including water
fountains and places to sit.
• The Palo Alto community strongly supports universal
design and access and there is interest in adding inclusive
play elements to more parks.
• Current policies that prioritize facility availability for Palo
Alto residents are widely supported, and stakeholders
generally agree that Palo Alto is (and should be) focused on
providing services to local residents, rather than providing
regional attractions.
• Residents would like to see enhancements to parks
throughout the city including more types of play
experiences and environments. There is also support
for smaller, more locally focused events and programs
(e.g., movies in the park) that are held in different parks
throughout the city.
• The community strongly supports the kinds of local and
regional partnerships (particularly with the school district)
that expand recreation opportunities and services for
youth, teens and residents of all ages and abilities.
The input from the community was provided at several stages
in the process and guided decisions about how the system was
analyzed. This includes the analysis of walkability and park access,
as well as analysis of access to those experiences highly desired by
Palo Altans (such as play for children). In addition, specific facilities,
such as restrooms, dog parks and community gardens were
analyzed (examining equitable distribution and need) as a result of
the community interest in these features.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS
• Walkability and Equity of
Park and Preserve Access
• Activity Access: Play for
Children
• Activity Access: Exercise
and Fitness
• Activity Access: Throw/
Catch/Shoot/Kick/Hit
• Activity Access: Gather
Together
• Activity Access: Relax and
Enjoy the Outdoors
• Experience Nature
• Preservation of Nature
• Trail Connections
• Availability of Restrooms
• Site Amenities and
Experience
• Universal Accessibility
3534
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Demographic and Recreation Trend Analysis
The project team evaluated the existing demographic profile in
Palo Alto, including household characteristics and transportation
behavior, to identify patterns and trends that could influence
recreation preferences. In addition, this analysis evaluated regional
and national trends in health, sports, socializing, recreation, family
and urban form for their potential to affect the direction of the
Master Plan. The analysis was updated during the process to
ensure consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update.
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS:
• The city has grown steadily since the 1970’s and has a
large share of long-term residents.
• While the average age of residents is increasing, the city
has a sizable population of children under 18 years of age
(over 23% of the City population in 2013).
• The city has a significant share of commuters who travel
by bike (11%).
• National and regional recreation trends emphasize an
outdoor lifestyle, physical and mental health, diverse
options for older adults at multiple stages of life, universal
design and access for people of all abilities, and a
movement to connect children with nature.
Analysis of the System
The analysis of the system began with a site visit to each park,
facility and preserve to document and evaluate existing conditions
so an accurate and in-depth foundation of base information could
be developed. The analysis of observations during these visits
was recorded in a set of existing conditions maps. These maps
include the history, a summary of features and a description
of opportunities and constraints for each site. Each map also
incorporates site-specific public input gathered through the
community engagement process. For the full set of existing
conditions maps, see the Technical Supplement on the City website.
36
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Geographic Analysis
The project team developed a geographic analysis of the parks,
trails and natural open spaces system to evaluate its walkability
and accessibility. To conduct the analysis, the project team
developed a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model of the
surrounding streets, sidewalks, trails and pathways, using ESRI
Network Analyst to identify “walksheds” or catchment areas for
each park. This approach reflects the way people move through the
city. The desired travel distances used were ¼ and ½ mile, reflecting
research on the distance a typical person can walk in five and ten
minutes. This analysis refined the understanding of the ½ mile
distance first cited in the 1965 parks plan and aligned with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The project team also factored
in physical barriers that impede access, incorporating feedback
from the public engagement process about specific streets and
intersections people report as being difficult to cross.
Many communities also analyze park systems using a function-
based parks classification scheme (neighborhood parks, community
parks, regional parks). However, the parks in Palo Alto serve
multiple functions. Feedback from the community through the
engagement process indicated that people in Palo Alto are looking
for the park system to deliver five categories of activities on a
widely accessible basis, regardless of how the park is classified
functionally. To conduct an assessment of the community’s access
to each of these activities, the project team defined analysis criteria
for each category and applied the criteria to the geographic analysis
model.
The five categories of activity and their analysis criteria are
summarized below.
• Relax and Enjoy Outdoors. Palo Altans place a high
value on parks that provide a place to relax and enjoy
the outdoors. This activity is supported in most parks,
which usually include a quiet and calm place to walk or
sit. However, some Palo Alto parks were identified as
not supporting this activity because of their proximity to
a highway or a loud/busy street, their dedication to and
heavy use for competitive sports, or based on comments
made by the public on the online interactive map (and
verified in a site visit).
3736
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• Play for Children. Children and youth were regularly cited
as one of the most important audiences for the park
system. Parks that provide a playground, play area or
unique play feature (sculpture, nature play, etc.) support
this activity and this audience.
• Throw a Ball. This activity encompasses throwing,
catching, shooting, kicking and hitting a ball, and includes
both self-directed and competitive (league-based) play.
Parks that have a large open turf area or that incorporate
formal sports fields and courts support this activity.
Organized sports for both youth and adults have been
important to residents going back to the early days of the
park system.
• Exercise and Fitness. Exercise and fitness in a park
setting generally occurs by walking or running (top
recreation activities in Palo Alto, as well as nationally), or
by swimming. Those parks with perimeter or looped paths,
extensive trail systems, fitness stations or a pool support
this activity. Health and wellness has been shown to be
important to Palo Alto residents in this and other planning
processes.
• Gathering. The Palo Alto community sees the park system
as an important provider of space for family, friends and
the larger community to gather for picnics, social events
and group activities. Formal picnic areas, shelters and
features such as amphitheaters support this activity.
Additional geographic analysis evaluated natural open space and
recreation facilities that were identified as highly desired by the
community. These include:
• The experience and preservation of nature;
• Equitable access to natural open spaces (preserves);
• Community gardening;
• Recreation with dogs; and
• Distribution of indoor recreation space.
GEOGRAPHIC NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES:
The spatial analysis revealed the following:
• Most Palo Alto residents have access to a city park within
38
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
a ¼ and ½ mile. Gaps exist north of the Oregon Expressway
near Highway 101 and south of El Camino Real near
commercial and institutional land uses.
• Fewer neighborhoods have activity access to all five
identified activities within a ½ mile.
• Parks that offer exercise and fitness opportunities are
more common south of the Oregon Expressway.
• Dog parks are almost entirely located south of the Oregon
Expressway.
• Community gardens are located entirely north of Oregon
Expressway.
Recreation Program Analysis
To evaluate the capacity of Palo Alto’s facilities and programs to
meet demand, the project team reviewed and analyzed data on
reservations, minimum participation, program registrations and
waitlists, and considered the observations of staff and consultants.
A crucial performance indicator in recreation programming is
minimum participation. This is the minimum number of participants
needed to achieve the cost recovery goals of each class. These
goals are set according to the City’s cost recovery policy and the
individual class budget. This, along with classes indicated as full or
with waitlists, provided insight into the capacity and demand for
categories and specific types of programs.
RECREATION PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES:
• The highest participation in City programs is in sports
(adult and youth), aquatics (youth and teen) and day
camps.
• Middle-school athletics programs are largely over capacity.
The current policy of “everyone plays” is widely supported
but makes expanding these programs difficult without
sacrificing quality due to limited gym and field space.
• Demand for some classes and programs varries greatly by
time of day.
Figure 4, on page 40, shows the ¼ and ½ mile walksheds for all parks in Palo
Alto.
3938
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
• Facility constraints and a shortage of instructors and
coaches prevent the expansion of most sports programs.
In contrast, outdoor and open space programs can be
more easily expanded because of the outdoor setting.
• Academic support programs offered to youth and teens
are typically operating under capacity.
• Programs offered by the Art Center, the Junior Museum
and Zoo and the Children’s Theatre that are included in the
registration system serve thousands of additional adults,
youth and teens. Many of these programs have waitlists,
partly because of limited space in the specialized buildings
associated with these divisions.
Needs and Opportunities Summary
As major elements of the Technical Assessment and Analysis and
the Community and Stakeholder Engagement were completed,
the PRC and the project team began a detailed review of the
accumulated data as it related to each element of the Master
Plan, tying these two tracks of the Master Plan process together
in preparation for the critical track of Developing and Prioritizing
Projects. As described in Chapter 1, the process for this
review resulted in a detailed reference matrix (with supporting
documentation) identifying needs and opportunities across the
system.
The Data and Opportunities Summary Matrix synthesizes findings
from both the Technical Assessment and Analysis and the
Community and Stakeholder Engagement tracks across nine topics:
• Current Service/Inventory
• Level of Control
• Geographic Analysis
• Capacity/Bookings
• Perception of Quality
• Expressed Need
• Demographic Trends
• Barriers to Access/Participation
• Projected Demand
40
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
S a n F ra ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r e e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Figure 10: Park
Walksheds
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
Park Walksheds
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
FIGURE 4: PARK WALKSHEDS MAP
4140
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Figure 10: Park
Walksheds
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open
Space and Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
Park Walksheds
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
42
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The final piece of the matrix process for each component is a
summary of the opportunity to enhance Palo Alto’s system through
the addition, distribution or modification of a particular element
and component. These opportunities represented potential actions
that would benefit the system, which were prioritized to develop
the Master Plan’s final recommendations, based on the constraints
posed by limited land, staff, funding and other resources in the
community.
Areas of Focus
The planning team and the PRC reviewed the matrix in great
detail and through this analysis process identified groupings
of opportunities that had emerged across many analysis and
community input activities. These results of the needs and
opportunities summary were crafted into a set of twelve Areas of
Focus, which represent a major development step toward goals for
the master plan. The Areas of Focus are:
• 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
• 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
• Enhancing comfort and making parks more welcoming
• Increasing health and wellness opportunities in parks and
programs
• Integrating nature into Palo Alto parks
• Improving spaces and increased options for off-leash dogs
• Expanding the system
4342
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Offering more of the existing programs, classes, events. These
“areas of focus” were utilized to review the direction of the plan
with the community using the community prioritization challenge, a
combination of online survey and in-person workshop. Participants
were asked to allocate a $10 budget across each of the areas of
focus, with the amounts allocated indicating the priority they place
on a particular area.
The analysis of the results reflects the strong interest heard
throughout the process for community center space improvements,
integrating nature more thoroughly in the park system and making
parks more welcoming. .
A relatively smaller number of participants placed a very high
priority (and resulting budget allocation) on improving options
for off-leash dogs. These results clarify and validate the findings
of the analysis and community engagement and informed the
development of a refined direction for the future of Palo Alto’s
system.
FIGURE 5: PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS
44
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
FIGURE 5 (CONT): PRIORITIZATION CHALLENGE RESULTS
44
CHAPTER4
OUR DESIRED FUTURE
THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS, THE PALO ALTO
COMMUNITY HAS DEFINED A FUTURE FOR PARKS, TRAILS,
NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION. Distilled community input and themes from the analysis process result in principles, goals and system-wide concepts that describe the community’s vision for the future system.
48
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SYSTEM
CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ENCOURAGE REGULAR ACTIVE AND PASSIVE ACTIVITIES
4948
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SY STEM
Principles
Building on our assets, our vision for the continuing evolution of the
park system is encapsulated in the following eight principles:
• Playful: Inspires imagination and joy.
• Healthy: Supports the physical and mental health and
well-being of individuals as well as the connectedness and
cohesion of the community.
• Sustainable: Stewards natural, economic and social
resources for a system that endures for the long-term.
• Inclusive: Responsive to the entire Palo Alto community,
all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income.
• Accessible: Easy for people of all abilities to use year-
round and to get to by all modes of travel.
• Flexible: Supports multiple uses across time with
adaptable spaces that can accommodate traditional,
emerging and future uses.
• Balanced: Is not dominated by any one type of experience
or place, and includes both historic elements and cutting-
edge features, highly manicured and more organic spaces,
and self-directed and programmed activities.
• Nature: Incorporates native species and habitat corridors,
and creates opportunities to learn about and interact with
nature.
Together, these principles provide the foundation for the Master
Plan.
Master Plan Goals
The input from the community, including all twelve Areas of Focus,
form the long term direction for the City’s park and recreation
system. The following six goals state the outcomes and provide an
organizational structure for the policies, programs and projects that
form the recommendations of this plan:
1. Provide high-quality facilities and services that are
accessible, inclusive, and distributed equitably across Palo
Alto.
50
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SYSTEM
2. Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the
existing system of parks, recreation, and open space
facilities and services.
3. Create environments that encourage regular active and
passive activities to support health, wellness and social
connections.
4. Preserve and integrate nature, natural systems and
ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.
5. Develop innovative programs, services and strategies for
expanding the system
6. Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently
and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative
measures.
Envisioning the Future of the System
Three concept maps illustrate how these goals and principles
will guide the creation of a multi-layered system of park lands
and connections that serve both people and natural systems. In
addition to illustrating how the goals and principles will play out
across Palo Alto, they also serve as tools for communicating the
vision and supporting decisions on individual policies, programs and
projects.
PARK SEARCH AREAS, PRIORITY SCHOOL SITES AND OTHER
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY
Figure 12 identifies areas of Palo Alto where residents lack
access to parks and natural open spaces within ¼ mile of their
homes. These “park search areas,” labeled A through E for
planning purposes, will help the City focus future park additions
in neighborhoods with the greatest need, for example those with
the highest density and/or largest population. Meanwhile, public
access to school grounds that fall within park search areas (noted
in purple) should be maintained and expanded to better support
neighborhood park uses and enhance their natural open space
value. Other City-owned properties (noted in brown) may represent
future park opportunities, but nearly all of these lands fall outside
of the park search areas.
Goals 1 and 5 are particularly relevant to this concept.
5150
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SY STEM
BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES TO PARKS AND
RECREATION FACILITIES
A selection of Palo Alto’s existing and planned bikeways and
pedestrian routes can be leveraged to improve park access.
Figure 13 illustrates this potential network of trails and enhanced
roadways that connect neighborhoods to local and regional parks,
recreation facilities and natural open spaces. Recommended
enhanced routes, labeled 1 through 3 for planning purposes,
provide main north to south travel corridors between Palo Alto’s
parks and into neighboring communities. Regional trails like the Bay
to Ridge and San Francisco Bay trails provide similar travel corridors
from Foothills Park and Arastradero Preserve in the southwest to
the Baylands Preserve and other shoreline parks and natural open
spaces to the northeast. Recommended park connectors complete
the network by linking the remaining park sites.
Goals 1 and 3 are particularly relevant to this concept.
NATURAL SYSTEMS
Figure 14 illustrates how the same corridors recommended for
bike and pedestrian enhancement can also provide connectivity
for natural systems. Landscape design features such as increased
urban forest canopy, native species plantings and stormwater
bioswales can create safe paths of travel and provide habitat value
for local wildlife. Creek and riparian enhancements, supported
by these “pollinator pathways,” would improve water quality and
habitat connections between regionally significant habitats in the
hills and in the bay. New street and park trees would particularly
benefit areas that currently have low tree canopy coverage,
highlighted in tan.
Goal 4 is the primary goal addressed by this concept.
52
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SYSTEM
Williams Park
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
San F r a ncisquitoCreek
Mat a d e ro C r eek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Draft Park Search Areas,
Priority School Sites and
Other City-Owned Property
12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, .ATURAL
Open Space and
Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City-owned Property
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo CountySan
A Park Search Areas
Park Search Areas
kk
BowBowParkarkPark
e P rkeen Park
SarahSarah
ParkPark
S
w edwdwddenenennene
Johnson Johnson
BoBoGre
swell Plazaswell Plaza
LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza
KelloggKellogg
Hopkins opk nsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park
Scott ParkScott Park
tageHeritageerHeritage
anoeanoardearderPararPar
wlinwlingeeParkeen Park
EEEE eaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa
PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk
kark
ee PPP rrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk
BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter
reerGreerarkPark
conada Parkknconadnconada Park
ororekkkk
RinRin
gling
a kkakkkPaPPrkkrk
BoBoBolParkPark
obles PaRobles Pa
Briones Parki PkBriones Park
lto g Fieldsssldg Fields
yCommunity
RRoRoRoRoRR
BBB
yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyy
rrrtCetCentntnterererrree
MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark
SealSealerrPParkPark
RaRamoRamoParkPark
CubbCubb
¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££
BoulwBoulw
oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park
SS
VenturaVentura
tity
VVVe ttVeVeVeVeVentntn
oooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy
rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk
BBaBarBarronron CC
BarBarron C
BBaBrrron CCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk
BarBarronron CrCreekeekkk
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School
Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
04.01.2016
Figure 12:
Park Search Areas Map
Williams ParkWilliams Park
FIGURE 6: PARK SEARCH AREAS MAP
5352
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SY STEM
Williams Park
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Draft Park Search Areas,
Priority School Sites and
Other City-Owned Property
12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, .ATURAL
Open Space and
Recreation
Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City-owned Property
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Private
trail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo CountySan
A Park Search Areas
Park Search Areas
kk
BowBowParkarkPark
ePrkeen Park
SarahSarah
ParkPark
S
wedwdwddenenennene
Johnson Johnson
BoBoGre
swell Plazaswell Plaza
LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza
KelloggKellogg
Hopkins opknsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park
Scott ParkScott Park
tageHeritageerHeritage
anoeanoardearderPararPar
wlinwlingeeParkeen Park
EEEEeaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa
PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk
kark
eePPPrrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk
BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter
reerGreerarkPark
conada Parkknconadnconada Park
ororekkkk
RinRin
gling
akkakkkPaPPrkkrk
BoBoBolParkPark
obles PaRobles Pa
Briones Parki PkBriones Park
lto g Fieldsssldg Fields
yCommunity
RRoRoRoRoRR
BBB
yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyy
rrrtCetCentntnterererrree
MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark
SealSealerrPParkPark
RaRamoRamoParkPark
CubbCubb
¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££
BoulwBoulw
oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park
SS
VenturaVentura
tity
VVVettVeVeVeVeVentntn
oooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy
rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk
BBaBarBarronron CC
BarBarron C
BBaBrrron CCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk
BarBarronron CrCreekeekkk
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School
Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
04.01.2016
Figure 12:
Park Search Areas Map
Williams ParkWilliams Park
54
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SYSTEM
MAY
B
E
L
L
LYTT
O
N
HOM
E
R
NE
W
E
L
L
C
O
W
P
E
R
BR
Y
A
N
T
C
O
W
P
E
R
BR
Y
A
N
T
DAN
A
L
EDITH
M
I
R
A
N
D
A
LO
U
I
S
CAS
T
R
O
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
GU
I
N
D
A
LO
S
A
L
T
O
S
EM
E
R
S
O
N
ADD
I
S
O
N
JUNI
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
WI
L
K
I
E
VIEW
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
ROCK
AR
N
O
L
D
LA
S
U
E
N
SAN L
U
I
S
OA
K
LA
C
R
E
S
T
A
REN
G
S
T
O
R
F
F
BO
N
I
T
A
GO
L
F
EMBARC
A
D
E
R
O
WALKER
MAY
B
E
L
L
AL
T
A
ARASTRAD
E
R
O
MAT
A
D
E
R
O
LO
M
I
T
A
HAN
O
V
E
R
DIS
T
E
L
WELC
H
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
PLYMOUTH
SHO
W
E
R
S
CEN
T
R
A
L
SP
R
I
N
G
E
R
OLD
P
A
G
E
M
I
L
L
ELY
TODD
4W
D
R
O
A
D
POR
T
E
R
GE
R
T
H
LI
N
D
E
N
LUPINE
SO
U
T
H
ORE
G
O
N
MEA
D
O
W
W
A
V
E
R
L
E
Y
PA
L
O
CASI
T
A
DAL
M
A
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
MA
R
I
N
E
STIERLIN
GE
N
G
GER
O
N
A
OAK CREEK
AL
I
C
I
A
DO
U
D
MARILYN
BY
R
O
N
PAUL
COLO
R
A
D
O
AMPHITHEATRE
DE
B
E
L
L
CRITTENDEN
CRIS
A
N
T
O
SHOREBIRD
ELD
O
R
A
DEER CRE
E
K
GALLI
GEO
R
G
I
A
OR
M
E
SANT
A
Y
N
E
Z
PITMA
N
SO
L
A
N
A
SAN
J
U
D
E
IS
A
B
E
L
L
E
MONTE
C
I
T
O
SERRA
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
HAWTHO
R
N
E
CO
N
C
E
P
C
I
O
N
COYOTE HILL
PA
N
A
M
A
MERRITT
ANN
A
AL
M
A
AL
M
A
RA
Y
BELDEN
LA AVENIDA
PASTEUR
SPACE PARK
PA
T
R
I
C
K
ELSIE
ROTH
MIR
A
D
A
ST
A
N
F
O
R
D
STIRRUP
CAMELLIA
LAGUNITA
BO
Y
C
E
JUANITA
PASA ROBLES
HI
G
D
O
N
FA
Y
E
T
T
E
MO
N
T
A
L
T
O
TAS
S
O
LEO
N
G
CLAR
A
RAYMUNDO
FORK
ALVARADO
TERRA BELLA
SEVELY
JUD
S
O
N
BE
T
L
O
WILLM
A
R
LIDA
KIPL
I
N
G
NINA
NB S
R
8
5
T
O
S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
VASS
A
R
LOUCKS
SYLVIAN
CH
A
B
O
T
SA
L
A
D
O
GA
L
V
E
Z
VE
R
N
O
N
SCARFF
PAT
R
I
C
I
A
HOM
E
R
SA
N
P
I
E
R
R
E
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
BUSHNE
L
L
HI
G
G
I
N
S
MAY
F
I
E
L
D
O
R
I
O
N
ROBB
ESC
U
E
L
A
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
DREW
SEVILLA
TO
L
M
A
N
RO
R
K
E
MO
N
T
R
O
S
E
DURAND
MATA
D
E
R
O
C
A
N
A
L
PIO
N
E
E
R
RIC
H
MA
N
U
E
L
A
EHR
H
O
R
N
MO
N
T
E
LORE
T
O
WARREN
O
L
D
A
D
O
B
E
GA
R
L
A
N
D
VAN BUREN
LLOYD
WING
AL
I
S
O
N
GAB
R
I
E
L
WALTER HAYS
HARKER
NE
W
E
L
L
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
RHODA
AR
B
O
L
CELI
A
SULLIVA
N
LA LANNE
KI
N
G
S
L
E
Y
WELLS
JOR
D
A
N
WALCOTT
ASC
E
N
S
I
O
N
HI
L
B
A
R
KEN
D
A
L
L
EDG
E
W
O
O
D
JO
H
N
M
A
R
T
E
N
S
POL
A
R
I
S
LELA
N
D
TAM
A
L
P
A
I
S
PALO ALTO
SIL
V
I
A
PET
T
I
S
OB
E
R
L
I
N
DE FRANCE
CHANNING
OLD MIDDLEFIELD
BO
R
E
L
L
O
TO
F
T
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LA
N
E
A
CYPR
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
GOVERNO
R
S
FAI
R
M
E
D
E
VAQ
U
E
R
O
STUART
SNYDER
FAI
R
M
O
N
T
CREEDEN
ALGER
DE S
O
T
O
TH
E
N
D
A
R
A
OLD
T
R
A
C
E
FRA
N
K
L
I
N
OXF
O
R
D
BEA
T
R
I
C
E
ALICANTE
EV
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
WES
C
O
A
T
ENCINA
VARI
A
N
CA
T
H
C
A
R
T
MAYV
I
E
W
MIT
C
H
E
L
L
GA
S
P
A
R
CES
A
N
O
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
S
MI
R
M
I
R
O
U
MAD
E
L
I
N
E
FER
N
A
N
D
O
WILD PLUM
GIL
M
A
N
TEMP
L
E
T
O
N
JA
S
O
N
WHI
T
S
DU
E
N
A
FRO
N
T
NICH
O
L
A
S
GEA
R
Y
SH
O
L
E
S
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
SONIA
ELB
R
I
D
G
E
SI
M
K
I
N
S
CA
R
I
L
L
O
MAC
L
A
N
E
CA
M
P
TORELLO
M
A
D
R
O
N
O
MI
D
T
O
W
N
LEAF
LINDERO
NEW
M
A
N
MAR
I
O
N
DE
L
S
O
N
EMM
O
N
S
DO
N
E
L
S
O
N
AV
E
R
Y
HI
G
H
ADOBE
DO
N
THO
M
A
S
PRAT
T
BU
S
H
MO
N
T
E
B
E
L
L
O
AR
G
U
E
L
L
O
MAR
I
P
O
S
A
A
L
L
E
Y
FU
L
T
O
N
LOW
E
L
L
ME
A
D
O
W
PAC
I
F
I
C
PH
Y
L
L
I
S
CROTH
E
R
SFRE
M
O
N
T
SNELL
AM
E
S
RO
S
S
RO
S
S
ST
I
E
R
L
I
N
PAL
O
A
L
T
O
PIA
Z
Z
A
CA
S
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
PA
L
M
BRY
A
N
T
TODD
AL
M
A
VINEY
A
R
D
IRIS
STATE
PORT
O
L
A
BRUC
E
YUBA
TULIP
YAL
E
BYR
O
N
OA
K
BAY
PEAR
CERR
I
T
O
STARDUST
CAMPUS
MOORPA
R
K
PI
N
E
FU
L
T
O
N
DOLO
R
E
S
OAK
2
N
D
VIST
A
GA
L
V
E
Z
CASEY
CH
U
R
C
H
1
S
T
LINC
O
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
BLO
S
S
O
M
WRIGHT
HI
L
L
V
I
E
W
FRANCES
PAR
K
PAR
K
Williams ParkWilliams Park
0 10.5
Miles
²
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City Park
City Owned Property
City Natural Open Spaces
Major Road
Street
Train Tracks
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Trails
Private Recreation Routes
Existing Bicycle Boulevards
Stanford Perimeter Trail-
Private trail with public access
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian
Routes1
Draft Enhanced Bikeways
& Pedestrian Routes to
Parks and Recreation Facilities
04.01.2016
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
S a n F ra ncisquito Creek
Matad e ro C re e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
2
2
1
1
3
3
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
ViewLos
Altos
Los AltosHills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
FIGURE 7: BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES MAP
5554
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SY STEM
MAY
B
E
L
L
LYTT
O
N
HOM
E
R
NE
W
E
L
L
CO
W
P
E
R
BR
Y
A
N
T
CO
W
P
E
R
BRY
A
N
T
DAN
A
L
EDITH
MI
R
A
N
D
A
LO
U
I
S
CAS
T
R
O
SAN
D
H
I
L
L
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
GU
I
N
D
A
LO
S
A
L
T
O
S
EM
E
R
S
O
N
ADD
I
S
O
N
JUNI
P
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
WI
L
K
I
E
VIE
W
UNI
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
ROCK
AR
N
O
L
D
LA
S
U
E
N
SAN L
U
I
S
OA
K
LA
C
R
E
S
T
A
REN
G
S
T
O
R
F
F
BO
N
I
T
A
GO
L
F
EMBARC
A
D
E
R
O
WALKE
R
MAY
B
E
L
L
AL
T
A
ARASTRA
D
E
R
O
MATA
D
E
R
O
LO
M
I
T
A
HAN
O
V
E
R
DIS
T
E
L
WELC
H
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
PLYMOUTH
SHO
W
E
R
S
CEN
T
R
A
L
SP
R
I
N
G
E
R
OLD
P
A
G
E
M
I
L
L
ELY
TODD
4W
D
R
O
A
D
PO
R
T
E
R
G
E
R
T
H
LIN
D
E
N
LUPINE
SO
U
T
H
OREG
O
N
MEA
D
O
W
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
PA
L
O
CAS
I
T
A
DAL
M
A
CHA
R
L
E
S
T
O
N
MA
R
I
N
E
STIERLIN
G
E
N
G
GER
O
N
A
OAK CREEK
AL
I
C
I
A
DO
U
D
MARILYN
BY
R
O
N
PAUL
COLOR
A
D
O
AMPHITHEATRE
DE
B
E
L
L
CRITTENDEN
CRIS
A
N
T
O
SHOREBIRD
ELDO
R
A
DEER CREE
K
GALLI
GEO
R
G
I
A
OR
M
E
SANT
A
Y
N
E
Z
PITMA
N
SO
L
A
N
A
SAN
J
U
D
E
IS
A
B
E
L
L
E
MONT
E
C
I
T
O
SERRA
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
HAWTHO
R
N
E
CO
N
C
E
P
C
I
O
N
COYOTE HILL
P
A
N
A
M
A
MERRITT
ANN
A
AL
M
A
AL
M
A
RA
Y
BELDEN
LA AVENIDA
PASTEUR
SPACE PARK
PA
T
R
I
C
K
ELSIE
ROTH
MI
R
A
D
A
STA
N
F
O
R
D
STIRRUP
CAMELLIA
LAGUNIT
A
BO
Y
C
E
JUANITA
PASA ROBLES
HI
G
D
O
N
FAY
E
T
T
E
MO
N
T
A
L
T
O
TAS
S
O
LEON
G
CLAR
A
RAYMUNDO
FORK
ALVARADO
TERRA BELLA
SEVELY
JUD
S
O
N
BE
T
L
O
WILLMA
R
LIDA
KIP
L
I
N
G
NINA
NB S
R
8
5
T
O
S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
VASSA
R
LOUCKS
SYLVIAN
CH
A
B
O
T
SA
L
A
D
O
GA
L
V
E
Z
VE
R
N
O
N
SCARFF
PAT
R
I
C
I
A
HOM
E
R
SA
N
P
I
E
R
R
E
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
BUSHN
E
L
L
HIG
G
I
N
S
MA
Y
F
I
E
L
D
O
R
I
O
N
ROBB
ESC
U
E
L
A
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
DREW
SEVILLA
TO
L
M
A
N
RO
R
K
E
MO
N
T
R
O
S
E
DURAND
MATA
D
E
R
O
C
A
N
A
L
PIO
N
E
E
R
RIC
H
MA
N
U
E
L
A
EHR
H
O
R
N
MO
N
T
E
LORE
T
O
WARREN
OL
D
A
D
O
B
E
GA
R
L
A
N
D
VAN BUREN
LLOYD
WING
AL
I
S
O
N
GABR
I
E
L
WALTER HAYS
HARKER
NE
W
E
L
L
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
RHODA
ARB
O
L
CELI
A
SULLIVA
N
LA LANNE
KIN
G
S
L
E
Y
WELLS
JO
R
D
A
N
WALCOTT
ASC
E
N
S
I
O
N
HI
L
B
A
R
KEN
D
A
L
L
EDG
E
W
O
O
D
JO
H
N
M
A
R
T
E
N
S
PO
L
A
R
I
S
LEL
A
N
D
TAM
A
L
P
A
I
S
PALO ALTO
SIL
V
I
A
PET
T
I
S
OB
E
R
L
I
N
DE FRANCE
CHANNING
OLD MIDDLEFIELD
BO
R
E
L
L
O
TOF
T
QU
A
R
R
Y
R
D
LA
N
E
A
CYPR
E
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
GOVERNO
R
S
FAIR
M
E
D
E
VA
Q
U
E
R
O
STUART
SNYDE
R
FAIR
M
O
N
T
CREEDEN
ALGER
DE S
O
T
O
TH
E
N
D
A
R
A
OLD
T
R
A
C
E
FRA
N
K
L
I
N
OXFO
R
D
BEA
T
R
I
C
E
ALICANTE
EV
E
R
G
R
E
E
N
WE
S
C
O
A
T
ENCINA
VARIA
N
C
A
T
H
C
A
R
T
MAY
V
I
E
W
MIT
C
H
E
L
L
GA
S
P
A
R
CESA
N
O
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
S
MI
R
M
I
R
O
U
MAD
E
L
I
N
E
FER
N
A
N
D
O
WILD PLUM
GI
L
M
A
N
TEMP
L
E
T
O
N
JAS
O
N
WHI
T
S
DU
E
N
A
FRO
N
T
NICH
O
L
A
S
GEAR
Y
SH
O
L
E
S
SOU
T
H
W
O
O
D
SONIA
ELB
R
I
D
G
E
SI
M
K
I
N
S
CA
R
I
L
L
O
MAC
L
A
N
E
CA
M
P
TORELLO
M
A
D
R
O
N
O
MI
D
T
O
W
N
LEAF
LINDER
O
NEW
M
A
N
MA
R
I
O
N
DE
L
S
O
N
EMM
O
N
S
DO
N
E
L
S
O
N
AV
E
R
Y
HI
G
H
ADOBE
DO
N
THO
M
A
S
PRAT
T
BU
S
H
MO
N
T
E
B
E
L
L
O
AR
G
U
E
L
L
O
MAR
I
P
O
S
A
A
L
L
E
Y
FU
L
T
O
N
LOW
E
L
L
ME
A
D
O
W
PAC
I
F
I
C
PH
Y
L
L
I
S
CROT
H
E
R
S
FRE
M
O
N
T
SNELL
AM
E
S
RO
S
S
RO
S
S
ST
I
E
R
L
I
N
PAL
O
A
L
T
O
PIA
Z
Z
A
CA
S
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
PAL
M
BRY
A
N
T
TODD
AL
M
A
VINEY
A
R
D
IRIS
STATE
PORT
O
L
A
BRUC
E
YUBA
TULIP
YAL
E
BY
R
O
N
OA
K
BAY
PEAR
CERR
I
T
O
STARDUST
CAMPUS
MOORP
A
R
K
PIN
E
FU
L
T
O
N
DOLO
R
E
S
OAK
2
N
D
VIS
T
A
GA
L
V
E
Z
CASEY
CH
U
R
C
H
1
S
T
LIN
C
O
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
BLO
S
S
O
M
WRIGHT
HI
L
L
V
I
E
W
FRANCES
PA
R
K
PA
R
K
Williams ParkWilliams Park
0 10.5
Miles
²
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City Park
City Owned Property
City Natural Open Spaces
Major Road
Street
Train Tracks
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Trails
Private Recreation Routes
Existing Bicycle Boulevards
Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access
Regional Trails
(Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian
Routes1
Draft Enhanced Bikeways
& Pedestrian Routes to
Parks and Recreation Facilities
04.01.2016
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
2
2
1
1
3
3
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
View
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
56
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SYSTEM
Williams ParkWilliams Park
0 10.5
Miles
²
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Pollinator Pathways
Community Gardens
Urban Canopy Target Areas
Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA)
Wetland Habitat
Draft Natural Systems
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
S a n F ra ncisquito Creek
Matad e r o C r e e k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Ado
b
e
C
r
e
e
k
Trails
Private Recreation Routes
Stanford Perimeter Trail-
Private trail with public access
Riparian Connected Parks
Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainView
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in the Bayland Preserve:Western burrowing owlCalifornia seablite
Northern coastal salt marsh
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in San Francisquito Creek:
SteelheadCalifornia red legged frogWestern pond turtle
Showy rancheria clover
Valley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:
Western pond turtle
Serpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in Foothills Park:
Western Leatherwood
Valley oak woodland
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandsPreserveBaylandsPreserve
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept 04.01.2016
FIGURE 8: NATURAL SYSTEMS MAP
5756
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, & Recreation FUTURE SY STEM
Williams ParkWilliams Park
0 10.5
Miles
²
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Pollinator Pathways
Community Gardens
Urban Canopy Target Areas
Mean Projected High Water - 3 ft Sea Level Rise (NOAA)
Wetland Habitat
Draft Natural Systems
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
Cubberley
Community
Center
Ventura
Community
Center
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Creek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
Trails
Private Recreation Routes
Stanford Perimeter Trail-
Private trail with public access
Riparian Connected Parks
Creeks/ Riparian Enhancements
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Mountain
View
Los
Altos
Los Altos
Hills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
East
Palo Alto
Ladera
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in the Bayland Preserve:
Western burrowing owl
California seablite
Northern coastal salt marsh
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species in San Francisquito Creek:Steelhead
California red legged frog
Western pond turtle
Showy rancheria clover
Valley oak woodland
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve:
Western pond turtleSerpentine bunchgrassIndian Valley bush-mallow
Special Status Wildlife and Plant Species
in Foothills Park:
Western Leatherwood
Valley oak woodland
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
BaylandsPreserveBaylandsPreserve
Regional Habitat
Connection Concept 04.01.2016
CHAPTER5
THE MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS DEFINE THE STRATEGIES
FOR ACHIEVING PALO ALTO’S LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE
FUTURE SYSTEM. THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DEVELOPED
THROUGH AN ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY INPUT AND AN
ANALYSIS OF NEEDS. These recommendations reflect both changing needs and evolving demands for parks, trails, natural open spaces and recreation. They are organized within the framework of the six goals identified in Chapter 4, with policies and programs following each goal.
Each goal is numbered, and under each goal a list of related policies is provided. The policies are numbered according to goal and ordered by letter for easy reference (1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 2.A, 2.B, etc.). Most policies are followed by a list of programs, which have complementary numbering (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.A.1, etc.). The numbering is for reference only.Prioritization is covered in Chapter 7.
GOALS, POLICIES & PROGRAMS
60
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
A MULTI-LAYERED SYSTEM OF PARK LANDS AND CONNECTIONS THAT SERVE BOTH PEOPLE AND NATURAL SYSTEMS.
6160
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 1: Provide high-quality facilities and services that are accessible, affordable, inclusive and distributed equitably across Palo Alto.
Policy
1.A Emphasize equity and affordability in the provision
of programs and services and the facilitation of
partnerships, to create recreation opportunities that:
• Advance skills, build community and improve the quality of
life among participants, especially Palo Alto youth, teens
and seniors; and
• Are available at a wide range of facilities, at an increased
number of locations that are well distributed throughout
the city.
PROGRAMS
1.A.1 Continue to implement the Fee Reduction Program for low
income and disabled residents and periodically evaluate its
use and effectiveness.
1.A.2 Develop free or low cost teen programs that develop life
skills, such as leadership, community service and health.
1.A.3 Develop a teen advisory committee to provide feedback on
newly proposed parks, recreation and open space projects
and programs.
1.A.4 Partner with local recreation providers to relocate existing
programs or offer new programs in Palo Alto parks.
1.A.5 Recruit or develop programs for additional and alternative
sports that can take place in existing parks and make use
of existing outdoor recreation facilities. Examples include
cross country running, track and field, rugby and pickleball
1.A.6 Expand offerings of preserves’ interpretive facilities to area
schools through curriculum packages (backpacks, crates,
etc.) that can be brought into the field or the classroom.
1.A.7 Evaluate the geographic distribution of program offerings
and make adjustments to equally offer programs
throughout the City.
62
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.B Expand parkland inventory using the National
Recreation and Park Association standard as a
guide (see sidebar) for park development in Palo
Alto’s Urban Service Area. New parkland should
be added to meet and maintain the standard of 4
acres/1,000 residents. Parkland should expand
with population, be well distributed across the
community and of sufficient size to meet the varied
needs of neighborhoods and the broader community.
Maximum service area should be one-half mile.
PROGRAMS
1.B.1 Develop design standards for privately-owned public open
spaces (POPOS) that clearly set the expectation for public
access, recreation activities and natural elements. .
1.B.2 Establish a system in the City’s real estate office that
identifies land being sold and reviews it for park potential,
prioritizing review of land within park search areas. (See
Figure X: Park Search Areas).
1.B.3 Review all city owned land and easements (starting in
park search areas) for potential parkland development or
connection locations. (See Figure X: Park Search Areas and
Figure X: Bikeways and Pedestrian Routes to Parks and
Recreation Facilities).
1.B.4 Examine City-owned right-of-way (streets, which make
up the biggest portion of publicly owned land) to identify
temporary or permanent areas for improvements that
connect or add recreation activity space. (Examples:
California Ave., Indianapolis Cultural Trail, Parklets).
1.B.5 Identify and approach community organizations and
institutions that own land in park search areas to create
long-term agreements and improvements for public park
space. (Examples: Friendship Sportsplex, New Riverside
Park).
1.B.6 Create usable park space on top of utilities, parking or
other infrastructure uses. (Examples: Anaheim Utility
Park, UC Berkeley Underhill Parking Structure, Portland’s
Director Park, Stanford University Wilbur Field Garage).
Privately-Owened Public Open Spaces (POPOS) are built and managed by private entities and are required to allow public accessIMAGE: Privately Owned Public Open Space
POPULATION STANDARDS
Formula for calculating level
of service:
Acreage/Population x 1,000
Example:
City park acreage: 174
Population (2013): 66,368
174 acres/66,368 people
x1,000 = 2.62 acres/1,000
6362
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
1.B.7 Monitor properties adjacent to parks that are smaller than
the minimum recommended size for potential acquisition
to expand existing parks.
1.B.8 Increase collections through revised or alternative park
impact fee structures that are sufficient to expand
inventory. Develop a system to reserve funds for parkland
acquisition and proactively pursue strategic opportunities
for expansion.
1.B.9 Acquire and develop a new neighborhood park in each park
search area, starting with the most underserved areas
and targeting a central and well-connected location to
maximize access.
1.B.10 Develop a creek walk along Matadero Creek that links
parks and creates open space and habitat corridor.
1.B.11 Incorporate other underutilized City-owned outdoor
spaces for park and recreational programming.
1.B.12 Identify and dedicate (as parkland) City-controlled spaces
serving, or capable of serving, park-like or recreational
uses (e.g., Winter Lodge, Gamble Gardens, Rinconada
Community Gardens, GreenWaste Facility at the former
PASCO site, former Los Altos Sewage Treatment Plan,
Kingsley Island.)
Policy
1.C Ensure the maximum distance between residents’
homes and the nearest public park or preserve is
½-mile, ¼-mile preferred, that is evaluated using a
walkshed methodology based on how people travel.
PROGRAMS
1.C.1 Maintain the City’s digital map developed during this
Master Plan process, updating for new activities and
access points.
1.C.2 Establish a review step in the Planning and Community
Environment Department for any major redevelopment or
the purchase/sale of any City land in the park search areas.
Williams Park
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park
GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
CubberleyCommunityCenter
VenturaCommunityCenter
SanFrancisquitoCreek
MataderoCreek
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adobe
C
r
e
e
k
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
SAN MATEO COUNTY
STANFORD
0 10.5
Miles
²
Draft Park Search Areas,
Priority School Sites andOther City-Owned Property
12.8.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, .ATURAL Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainViewLosAltos
Los AltosHills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
EastPalo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
City Park
City Natural Open Spaces
Other City-owned Property
Trail
Stanford Perimeter Trail - Privatetrail with public access
Private Recreation Route
Major Road
Street
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City; Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo CountySan
A Park Search Areas
Park Search Areas
kk BowBowParkarkPark
e P rkeen Park
SarahSarah
ParkPark
S
w edwdwddenenennene
Johnson Johnson
BoBoGre
swell Plazaswell Plaza
LyttonLyttonPlazaPlaza
KelloggKellogg
Hopkins opknsHopkins eekside Parkeekside Park
Scott ParkScott Park
tageHeritageerHeritage
anoeanoardearderPararPar
wlinwlingeeParkeen Park
EEEEeaaanEElElEElleeaeaeaeaeanPParPPPPaaPaPrdPPa
PaaarkrkkPPaaaPrkrkkkk
kark
eePPP rrarkkPkkePPPPParararkkkk
BaylandsBaylands Athletic Athletic rntCtCenter
reerGreerarkPark
conada Parkknconadnconada Park
ororekkkk
RinRin
gling
a kkakkkPaPPrkkrk
BoBoBolParkPark
obles PaRobles Pa
Briones Parki PkBriones Park
lto g Fieldsssldg Fields
yCommunity
RRoRoRoRoRR
BBB
yyyyyCotyyyyCoCoCCCCoCoCoCoommmmmmnnununnuutitittiyyyyyrrrtCetCentntnterererrree
MitcheMMitchellPrkarkkPark
SealSealerrPParkPark
RaRamoRamoParkPark
CubbCubb
¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££
BoulwBoulw
oover Parkoover ParkHoover Park
SS
VenturaVenturatityVVVettVeVeVeVeVentntnoooooommmmmmmmmmununnuunuititittiyyy
rrrrrrrrwarreePPPakkkkkwaaarreeePPPParararararrrkkkkkkkkk
BBaBarBarronronCC
BarBarronC
BBaBrrronCCCCrCreekeekCreekCekkkkk
BarBarronronCrCreekeekkk
A
B
C
D
E
AddisonElementary School
AddisonElementary School
DuveneckElementary SchoolDuveneckElementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
El Carmelo Elementary SchoolEl Carmelo Elementary School
Ohlone Elementary SchoolOhlone Elementary School
Jordan Middle SchoolJordan Middle School
Palo Verde Elementary School
04.01.2016
Figure 12: Park Search Areas Map
Williams ParkWilliams Park
64
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.D 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.
PROGRAMS
1.D.1 Create and implement a signage and wayfinding program
that conveys the park system identity, incorporates art,
connects bike paths to parks and enhances the experience
of park visitors
1.D.2 Install directional signs at parks that include the walking
time to the next nearest park or parks.
Policy
1.E Apply universal design principles as the preferred
guidance for design solutions in parks, striving to
exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
PROGRAMS
1.E.1. Create a process to address adaptive program requests for
individuals with cognitive, sensory, and physical disabilities
(to be coordinated with upcoming ADA Transition Plan).
1.E.2. Adopt a standard of universal park design for accessibility
and/or upgrade play areas and picnic facilities to meet or
exceed the standard. (Note: a source and reference will be
added).
Policy
1.F Maintain a 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.
6564
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
1.F.1. Periodically review the existing Field and Tennis Court
Brokering and Use Policy and Gymnasium Policy and
update as needed.
1.F.2. Develop an annual field usage statistics report, including
number of prime timeslots that were unused due to field
condition/resting and the number of requests for field
space that were unfilled due to capacity.
Policy
1.G Encourage walking and biking as a way of getting to
and from parks, supporting implementation of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
PROGRAMS
1.G.1 Select parks as destinations along routes for “Ciclovia” or
“Sunday Streets” type events where streets are closed
to traffic and opened up for citizens of all ages to interact
with each other through exercise, entertainment and fun.
1.G.2 Provide bike parking for cyclists as a standard feature at
parks, open spaces, preserves and community centers.
1.G.3 Provide, identify and mark “Safe Routes to Parks” from
locations such as schools, shopping centers, libraries,
after-school programs, community centers, and residential
neighborhoods;
1.G.4 Educate residents about the city’s Bike Boulevards –
streets prioritized for bicycles – to promote greater use,
and plan new Bike Boulevard projects that connect parks,
open spaces and recreation facilities.
1.G.5 Identify gaps in the walking and cycling network to
improve access to parks, open spaces, preserves and
community centers, including sidewalk repairs, easements,
trail improvements/repair and improved pedestrian
visibility.
1.G.6 Collaborate with school communities to enhance routes to
schools, especially where they pass through parks.
1.G.7 Develop a regular bicycle and walking tour of Palo Alto
parks and preserves as a new recreation program. Develop
online materials for self-guided tours.
MAYB
E
L
L
LYTT
O
N
HOM
E
R
NEW
E
L
L
CO
W
P
E
R
BRY
A
N
T
CO
W
P
E
R
BRY
A
N
T
DANA
L
EDITH
MI
R
A
N
D
A
LO
U
I
S
CAST
R
O
SAND
H
I
L
L
BA
Y
S
H
O
R
E
GUI
N
D
A
LO
S
A
L
T
O
S
EME
R
S
O
N
ADD
I
S
O
N
JUNIP
E
R
O
S
E
R
R
A
WIL
K
I
E
VIEW
UNIV
E
R
S
I
T
Y
FA
B
I
A
N
ROCK
AR
N
O
L
D
LAS
U
E
N
SAN LU
I
S
OA
K
LA
C
R
E
S
T
A
REN
G
S
T
O
R
F
F
BO
N
I
T
A
GO
L
F
EMBARCA
D
E
R
O
WALKER
MAY
B
E
L
L
ALT
A
ARASTRAD
E
R
O
MATA
D
E
R
O
LO
M
I
T
A
HANO
V
E
R
DIS
T
E
L
WELC
H
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
PLYMOUTH
SHOW
E
R
S
CENTR
A
L
SPR
I
N
G
E
R
OLD
P
A
G
E
M
I
L
L
ELY
TODD
4W
D
R
O
A
D
POR
T
E
R
GE
R
T
H
LIN
D
E
N
LUPINE
SO
U
T
H
OREG
O
N
MEAD
O
W
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
PAL
O
CASI
T
A
DAL
M
A
CHAR
L
E
S
T
O
N
MA
R
I
N
E
STIERLIN
GE
N
G
GERO
N
A
OAK CREEK
ALI
C
I
A
DO
U
D
MARILYN
BYR
O
N
PAUL
COLORA
D
O
AMPHITHEATRE
DE B
E
L
L
CRITTENDEN
CRISA
N
T
O
SHOREBIRD
ELDO
R
A
DEER CREE
K
GALLI
GEO
R
G
I
A
OR
M
E
SANTA
Y
N
E
Z
PITMA
N
SO
L
A
N
A
SAN
J
U
D
E
IS
A
B
E
L
L
E
MONTE
C
I
T
O
SERRA
MI
D
D
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
HAWTHOR
N
E
CO
N
C
E
P
C
I
O
N
COYOTE HILL
PA
N
A
M
A
MERRITT
ANNA
ALM
A
ALM
A
RAY
BELDEN
LA AVENIDA
PASTEUR
SPACE PARK
PAT
R
I
C
K
ELSIE
ROTH
MIRA
D
A
STA
N
F
O
R
D
STIRRUP
CAMELLIA
LAGUNITA
BO
Y
C
E
JUANITA
PASA ROBLES
HIG
D
O
N
FAY
E
T
T
E
MO
N
T
A
L
T
O
TAS
S
O
LEON
G
CLARA
RAYMUNDO
FORK
ALVARADO
TERRA BELLA
SEVELY
JUD
S
O
N
BETL
O
WILLMAR
LIDA
KIPL
I
N
G
NINA
NB SR
8
5
T
O
S
H
O
R
E
L
I
N
E
VASSA
R
LOUCKS
SYLVIAN
CHA
B
O
T
SAL
A
D
O
GAL
V
E
Z
VE
R
N
O
N
SCARFF
PATR
I
C
I
A
HOM
E
R
SAN
P
I
E
R
R
E
CO
U
N
T
R
Y
BUSHNELL
HIG
G
I
N
S
MAY
F
I
E
L
D
OR
I
O
N
ROBB
ESC
U
E
L
A
SA
N
R
A
F
A
E
L
DREW
SEVILLA
TO
L
M
A
N
RO
R
K
E
MO
N
T
R
O
S
E
DURAND
MATAD
E
R
O
C
A
N
A
L
PIO
N
E
E
R
RIC
H
MAN
U
E
L
A
EHR
H
O
R
N
MO
N
T
E
LORE
T
O
WARREN
OLD
A
D
O
B
E
GA
R
L
A
N
D
VAN BUREN
LLOYD
WING
ALI
S
O
N
GAB
R
I
E
L
WALTER HAYS
HARKER
NEW
E
L
L
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
CE
N
T
E
R
D
R
RHODA
ARB
O
L
CELI
A
SULLIVA
N
LA LANNE
KIN
G
S
L
E
Y
WELLS
JOR
D
A
N
WALCOTT
ASC
E
N
S
I
O
N
HIL
B
A
R
KEND
A
L
L
EDGE
W
O
O
D
JO
H
N
M
A
R
T
E
N
S
POL
A
R
I
S
LELA
N
D
TAMA
L
P
A
I
S
PALO ALTO
SILV
I
A
PETT
I
S
OBE
R
L
I
N
DE FRANCE
CHANNING
OLD MIDDLEFIELD
BOR
E
L
L
O
TOF
T
QUA
R
R
Y
R
D
LA
N
E
A
CYPRE
S
S
P
O
I
N
T
GOVERNORS
FAIR
M
E
D
E
VAQ
U
E
R
O
STUART
SNYDER
FAIR
M
O
N
T
CREEDEN
ALGER
DE SO
T
O
TH
E
N
D
A
R
A
OLD
T
R
A
C
E
FRA
N
K
L
I
N
OXFO
R
D
BEA
T
R
I
C
E
ALICANTE
EVE
R
G
R
E
E
N
WES
C
O
A
T
ENCINA
VARIA
N
CA
T
H
C
A
R
T
MAYV
I
E
W
MITC
H
E
L
L
GAS
P
A
R
CESA
N
O
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
FRE
N
C
H
M
A
N
S
MIR
M
I
R
O
U
MADE
L
I
N
E
FER
N
A
N
D
O
WILD PLUM
GIL
M
A
N
TEMPL
E
T
O
N
JASO
N
WHIT
S
DUE
N
A
FRON
T
NICHO
L
A
S
GEAR
Y
SH
O
L
E
S
SOUT
H
W
O
O
D
SONIA
ELBR
I
D
G
E
SIM
K
I
N
S
CA
R
I
L
L
O
MAC
L
A
N
E
CAM
P
TORELLO
M
A
D
R
O
N
O
MI
D
T
O
W
N
LEAF
LINDERO
NEWMA
N
MAR
I
O
N
DEL
S
O
N
EMM
O
N
S
DO
N
E
L
S
O
N
AVE
R
Y
HI
G
H
ADOBE
DO
N
THO
M
A
S
PRATT
BU
S
H
MON
T
E
B
E
L
L
O
AR
G
U
E
L
L
O
MAR
I
P
O
S
A
AL
L
E
Y
FUL
T
O
N
LOW
E
L
L
MEA
D
O
W
PAC
I
F
I
C
PH
Y
L
L
I
S
CROTH
E
R
SFRE
M
O
N
T
SNELL
AME
S
RO
S
S
RO
S
S
STI
E
R
L
I
N
PALO
A
L
T
O
PIAZ
Z
A
CA
S
A
G
R
A
N
D
E
PAL
M
BRYA
N
T
TODD
AL
M
A
VINEYA
R
D
IRIS
STATE
PORT
O
L
A
BRUC
E
YUBA
TULIP
YAL
E
BYR
O
N
OAK
BAY
PEAR
CERRIT
O
STARDUST
CAMPUS
MOORPAR
K
PIN
E
FULT
O
N
DOLO
R
E
S
OAK
2
N
D
VIST
A
GAL
V
E
Z
CASEY
CHU
R
C
H
1S
T
LINC
O
L
N
UN
N
A
M
E
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
BLO
S
S
O
M
WRIGHT
HIL
L
V
I
E
W
FRANCES
PAR
K
PAR
K
Williams ParkWilliams Park
0 10.5
Miles
²
12.14.2015 | Data Sources: Palo Alto OpenGIS, Santa Clara County GIS
City Park
City Owned Property
City Natural Open Spaces
Major Road
Street
Train Tracks
Water Feature
School District Land
Palo Alto
Other City
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
Trails
Private Recreation Routes
Existing Bicycle Boulevards
Stanford Perimeter Trail- Private trail with public access
Regional Trails (Bay to Ridge Trails, San Francisco Bay Trail)
Recommended Park Connectors
Recommended Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes1
Draft Enhanced Bikeways
& Pedestrian Routes to
Parks and Recreation Facilities
04.01.2016
City of Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and
Master Plan
Recreation
Baylands Preserve
Baylands Athletic Center
El Camino Park GreerPark
BolPark
Esther ClarkPreserve
MitchellPark
TermanPark
Hoover Park
EleanorPardeePark
Peers Park
Seale Park
Robles Park
RamosPark
Rinconada Park
Briones Park
Johnson Park
BowdenPark
BowlingGreen Park
Boulware Park
MonroePark
Werry Park
Cogswell Plaza
CameronPark
MayfieldPark
WeisshaarPark
LyttonPlaza
SarahWallis Park
KelloggPark
StanfordPalo Alto Playing Fields
Palo Alto Golf CourseHopkins Creekside Park
El Palo Alto Park
Pearson - Arastradero Preserve
Scott Park
Heritage Park
CubberleyCommunity
Center
VenturaCommunity
Center
San Francisquito Creek
Matadero Cree k
Barron
C
r
e
e
k
Adob
e
C
r
e
e
k
2
2
1
1
3
3
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
MountainViewLosAltos
Los AltosHills
Atherton
Stanford
Loyola
EastPalo Alto
Ladera
FoothillsPark
ArastaderoPreserve
£¤101
§¨¦280
¬«82
Foothills Park
S A N M A T E O C O U N T Y
S T A N F O R D
66
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
1.H Incorporate cultural diversity in projects and
programs to encourage and enhance citizen
participation.
PROGRAMS
1.H.1. Conduct a survey at least every two years of cultural
groups to identify gaps barriers to access, preferred
design, and awareness in recreation programming.
1.H.2. Provide multi-cultural and multi-lingual recreation
programs, signage, and educational information.
1.H.3. Encourage and provide opportunities for civic engagement
by directly connecting with cultural groups.
Policy
1.I Increase stewardship and volunteerism by creating
and promoting opportunities for youth and adults to
participate in parks, recreation, open space events,
projects and programs.
PROGRAMS
1.I.1 Create a robust volunteer recruitment and management
program.
1.I.2 Continue to offer volunteer habitat and landscape
improvement projects, and support partnership
organizations that offer volunteer programs in Parks and
Open Space areas.
IMAGE: Natural Area Volunteers
6766
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 2: Enhance the capacity, quality and variety of uses of the existing system of parks, recreation and open space facilities and services.
Policy
2.A Sustain the community’s investment in parks and
recreation facilities.
PROGRAMS
2.A.1 Collaborate with Palo Alto Unified School District to
develop and implement a vision and master plan for the
future of the Cubberley Community Center.
2.A.2 Continue to program and prioritize projects for existing
facilities as identified in the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon
Commission report, and plan the keep up of new facilities
as they come on line, recognizing their expected lifespan
and revised based on real-world experience.
2.A.3 Research best practices to design park and recreational
facilities that can be maintained with existing budgets.
2.A.4 Encourage residents to organize and participate in park
maintenance and cleanup events to foster a sense of
ownership, establish social connections, and reduce
maintenance costs.
2.A.5 Develop a proactive Asset Management Program to
identify new, and maintain existing park and recreation
infrastructure.
2.A.6 Provide additional lighting to enhance park safety and
expand park use to dusk while minimizing impacts to
wildlife.
Policy
2.B Provide opportunities for creative expression in park
and recreation facilities and programs.
PROGRAMS
2.B.1 Incorporate artists and art into youth recreation
programming, particularly day camps, utilizing the
expertise of the Arts and Sciences Division.
68
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
2.B.2 Create outdoor studios and program spaces for creating
art in parks (Coordinated with the Public Art Master Plan).
2.B.3 Encourage the community to participate in more
expressive projects lead by the department, such as
community mural projects in facilities, pop up open mics or
chalk art programs in parks.
2.B.4 Continue to provide “maker” space to Palo Alto teens to
encourage creative thinking and expression.
Policy
2.C Design and maintain high quality natural and
synthetic turf fields to support maximum use in parks
by multiple organized sports and casual users with
areas large enough for practice or play.
PROGRAMS
2.C.1 Conduct an athletic field assessment and maintenance
plan of the City’s natural turf fields, and upgrade fields at
select parks to high quality natural turf standards including
irrigation system upgrades, drainage improvements, etc.
The field assessment report should include analysis and
recommendations regarding the soil profile, agronomy,
irrigation systems, field slope, drainage, field-use demand,
and maintenance.
2.C.2 Continue to monitor and track industry developments and
the latest reputable scientific studies regarding synthetic
turf to understand the environmental and human safety
impacts of our existing synthetic turf fields.
2.C.3 Assess the type of turf (new synthetic turf product or
natural turf) that should be used when replacing an
existing synthetic turf field that is due for replacement.
2.C.4 Synthetic turf fields should be striped for multiple sports
to maximize use. Whenever possible, synthetic turf playing
fields should have lights in order to maximize use of the
field.
IMAGE: Natural Turf Sports Field
6968
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.D Actively pursue adding dedicated, fenced dog parks
in multiple neighborhoods, equitably distributed
between north and south Palo Alto. The size of the
dog parks will vary, but should strive to be at least .25
acres. Dog parks should not be placed in Open Space
Preserves.
PROGRAMS
2.D.1 The City will evaluate and select at least six dedicated,
fenced dog parks, equitably distributed across north
and south Palo Alto, from the following list of potential
locations:
• Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)-Near Term
• Bowden (North, .37 Acres)-Near Term
• Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres)
• Peers Park (North, .73 Acres)
• Hoover (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre)
• Robles (South, .47 Acres)
• Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres)
• Kingsley Island (North, .27 Acres)
• Werry Park (North, .31 Acres)
• Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres)
• Heritage (North, .27 Acres)
*We acknowledge that Hoover and Greer’s current dog parks are
inadequate in terms of size, and they should not be counted in
their current configuration towards the minimum of six dog parks
recommended in this program.
2.D.2 Develop rules and regulations specific to dog parks
focusing on safety and limits of use.
IMAGES: High quality, high use dog parks
70
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
2.E The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms in
parks that are approximately two acres or larger, have
amenities that encourage visitors to stay in the park,
have high level of use, and where there are no nearby
public restrooms available.
PROGRAMS
2.E.1 Develop a restroom standard, in collaboration with the
Architectural Review Board, for neighborhood parks.
2.E.2 The City will actively pursue adding park restrooms at the
following potential locations:
• Bol Park
• Bowden Park
• Eleanor Pardee Park
• Johnson Park
• Ramos Park
• Robles Park
• Terman Park
Policy
2.F Develop additional community gardens focusing
on underrepresented areas of the City, and provide
community engagement opportunities around
gardens.
Policy
2.G At least every five years, quantitatively evaluate
demand and capacity of major recreation facilities
including pools, gyms, tennis courts, and teen
centers with appropriate attention to geographical
distribution in the city. Adjust plans as appropriate
to accommodate significant demographic or demand
changes.
IMAGE: Community garden
7170
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 3: Create environments that encourage active and passive activities to support health, wellness and social
connections.
Policy
3.A Implement the Healthy City Healthy Community
resolution with the community’s involvement.
PROGRAMS
3.A.1 Convene and lead a Healthy City Healthy Community
stakeholder work group consisting of other agencies,
nonprofit organizations and citizens to collaborate on
initiatives and benefit from existing programs.
3.A.2 Develop an annual plan that supports implementation of
the resolution.
3.A.3 Achieve designation as an Age-Friendly Community.
3.A.4 Add drop-in programs (free or BOOST!) focused on physical
and mental health in settings that are near home/work
and maximize the health benefits of being outside and
surrounded by nature.
3.A.5 Connect walking paths within and between parks to create
loop options of varying length that encourage walking and
jogging.
3.A.6 Enhance seating areas to take advantage of quiet spaces
or to create opportunities for social interaction.
3.A.7 Promote and enforce the ban on smoking in Palo Alto’s
parks through a marketing campaign and signage program.
3.A.8 Upgrade or add drinking fountains with water bottle filling
and water for dogs.
3.A.9 Develop adult fitness areas in parks including exercise
areas for the exclusive use of older adults (seniors).
Policy
3.B Incorporate art into park design and recreation
programming (consistent with the Public Art Master Plan).
HEALTHY CITY /
HEALTHY COMMUNITY
In 2015, the City Council
adopted a resolution
recognizing its role and
responsiblity to promote
and support a Healthy City/
Healthy Community. Four
areas of action are identified
in this resolution:
• Healthy Culture
• Healty Environment
• Healthy Food Access
• Healthy Workplace
IMAGE: Walking Path or Outdoor Fitness
72
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
3.B.1 Promote temporary public art installations in local parks.
3.B.2 Promote interactive public art features that also serve as
play features (i.e. climbable sculptural elements integrated
into the natural environment that invite touch and
exploration).
3.B.3 Update park design policies to incorporate artistic
elements consistent with the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.4 Commission artwork that interprets local history, events
and significant individuals; represents City core values of
sustainability, youth well-being, health, innovation.
3.B.5 Bring in performance-based work, social practice,
temporary art and community art.
3.B.6 Explore suitable art for preserves and natural areas.
3.B.7 Incorporate public art in the earliest stages of the design of
parks and facilities that may utilize wind direction, sunlight
and ambient sound (Coordinated with the Public Art
Master Plan).
3.B.8 Install permanent and temporary installations and exhibits
in well-trafficked parks and plazas, following the guidance
of the Public Art Master Plan.
3.B.9 Integrate functional public art into play areas, seatwalls
and other built features in parks across the system.
3.B.10 Integrate art and nature into bike lanes, routes and paths
as appropriate.
Policy
3.C Require that proposed privately owned public spaces
that are provided through the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance, meet Palo Alto design guidelines and
standards for publicly owned parks, allow public
access, and are designed to support recreation,
incorporate natural ecosystem elements and comply
with the policies of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
PROGRAMS
3.C.1 Develop and apply clear expectations and definitions of
public access (hours, rules) for privately owned public
spaces
IMAGE: Art Image from Public Art Plan
7372
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 4: Protect natural habitat and integrate nature, natural ecosystems and ecological principles throughout
Palo Alto.
Policy
4.A In Natural Open Space, ensure activities, projects
and programs are compatible with the protection of
nature.
PROGRAMS
4.A.1 Prioritize development of comprehensive conservation
plans for Baylands Preserve, Foothills Park, Esther Clark
Park, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve to identify
strategies to balance ecosystem preservation, passive
recreation, and environmental education.
4.A.2 Continue to work with partnership organizations to
remove invasive weeds and plant native plants and trees
in riparian and natural open space areas.
Policy
4.B Connect people to nature and the outdoors through
education and recreation programming.
PROGRAMS
4.B.1 Expand access to nature through elements and
interpretive features that explore ecological processes,
historical context, adjacent waterways, specific plant/
animal species that can be encountered onsite and
elements tailored to be of interest to youth as well as
multiple ages, cultures and abilities.
4.B.2 Update or rebuild interpretive centers with modern
interactive exhibits.
4.B.3 Improve and increase access to creeks for learning and
stewardship experiences by designing access points that
minimize impact on the waterway.
4.B.4 Expand programs such as Foothills camps to connect
youth with parks year-round.
IMAGE: Nature education programming
74
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
4.B.5 Partner with boys/girls scouting organizations for outdoor
education programs and/or the Junior Rangers program.
4.B.6 Expand and increase events that educate and promote
native plants, species and wildlife.
4.B.7 Provide shade for play areas using shade trees as the
preferred solution.
Policy
4.C Connect natural areas, open spaces, creeks and
vegetated areas in parks and on public land to create
wildlife, bird, pollinator and habitat corridors by
planting with native oaks and other species that
support pollinators or provide high habitat values.
PROGRAMS
4.C.1 Develop a map that identifies locations for habitat
corridors including the appropriate plant palette for each
corridor.
4.C.2 Work with local environmental groups to grow native plant
species and utilize their network of volunteers to install
and maintain planted areas.
4.C.3 Establish low-impact buffer zones along creeks to
enhance habitat value.
7574
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
4.D Promote, expand and protect habitat and natural
areas in parks and open space.
PROGRAMS
4.D.1 Identify and pursue strategies and opportunities to expand
native trees and planting areas in urban parks.
4.D.2 Integrate and implement the Urban Forest Master Plan
Policies and Programs as applicable to parkland in Palo
Alto.
4.D.3 Update the preferred planting palette and approved tree
species list.
4.D.4 Collaborate with habitat restoration organizations such as
Save the Bay, Canopy and Acterra
4.D.5 Replace low-use turf areas with native shrubs and
grasses, incorporating educational elements about native
habitats.
4.D.6 Support regional efforts that focus on enhancing and
protecting significant natural resources.
4.D.7 Utilizing volunteers, expand programs to remove invasive
species, and to plant native vegetation in open space,
parks, and creek corridors.
4.D.8 Collaborate with regional partners to control the spread of
invasive species and plant pathogens.
76
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 5: Develop innovative programs, services and
strategies for expanding the park and recreation system.
Policy
5.A Identify and pursue strategies to activate underused
parks and recreation facilities
PROGRAMS
5.A.1 Implement short-term placemaking improvements
(flexible, small scale interventions such as seating, art,
programming or planters that have minimal capital cost) to
attract users and experiment with potential longer-term
options.
5.A.2 Emphasize flexibility and layering uses (allowing for
different uses at different times of day, week, etc.) in
parks over installing fixed-use equipment and single-use
facilities.
5.A.3 Expand Day Camp program opportunities, utilizing all
preserves and more local park sites and additional topic
areas, to meet excess demand.
5.A.4 Leverage social media and develop marketing materials
to encourage “pop-up” recreational activities in rotating
parks.
5.A.5 Create small (10-12 people) and medium-sized (20-25
people) group picnic areas that can be used for both picnics
and programming.
5.A.6 Assess high-demand park features and identify those that
can be added or relocated to low use parks.
Policy
5.B Support innovation in recreation programming and
park features and amenities.
PROGRAMS
5.B.1 Review program data based on clearly communicated
objectives for reach, impact, attendance and financial
performance.
IMAGE: Examples of Placemaking improvements
7776
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.B.2 Retire, end or refresh programs that require staff, facility
and financial resources but do not achieve program
objectives, thereby freeing up resources for new programs.
5.B.3 Actively develop a small number of pilot programs each
year to test new ideas, locations and target audiences.
5.B.4 Build on partnership with Avenidas to expand
intergenerational programming as well as additional older
adult programming.
5.B.5 Expand BOOST!, the pay-per-use exercise class system to
cover fees for any drop-in classes or facility use (lap swim,
drop-in gym time, new programs in parks).
5.B.6 Set goal of 10% new program offerings each season; new
programs should be offered based on needs assessment,
industry trends, and/or class evaluation data.
5.B.7 Create a robust marketing and outreach program to
highlight new and innovative programs to community.
5.B.8 Develop short-term recreation access strategies (such as
temporary use agreements for vacant or park like property)
and seek long-term or permanent park and recreation
space in each park search area. Actively recruit property
and facility owners to participate in the development of
the short and long-term strategies.
Policy
5.C Expand the overall parks and recreation system
through repurposing public land, partnering with
other organizations for shared land, incorporating
public park spaces on parking decks and rooftops and
other creative means to help address shortages of
available land.
Underhill Parking Garage at UC Berkeley ncludes a full size soccer field built over 1,000 space, four-level parking facility
78
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
5.D Explore alternative uses for newly acquired parkland
to optimize for long-term community benefit.
PROGRAMS
5.D.1 Determine optimal usage for Foothill Park 7.7 acres of
parkland.
5.D.2 Evaluate optimal usage, including open space, for 10.5-
acre land bank created by golf course reconstruction.
5.D.3 Evaluate feasible uses for the south end of El Camino Park.
Policy
5.E Explore and experiment with parklets and other
temporary park spaces for both long and short-term
uses.
Policy
5.F Enhance 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.
PROGRAMS
5.F.1 Partner with PAUSD to open middle and high schools
recreation facilities for community use (basketball,
badminton, indoor soccer, swimming pools, tennis courts)
during the evening, weekend, and summer hours.
5.F.2 Develop a steering committee that consists of key
officials from the City, PAUSD and Stanford to develop
partnership agreements and connect facility managers and
programmers.
5.F.3 Increase access to PAUSD public schools (outside of school
hours) to increase the availability of recreation activity
spaces. Target school sites that are within or adjacent to
“park search areas”.
PARKLET:
An inexpensive infrastructure
investment that creates a
public gathering space or
small park from on-street
parking spaces.
Parklet on Noriega Street in San Francisco
7978
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
5.F.4 Partner with Stanford to create or increase access to
athletic facilities and other recreational facilities for Palo
Alto residents.
5.F.5 Develop a common reservation system for community
access to shared facilities.
Policy
5.G Pursue other/private funding sources for recreation
programming, capital improvement projects and
facility maintenance.
PROGRAMS
5.G.1 Encourage foundations to assist with soliciting
sponsorships and grants.
5.G.2 Create a more formalized annual or one-time sponsorship
program that provides the donor with marketing and
promotional opportunities.
5.G.3 Contract or add job responsibilities for managing
fundraising and developing donors for the park system to
pursue funding opportunities and sponsorships.
5.G.4 Engage nonprofit friends groups to seek donor funding,
including foundation grants, corporate giving and small and
major philanthropic gifts by individuals, for priority projects
and programs.
Policy
5.H Partner with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District and other land conservation groups to expand
access to open space through new acquisitions and
improved connections.
IMAGE: Focus Group
80
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Goal 6: Manage Palo Alto’s land and services effectively, efficiently and sustainably utilizing quantitative and qualitative measures.
Policy
6.A At least every five years actively review demographic
trends and interests of city population by segment
for critical drivers of facility usage including school
children, teens, seniors, and ethnic groups and adjust
programs and plans accordingly.
PROGRAMS
6.A.1 Create pilot recreation programs to test the public’s
interest in new types of classes, events and activities
utilizing an evaluation process.
6.A.2 Initiate a community-wide focus group on an annual basis
to provide feedback on programs, facilities and long-term
roadmaps.
6.A.3 Create a streamlined and effective quarterly survey system
that solicits feedback from customers, including program
participants, facility renters, and the general community.
Policy
6.B Continue to implement the Cost Recovery Policy for
recreation programs, refining the cost and fees using
the most current information available.
PROGRAMS
6.B.1 Periodically benchmark the City’s Cost Recovery Policy
against other cities’ cost recovery models.
6.B.2 Invest in and market city facilities to increase revenue for
cost recovery.
Policy
6.C 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.
8180
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
6.C.1 No exclusive use of parks by private parties is permitted
on peak days (e.g., weekend, holidays) or peak times (e.g.,
evening hours on weekdays, 10 am – 6 pm on weekends)
as defined by Community Services staff unless approved in
advance by the Director of Community Services. Exclusive
use of certain sites and facilities within parks, such as
reservable spaces like picnic areas, is generally permitted
during peak days and times.
6.C.2 Use of parks for locally focused events, where more than
50% of participants are expected to be Palo Alto residents
and that allow registration by the general public (e.g.,
events such as, races, obstacle course events, triathlons,
etc.) may be considered by staff if consistent with this
Master Plan.
6.C.3 Private events that are closed to the general public (e.g.,
corporate events, private weddings) and are intended
to use an entire park (rather than a reservable space in
excess of capacities as defined in the Special Event Permit
procedures) may only be considered outside of peak
days and times as defined by Community Services staff.
These events should recover 100% of all associated costs,
including wear and tear on public parks and facilities.
6.C.4 Events that allow public access are permitted, in
accordance with Special Event Permit procedures.
Policy
6.D Periodically review and update existing guidance
for development, operations, and maintenance of
Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Open Spaces, and
Recreation system based on the best practices in the
industry and this Master Plan, including:
• Park Rules and Regulations;
• Open Space Policy & Procedure Handbook;
• City of Palo Alto Landscape Standards;
• City of Palo Alto design guidelines and standards; and
• Tree Technical Manual.
82
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.E Incorporate sustainable best practices in the
maintenance, management, and development of
open spaces, parks, and recreation facilities where
consistent with ecological best practices.
PROGRAMS
6.E.1 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.
6.E.2 Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy
baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance
against comparable facilities, and implement energy
tracking and management systems for all park facilities
and operations.
6.E.3 Select Energy Star and equivalent energy-efficient
products for Park equipment purchases.
6.E.4 Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots,
roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and
facilities (e.g. pools).
6.E.5 Provide convenient and well-marked compost and
recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in
recreation facilities and at special events.
6.E.6 Ensure that trash, recycling, and compost receptacles have
covers to prevent wildlife access to human food sources.
6.E.7 Review purchasing policies and improve employee
education to reduce overall consumption of materials
throughout the system.
6.E.8 Procure environmentally preferable products (as required
by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy)
as the “default” purchasing option.
6.E.9 Initiate composting of green waste within the park system.
6.E.10 Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with
electric vehicles whenever practical.
6.E.11 Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park
facilities with parking lots.
IMAGE: Palo Alto Park Maintenance
IMAGE: Solar installation
8382
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
6.E.12 Enforce a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas-
powered equipment.
6.E.13 Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities
and park operations.
6.E.14 Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in
all facilities.
6.E.15 Extend recycled water use to more park sites;
6.E.16 Explore water capture opportunities in parks for irrigation
and recycling.
6.E.17 Ensure any irrigation systems on public landscapes are
run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are
trained in programming them.
6.E.18 Link all park facilities to a centralized irrigation
management system to maximize water use efficiency.
6.E.19 Promote urban greening by integrating storm water
design into planting beds, reducing irrigation and providing
interpretive information about park contributions to city
water quality.
6.E.20 Train City maintenance staff and include specific standards
and expectations in maintenance contracts for the care
of for low-water, naturalized landscapes, natural play
environments and other new types of features in the
system.
6.E.21 Ensure project designs for new facilities and retrofits
will be consistent with sustainable design principles
and practices. This includes evaluating all projects
for opportunities to implement Green Stormwater
Infrastructure such as bioswales, stormwater planters,
rain gardens, permeable pavers and porous concrete and
asphalt.
6.E.22 Identify locations and develop swales, detention basins
and rain gardens to retain and treat storm water.
IMAGE: Examples of Urban Greening/Green Infrastructure
84
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
Policy
6.F Strengthen 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.
PROGRAMS
6.F.1 Periodically review and update the IPM policy based on
best available data and technology.
Policy
6.G Strategically reduce maintenance requirements at
parks, open spaces, natural preserves and community
centers while maintaining Palo Alto’s high quality
standards.
PROGRAMS
6.G.1 Locate garbage and recycling receptacles in a single-
location that is easily accessible by maintenance staff and
vehicles.
6.G.2 Explore high capacity, compacting and smart garbage and
recycling receptacles that can reduce the frequency of
regular collection; and
6.G.3 Select standardized furnishing palettes for durability,
vandal-resistance and ease of repair.
Policy
6.H Coordinate with and/or use other relevant City plans
to ensure consistency, including:
• Baylands Master Plan;
• Urban Forest Master Plan;
• Urban Water Master Plan;
• Long-term electric acquisition plan (LEAP);
• Water Reclamation Master Plan;
• Recycled Water Project;
8584
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation GOALS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
• Comprehensive Plan; and
• Others adopted in the future.
Policy
6.I Continue to engage other relevant City departments
and divisions in planning, design and programming,
drawing on the unique and specialized skills and
perspectives of:
• The Palo Alto Art Center;
• Library, including Children’s Library;
• Junior Museum and Zoo;
• Children’s Theatre;
• Public Art;
• Transportation;
• Urban Forestry;
• Planning;
• Public Works, and
• Palo Alto Youth and Teen Leadership
Policy
6.J Participate in and support implementation of regional
plans related to parks, recreation, natural open space
and trails, such as:
• 2014 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision;
• Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan; and
• Land Use near Streams in Santa Clara County.
86
8786
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
Bibliography
Documents
1. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections and Priorities: 2009. Building Momentum.”
2. Association of Bay Area Governments. “Projections 2013.”
3. City of Palo Alto, Administrative Services Department. “2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report.” June 30, 2015.
4. City of Palo Alto City Manager. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Foothills
Fire Management Plan.” May 18, 2009. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/
documents/15866
5. City of Palo Alto. “Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Advisory Committee Report: Palo Alto’s Infrastructure:
Catching Up, Keeping Up, and Moving Ahead.” December 21, 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/29729
6. City of Palo Alto. “Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan”. July 2012.
7. City of Palo Alto. Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects.” March 17, 2014. https://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/39437.
8. City of Palo Alto. “Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan.” February 2012. http://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/28774
9. City of Palo Alto. Climate Protection Plan. December 3, 2007. www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/
filebank/documents/9986
10. City of Palo Alto. “Citizen Centric Report for Fiscal Year 2013”. March 17, 2014.
11. City of Palo Alto. “City of Palo Alto Field and Tennis Court Use Policy.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/38719
12. City of Palo Alto. City Council Informational Report. “Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011”.
March 5, 2012
13. City of Palo Alto, City Manager’s Office. “Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Foothills Fire Management Plan”. May 18, 2009.
14. City of Palo Alto, Community Service Department. “Adoption of Healthy Cities, Healthy Communities
Resolution”. October 26, 2015.
15. City of Palo Alto, Community Services and Public Works Department. “Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Staff Report”. October 23, 2012.
16. City of Palo Alto. Community Services Class Cost Recovery Policy. Adopted by Council November 26,
2007.
17. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update Draft EIR: Biological Resources”. February 5, 2016.
88
18. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Population, Housing, and Employment”. August 29,
2014.
19. City of Palo Alto. “Comprehensive Plan Update: Public Services”. August 29, 2014.
20. City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Environment. “Tree Technical Manual:
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030.” June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/
filebank/documents/6937.
21. City of Palo Alto Department of Utilities, Utility Marketing Services in cooperation with the
Department of Water Resources. January 2009. “Landscape Standards.” http://www.cityofpaloalto.
org/civicax/filebank/documents/18226.
22. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries”. October
2001.
23. City of Palo Alto. “Development Impact Fees”. August 17, 2015.
24. City of Palo Alto. “Field and Tennis Court Use Policy”. June 2013.
25. City of Palo Alto, Finance Committee. “Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees”. May 6,
2014.
26. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital Budget”. April 30, 2012.
27. City of Palo Alto. “Fiscal Year 2014 Adopted Operating Budget”. August 5, 2013.
28. City of Palo Alto. “The National Citizen Survey”. January 23, 2015.
29. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Baylands Master Plan”. 4th Edition. 2008.
30. City of Palo Alto. “Palo Alto Municipal Code.” www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/
paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca
31. City of Palo Alto. “Performance Report for FY 2013”. March 17, 2014.
32. City of Palo Alto. “Public Art Master Plan”. Revised Draft. April 18, 2016.
33. City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department. “Management Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl,
Byxbee Park Hills”. May 2015.
34. City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Auditor. “Study Session: Service Efforts & Accomplishments
Report FY 2011”. March 19, 2012.
35. City of Palo Alto Recreation Division: Community Services Division. “Summary of Programs and
Services.” Hard copy only.
36. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School. “Bicycle Counts.” 2010.
37. City of Palo Alto. “Urban Forest Master Plan, February 2015.
38. City of Palo Alto Utilities. Urban Wastewater Management Plan. June 2011. www.cityofpaloalto.org/
civicax/filebank/documents/27107
39. Cubberley Community Center. “Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report”. May 2013.
8988
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
40. Fehr and Peers.”Maybell Plan Drawings.” January 28, 2014. http://www.bpapaloalto.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Maybell-drawings-01.30.14.pdf
41. Gallagher, Tim. “Developing Sustainable Park Systems in Oregon.” June 2012
42. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. “Imagine the Future of Open Space.” www.openspace.
org/imagine/downloads/Top25_Future_Projects_sm.pdf
43. National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association
(ICMA). “National Citizens Survey: City of Palo Alto 2013.” 2013.
44. Palo Alto Unified School District, prepared by Decision Insight. “Analysis of enrollment projections:
Fall 2014.” December 2013.
45. Project Safety Net. “Strategic Plan 2013-2014.” www.psnpaloalto.com/home/psn-strategic-plan/.
46. Stanford University / City of Palo Alto. “The Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program: Connecting the
Bay to the Ridge.” Stanford University / City of Palo Alto Joint Grant Application, September 6, 2012,
Santa Clara County Recreation Fund Established by the County / Stanford Trails Agreement. http://
www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Documents/Recreational%20Projects%20Applications/Stanford%20
and%20Palo%20Alto%20Application_Pt%203%20-%20Stanford%20Perimeter%20Trail.pdf
Databases
47. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Major Age Groups (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
48. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Race/Ethnicity (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
49. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections by Total Population every 5 Years (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
50. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit: State and County Population
Projections Median Age by Race/Ethnicity and Gender (2010-2060). December 15, 2014.
51. City of Palo Alto Open Data Portal http://data.cityofpaloalto.org/home
52. City of Palo Alto Recreation Registration System (2014 onward)
Websites
53. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey. http://
factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml
54. U.S. Census Bureau; 2010 Census Summary. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/
community_facts.xhtml
55. City of Palo Alto, CA. “City Sustainability Policy” http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/
details.asp?NewsID=751&TargetID=59
90
56. City of Palo Alto. Budget Viewer. https://paloalto.opengov.com/transparency#/329/accountType=ex
penses&breakdown=3ae92313-04df-42e6-aaf9-6428e2d2c5b5¤tYearAmount=cumulativ
e¤tYearPeriod=years&graph=stacked&legendSort=desc&month=6&proration=true&saved_
view=null&selection=F27FD044A63ADC842F2C21EB66DA828B&fiscal_start=earliest&fiscal_
end=latest
57. City of Palo Alto. Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/golf/
new/default.asp
58. Safe Routes to School: Palo Alto. http://www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.org/
59. City of Palo Alto. “News Details: Rinconada Long Range Plan.” www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/
displaynews.asp?NewsID=1917&targetid=109
9190
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space, & Recreation Bibliography
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
1.
A
.
1
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
f
r
e
e
o
r
l
o
w
c
o
s
t
t
e
e
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
h
a
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
l
i
f
e
sk
i
l
l
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
mi
n
d
f
u
l
n
e
s
s
.
1.
A
.
1
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
f
r
e
e
o
r
l
o
w
c
o
s
t
t
e
e
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
h
a
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
l
i
f
e
sk
i
l
l
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
l
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
he
a
l
t
h
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
d
m
i
n
d
f
u
l
n
e
s
s
w
i
t
h
h
e
a
l
t
h
1.
A
.
5
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
sp
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
u
s
e
o
f
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
r
o
s
s
co
u
n
t
r
y
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
c
k
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
,
b
i
k
e
p
o
l
o
,
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
i
c
k
l
e
b
a
l
l
1.
A
.
5
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
sp
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
u
s
e
o
f
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
r
o
s
s
co
u
n
t
r
y
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
c
k
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
,
b
i
k
e
p
o
l
o
,
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
,
r
u
g
b
y
a
n
d
pi
c
k
l
e
b
a
l
l
Ad
d
e
d
r
u
g
b
y
1.
B
E
x
p
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Pa
r
k
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
a
s
a
g
u
i
d
e
(
s
e
e
s
i
d
e
b
a
r
)
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
.
P
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
ex
p
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
w
e
l
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
an
d
o
f
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
i
z
e
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
e
d
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
an
d
t
h
e
b
r
o
a
d
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
on
e
-
h
a
l
f
m
i
l
e
.
1.
B
E
x
p
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
P
a
r
k
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
a
s
a
g
u
i
d
e
(
s
e
e
s
i
d
e
b
a
r
)
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
’
s
U
r
b
a
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
.
Ne
w
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
4
ac
r
e
s
/
1
,
0
0
0
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Pa
r
k
l
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
be
w
e
l
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
o
f
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
i
z
e
to
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
e
d
n
e
e
d
s
o
f
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
r
o
a
d
e
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
n
e
-
h
a
l
f
m
i
l
e
.
Ad
d
e
d
t
e
x
t
"
N
e
w
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
th
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
o
f
4
a
c
r
e
s
/
1
,
0
0
0
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
-
ow
n
e
d
p
a
r
k
l
i
k
e
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
s
pa
r
k
l
a
n
d
.
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
-
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
s
se
r
v
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
li
k
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
W
i
n
t
e
r
L
o
d
g
e
,
G
a
m
b
l
e
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
)
.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
t
e
x
t
.
1.
G
E
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
,
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
a
n
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
s
,
g
y
m
s
,
t
e
n
n
i
s
c
o
u
r
t
s
,
an
d
t
e
e
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
A
d
j
u
s
t
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
o
r
d
e
m
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
1.
G
At
l
e
a
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
,
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
an
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
s
,
g
y
m
s
,
te
n
n
i
s
c
o
u
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
e
e
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
A
d
j
u
s
t
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
o
r
de
m
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
"
.
1.
I
.
1
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
v
e
r
y
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
g
r
o
u
p
s
t
o
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
g
a
p
s
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
in
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
.
1.
I
.
1
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
s
u
r
v
e
y
at
l
e
a
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
o
f
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
gr
o
u
p
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
g
a
p
s
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
aw
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
i
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
.
Ad
d
"
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
"
2.
A
Su
s
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
2.
A
Su
s
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
’
s
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
p
a
r
k
s
"
2.
A
.
1
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
s
t
e
r
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
f
th
e
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
.
A
.
3
t
o
2
.
A
.
1
2.
A
.
3
.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
.
2.
A
.
3
.
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
pa
r
k
a
n
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
d
g
e
t
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
"
Pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
-
6
/
2
8
/
1
6
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
B
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
T
O
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
5
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
2.
A
.
4
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
e
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
n
e
w
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
b
e
i
n
g
a
P
o
l
i
c
y
(
6
.
J
)
t
o
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
2
.
A
.
4
.
2.
A
.
5
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
p
a
r
k
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
o
f
o
s
t
e
r
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
s
o
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
6
.
D
.
1
8
t
o
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
2
.
A
.
5
.
2.
B
.
3
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
m
o
r
e
ex
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
l
e
a
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
mu
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
p
o
p
u
p
o
p
e
n
m
i
c
s
in
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
r
ch
a
l
k
a
r
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
p
a
r
k
s
.
2.
B
.
3
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
m
o
r
e
ex
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
l
e
a
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
mu
r
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
p
o
p
u
p
o
p
e
n
m
i
c
s
o
r
c
h
a
l
k
a
r
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
p
a
r
k
s
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
"
i
n
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
.
"
2.
C
.
1
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
a
n
d
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
th
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
r
e
p
u
t
a
b
l
e
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
t
o
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
h
u
m
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
o
u
r
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
f
i
e
l
d
s
.
an
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
t
y
p
e
o
f
sy
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
t
o
u
s
e
w
h
e
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
tu
r
f
f
i
e
l
d
.
2.
C
.
1
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
a
n
d
t
r
a
c
k
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
th
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
r
e
p
u
t
a
b
l
e
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
t
o
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
n
d
h
u
m
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
ou
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
f
i
e
l
d
s
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
"
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
t
y
p
e
o
f
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
t
o
u
s
e
wh
e
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
f
i
e
l
d
"
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
n
e
w
pr
o
g
r
a
m
2
.
C
.
2
.
2.
C
.
2
A
s
s
e
s
s
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
t
u
r
f
(
n
e
w
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
o
r
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
tu
r
f
)
t
h
a
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
w
h
e
n
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
y
n
t
h
e
t
i
c
t
u
r
f
fie
l
d
t
h
a
t
i
s
d
u
e
f
o
r
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
w
i
t
h
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
2
.
C
.
1
)
2.
C
.
4
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
f
i
e
l
d
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
,
f
u
n
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
up
g
r
a
d
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
a
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
p
a
r
k
s
t
o
h
i
g
h
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
t
u
r
f
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
Th
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
,
a
g
r
o
n
o
m
y
,
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
f
i
e
l
d
sl
o
p
e
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
,
f
i
e
l
d
-
u
s
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
2.
C
.
4
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
f
i
e
l
d
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
of
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
g
r
a
s
s
f
i
e
l
d
s
,
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
va
r
i
o
u
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
,
f
u
n
d
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
a
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
p
a
r
k
s
to
h
i
g
h
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
t
u
r
f
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
up
g
r
a
d
e
s
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
T
h
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
pr
o
f
i
l
e
,
a
g
r
o
n
o
m
y
,
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
f
i
e
l
d
s
l
o
p
e
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
,
f
i
e
l
d
-
us
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
g
r
a
s
s
f
i
e
l
d
s
"
3.
A
.
1
C
o
n
v
e
n
e
a
n
d
l
e
a
d
a
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
C
i
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
st
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
w
o
r
k
g
r
o
u
p
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
no
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
o
n
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
fr
o
m
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
3.
A
.
1
C
o
n
v
e
n
e
a
n
d
l
e
a
d
a
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
C
i
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
w
o
r
k
g
r
o
u
p
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
t
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
t
o
c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
o
n
in
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
f
r
o
m
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
a
n
d
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
"
3.
C
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
y
o
w
n
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
ar
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
pa
r
k
l
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
s
,
m
e
e
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
de
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
o
w
n
e
d
p
a
r
k
s
,
a
l
l
o
w
pu
b
l
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
Ur
b
a
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
3.
C
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
y
o
w
n
e
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
p
a
c
e
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
me
e
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
ow
n
e
d
p
a
r
k
s
,
a
l
l
o
w
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
co
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
U
r
b
a
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
d
"
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
s
"
w
i
t
h
"
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
"
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
4.
A
.
1
(
n
o
w
4
.
B
.
1
)
E
x
p
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
n
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
,
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
pl
a
n
t
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
i
l
o
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
t
o
y
o
u
t
h
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
ot
h
e
r
a
g
e
s
,
cu
l
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
4.
B
.
1
E
x
p
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
n
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
,
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
,
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
l
a
n
t
/
a
n
i
m
a
l
sp
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
i
l
o
r
e
d
to
b
e
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
t
o
y
o
u
t
h
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
g
e
s
,
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
ab
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
d
"
o
t
h
e
r
"
w
i
t
h
"
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
"
4.
B
.
3
E
x
p
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
o
r
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
r
e
e
k
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
.
Ut
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
,
e
x
p
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
r
e
m
o
v
e
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
r
e
e
k
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
E
.
7
a
n
d
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
4.
C
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
e
n
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
f
i
c
a
n
t
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
4
.
D
.
6
4.
C
.
1
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
in
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
t
h
e
sp
r
e
a
d
o
f
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
p
a
t
h
o
g
e
n
s
.
4.
C
.
1
C
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
t
h
e
s
p
r
e
a
d
of
i
n
v
a
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
p
a
t
h
o
g
e
n
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
4
.
D
.
8
a
n
d
d
e
l
e
t
e
d
"
i
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
"
4.
D
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
,
e
x
p
a
n
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
pa
r
k
s
.
4.
D
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
,
e
x
p
a
n
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
pa
r
k
s
an
d
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
"
4.
D
.
1
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
u
r
b
a
n
g
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
b
y
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
in
t
o
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
b
e
d
s
,
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
b
o
u
t
p
a
r
k
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
c
i
t
y
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
6
.
E
.
1
9
4.
D
.
2
T
r
a
i
n
C
i
t
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
a
r
e
o
f
f
o
r
l
o
w
-
wa
t
e
r
,
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
i
z
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
,
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
p
l
a
y
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
n
e
w
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
6
.
E
.
2
0
4.
D
.
3
E
n
s
u
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
a
l
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Gr
e
e
n
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
b
i
o
s
w
a
l
e
s
,
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
pl
a
n
t
e
r
s
,
r
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
p
a
v
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
o
r
o
u
s
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
an
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
6
.
E
.
2
1
4.
D
.
4
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
w
a
l
e
s
,
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
n
s
a
n
d
ra
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
t
o
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
n
d
t
r
e
a
t
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
6
.
E
.
2
2
4.
D
.
5
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
a
d
e
f
o
r
p
l
a
y
a
r
e
a
s
u
s
i
n
g
s
h
a
d
e
t
r
e
e
s
a
s
t
h
e
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
B
.
7
4.
E
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
p
u
r
s
u
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
e
x
p
a
n
d
na
t
i
v
e
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
u
r
b
a
n
p
a
r
k
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
D
.
1
4.
E
.
1
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
p
a
l
e
t
t
e
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
r
e
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
l
i
s
t
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
D
.
3
4.
E
.
2
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
C
a
n
o
p
y
a
n
d
A
c
t
e
r
r
a
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
D
.
4
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
4.
E
.
3
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
l
o
w
-
u
s
e
t
u
r
f
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
h
r
u
b
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
s
s
e
s
,
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
n
a
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
D
.
5
4.
F
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
U
r
b
a
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Po
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
o
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
i
n
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
4
.
D
.
2
4.
G
I
n
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
,
f
o
c
u
s
o
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
ar
e
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
e
.
Is
n
o
w
4
.
A
(
s
a
m
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
p
o
l
i
c
y
)
5.
A
.
5
I
n
v
i
t
e
a
n
d
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
l
o
c
a
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
t
o
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
pa
r
k
s
f
o
r
w
e
e
k
l
y
o
r
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
o
u
t
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
l
u
n
c
h
e
s
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
5.
D
.
2
O
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
,
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
u
s
a
g
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
,
f
o
r
10
.
5
a
c
r
e
l
a
n
d
b
a
n
k
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
g
o
l
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
"
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
"
5.
D
.
3
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
5.
F
.
1
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
P
A
U
S
D
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
m
i
d
d
l
e
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
to
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(
b
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
,
b
a
d
m
i
n
t
o
n
,
i
n
d
o
o
r
so
c
c
e
r
)
in
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
i
n
g
,
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
i
n
g
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
m
m
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
s
,
an
d
o
n
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
m
o
r
n
i
n
g
s
.
5.
F
.
1
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
P
A
U
S
D
t
o
op
e
n
m
i
d
d
l
e
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
fo
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
us
e
(
b
a
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
,
b
a
d
m
i
n
t
o
n
,
in
d
o
o
r
s
o
c
c
e
r
,
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
s
,
t
e
n
n
i
s
c
o
u
r
t
s
)
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
ev
e
n
i
n
g
,
w
e
e
k
e
n
d
a
n
d
s
u
m
m
e
r
h
o
u
r
s
.
Te
x
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
5.
F
.
4
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
5.
F
.
4
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
at
h
l
e
t
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
d
"
w
o
r
k
"
w
i
t
h
"
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
"
6.
A
E
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
t
r
e
n
d
s
o
f
c
i
t
y
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
o
f
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
s
a
g
e
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
t
e
e
n
s
,
s
e
n
i
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
e
t
h
n
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
s
.
6.
A
At
l
e
a
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
t
r
e
n
d
s
of
c
i
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
o
f
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
s
a
g
e
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
t
e
e
n
s
,
s
e
n
i
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
e
t
h
n
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
"
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
"
6.
D
1
8
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
a
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
p
a
r
k
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
c
l
e
a
n
u
p
e
v
e
n
t
s
t
o
f
o
s
t
e
r
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
s
o
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
2
.
A
.
4
6.
H
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
u
s
e
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
C
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
:
6.
H
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
u
s
e
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
C
i
t
y
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
:
Ba
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Ad
d
e
d
"
B
a
y
l
a
n
d
s
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
6.
K
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
e
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
ne
w
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
2
.
A
.
5
6.
K
.
1
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
a
s
s
e
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
s
e
d
b
y
o
t
h
e
r
C
i
t
y
pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
Ad
H
o
c
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
-
8
/
1
5
/
1
6
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
1.
A
.
5
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
sp
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
u
s
e
o
f
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
r
o
s
s
co
u
n
t
r
y
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
c
k
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
,
bi
k
e
p
o
l
o
,
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
,
r
u
g
b
y
a
n
d
pi
c
k
l
e
b
a
l
l
1.
A
.
5
R
e
c
r
u
i
t
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
p
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
t
a
k
e
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
ma
k
e
u
s
e
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
c
r
o
s
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
c
k
a
n
d
f
i
e
l
d
,
r
u
g
b
y
a
n
d
pi
c
k
l
e
b
a
l
l
De
l
e
t
e
d
b
i
k
e
p
o
l
o
a
n
d
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
s
e
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
l
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
n
e
w
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
1.
A
.
8
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
f
o
c
u
s
i
n
g
o
n
un
d
e
r
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
.
2.
F
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
f
o
c
u
s
i
n
g
o
n
un
d
e
r
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
en
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
a
p
o
l
i
c
y
u
n
d
e
r
G
o
a
l
2
.
1.
B
.
8
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
to
sa
v
e
a
n
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
so
t
h
a
t
w
h
e
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
a
n
d
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
i
n
a
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
i
t
.
1.
B
.
8
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
im
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
o
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
.
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
pr
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
p
u
r
s
u
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
t
e
x
t
.
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
-
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
li
k
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
W
i
n
t
e
r
L
o
d
g
e
,
G
a
m
b
l
e
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
)
.
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
(
a
s
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
)
C
i
t
y
-
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
,
or
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
l
i
k
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
us
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
W
i
n
t
e
r
L
o
d
g
e
,
G
a
m
b
l
e
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
, R
i
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
G
r
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
F
o
r
m
e
r
P
A
S
C
O
sit
e
,
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
P
A
S
C
O
s
i
t
e
,
f
o
r
m
e
r
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
S
e
w
a
g
e
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
)
.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
t
e
x
t
"
a
s
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
"
a
d
d
e
d
p
e
r
A
d
H
o
c
.
A
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
n
e
w
t
e
x
t
st
a
f
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
1.
G
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
,
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
a
n
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
s
,
g
y
m
s
,
t
e
n
n
i
s
co
u
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
e
e
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
A
d
j
u
s
t
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
to
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
o
r
d
e
m
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
2.
G
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
e
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
,
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
an
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
j
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
o
l
s
,
g
y
m
s
,
te
n
n
i
s
c
o
u
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
e
e
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
.
A
d
j
u
s
t
p
l
a
n
s
a
s
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
o
r
de
m
a
n
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
p
o
l
i
c
y
2
.
G
.
1.
H
.
7
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
a
r
t
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
o
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
p
a
t
h
s
a
s
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
3.
B
.
1
0
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
a
r
t
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
o
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
pa
t
h
s
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
u
n
d
e
r
P
o
l
i
c
y
3
.
B
1.
K
P
e
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
a
t
a
o
n
t
h
e
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
de
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
d
j
u
s
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
s
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
.
6.
A
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
e
E
v
e
r
y
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
r
e
v
i
e
w
d
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
tr
e
n
d
s
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
o
f
c
i
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
dr
i
v
e
r
s
o
f
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
s
a
g
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
c
h
o
o
l
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
t
e
e
n
s
,
s
e
n
i
o
r
s
,
an
d
e
t
h
n
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
s
a
n
d
a
d
j
u
s
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
s
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
.
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
6
.
A
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
1
.
K
.
1
,
1.
K
.
2
,
1
.
K
.
3
)
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
2.
D
.
1
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
e
l
e
c
t
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
s
i
x
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
fe
n
c
e
d
d
o
g
p
a
r
k
s
,
e
q
u
i
t
a
b
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
o
E
l
e
a
n
o
r
P
a
r
d
e
e
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
4
1
A
c
r
e
s
)
-
N
e
a
r
T
e
r
m
o
B
o
w
d
e
n
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
3
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
-
N
e
a
r
T
e
r
m
o
G
r
e
e
r
P
a
r
k
(
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
8
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
P
e
e
r
s
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
7
3
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
H
o
o
v
e
r
(
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
1
A
c
r
e
)
o
R
o
b
l
e
s
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
4
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
P
a
r
k
(
E
x
p
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
1
.
2
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
2
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
W
e
r
r
y
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
3
1
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
J
u
a
n
a
B
r
i
o
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
4
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
2
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
*
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
5
A
c
r
e
s
)
2.
D
.
1
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
e
l
e
c
t
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
s
i
x
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,
fe
n
c
e
d
d
o
g
p
a
r
k
s
,
e
q
u
i
t
a
b
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
a
c
r
o
s
s
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
l
i
s
t
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
o
E
l
e
a
n
o
r
P
a
r
d
e
e
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
4
1
A
c
r
e
s
)
-
N
e
a
r
T
e
r
m
o
B
o
w
d
e
n
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
3
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
-
N
e
a
r
T
e
r
m
o
G
r
e
e
r
P
a
r
k
(
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
8
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
P
e
e
r
s
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
7
3
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
H
o
o
v
e
r
(
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
1
A
c
r
e
)
o
R
o
b
l
e
s
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
4
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
P
a
r
k
(
E
x
p
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
1
.
2
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
2
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
W
e
r
r
y
P
a
r
k
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
3
1
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
J
u
a
n
a
B
r
i
o
n
e
s
P
a
r
k
(
S
o
u
t
h
,
.
4
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
o
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
(
N
o
r
t
h
,
.
2
7
A
c
r
e
s
)
De
l
e
t
e
d
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
P
a
r
k
a
n
d
f
o
o
t
n
o
t
e
4.
C
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
,
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
a
n
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
,
b
i
r
d
,
p
o
l
l
i
n
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
ha
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
b
y
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
n
a
t
i
v
e
o
a
k
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
th
a
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
o
l
l
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
o
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
h
i
g
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
.
4.
C
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
,
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
, c
r
e
e
k
s
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
i
n
p
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
a
n
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
,
b
i
r
d
,
po
l
l
i
n
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
b
y
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
n
a
t
i
v
e
o
a
k
s
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
p
o
l
l
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
o
r
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
h
i
g
h
ha
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
c
r
e
e
k
s
N/
A
4.
C
.
3
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
l
o
w
-
i
m
p
a
c
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
z
o
n
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
c
r
e
e
k
s
t
o
en
h
a
n
c
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
N/
A
5.
A
.
6
A
s
s
e
s
s
h
i
g
h
-
d
e
m
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
o
s
e
t
h
a
t
ca
n
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
o
r
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
l
o
w
u
s
e
p
a
r
k
s
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
5.
A
.
6
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
k
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
ex
p
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
u
s
e
t
o
d
u
s
k
w
h
i
l
e
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
2.
A
.
6
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
p
a
r
k
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
ex
p
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
u
s
e
t
o
d
u
s
k
w
h
i
l
e
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
Mo
v
e
d
t
o
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
u
n
d
e
r
P
o
l
i
c
y
2
.
A
5.
D
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
b
e
s
t
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
l
y
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
a
s
i
t
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
.
5.
D
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
b
e
s
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
l
y
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
a
s
it
i
s
a
d
d
e
d
to
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
f
o
r
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
.
Ad
d
e
d
t
e
x
t
N/
A
5.
D
.
3
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
u
s
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
n
d
o
f
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
Pa
r
k
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
5.
F
.
2
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
s
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
k
e
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
fr
o
m
P
A
U
S
D
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
co
n
n
e
c
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
r
s
.
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
P
A
U
S
D
a
n
d
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
s
t
a
f
f
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
,
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
.
5.
F
.
2
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
s
t
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
k
e
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
fr
o
m
th
e
C
i
t
y
,
P
A
U
S
D
a
n
d
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
r
s
wit
h
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
.
Re
v
i
s
e
d
t
e
x
t
N/
A
5.
F
.
5
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
m
m
o
n
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ac
c
e
s
s
t
o
s
h
a
r
e
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
7
Po
l
i
c
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
e
s
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
(
a
s
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
)
C
i
t
y
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
s
se
r
v
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
l
i
k
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
W
i
n
t
e
r
L
o
d
g
e
,
G
a
m
b
l
e
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
)
.
1.
B
.
1
2
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
a
n
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
(
a
s
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
)
C
i
t
y
-
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
,
or
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
l
i
k
e
o
r
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
us
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
W
i
n
t
e
r
L
o
d
g
e
,
G
a
m
b
l
e
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
, R
i
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
G
r
e
e
n
W
a
s
t
e
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
F
o
r
m
e
r
P
A
S
C
O
sit
e
,
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
P
A
S
C
O
s
i
t
e
,
f
o
r
m
e
r
L
o
s
A
l
t
o
s
S
e
w
a
g
e
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
K
i
n
g
s
l
e
y
I
s
l
a
n
d
)
.
Ad
d
e
d
t
e
x
t
1.
J
.
1
.
C
r
e
a
t
e
a
r
o
b
u
s
t
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
ut
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
e
p
s
:
o
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
V
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
s
o
l
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
i
n
g
,
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
ap
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
n
g
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
o
H
a
v
e
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
j
o
b
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
l
l
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
n
e
e
d
s
an
d
m
a
k
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
a
l
l
C
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
o
n
l
i
n
e
.
o
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
t
o
s
e
n
i
o
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
e
n
i
o
r
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
to
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
o
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
v
o
l
u
n
t
e
e
r
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
y
o
u
t
h
a
n
d
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
e
a
r
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
h
o
u
r
s
b
y
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
li
k
e
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
i
n
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
J
u
n
i
o
r
L
i
f
e
g
u
a
r
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
De
l
e
t
e
d
t
e
x
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
i
n
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
7
.
N/
A
2.
D
.
2
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
r
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
d
o
g
p
a
r
k
s
fo
c
u
s
i
n
g
o
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
f
u
s
e
.
Ne
w
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
St
a
f
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
-
8
/
1
5
/
1
6
Pa
g
e
7
o
f
7
1 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT C
To: Peter Jensen, Kristen O’Kane, Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, Peter Jensen and
Elizabeth Ames
From: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore, Ryan Mottau, MIG
Re: Comments on Site Concepts
Date: August 15, 2016
This memo summarizes the comments received on the individual site concepts, available for
review online between May and August 2016.
The table below summarizes whether comments were made on each site for which a concept
was presented. As a reminder, no concepts were prepared for the four preserves, because each
will have its own management plan that addresses recreation use as well as other management
factors.
City Park
Comment(s)
received Notes
Baylands Athletic Center Y
Bol Park Y
Boulware Park Y
Bowden Park Y
Bowling Green Park N On sheet with Kellogg
(Juana) Briones Park Y
Cameron Park Y
Cogswell Plaza Y
El Camino Park Y
Eleanor Pardee Park Y
El Palo Alto Park N
2 | P a g e
Greer Park Y
Heritage Park Y
Hoover Park Y
Hopkins Creekside Y
Johnson Park Y
Kellogg Park N On sheet with Bowling Green
Lytton Plaza Y Comment contained in Rinconada Park comments
Mayfield Park N
Mitchell Park Y
Monroe Park N No new amenities proposed (renovated in 2016)
Peers Park Y
Ramos Park Y
Rinconada Park Y
Robles Park Y
Scott Park N No new amenities proposed (renovated in 2015)
Seale Park Y
Stanford - Palo Alto Playing
Fields Y
Terman Park Y
Wallis Park N
Weisshaar Park N No new amenities proposed (renovated in 2015)
Werry Park Y
Community Centers
Cubberley Community Center Y
Lucie Stern Center N No new amenities proposed
Mitchell Community Center Y No new amenities proposed
Ventura Community Center Y
Comments are summarized in the remainder of this memo by site. For several sites, one or
more key questions are called out based on the public comments. In these cases, additional
staff or PRC direction is needed.
3 | P a g e
Site-Specific Comments
Baylands (10 comments)
Several comments addressed additional potential uses for the site or the 10-acre expansion
area, including a dog park (with a note that a dog park is desired at sports site (so parents can
walk the dog while kids play). Ideas suggested for the 10-acre expansion area included
wildlife/habitat and a second swimming pool.
Bol Park (69 comments)
There were mixed comments, focused on the pump track in particular. There is a
misunderstanding about what a pump track is. There was clear opposition from an organized
group, and positive comments. Alternative locations suggested for a pump track include Briones
Park and on Strawberry Hill behind Gunn HS, and Boulware Park.
Regardless of whether the commenter was pro or con the pump track, the comments show
overarching support for the restroom.
There appears to be an overall desire to maintain the character. We recommend adding
notations about “rural character” and the style of development, as well as calling out the desire
to retain the soft creek edge and the redwoods.
The comments suggested adding a kiosk/gathering place to support neighborhood use and
gathering.
Boulware Park (10 comments)
The comments propose refinements to the overall plan. There was significant support for
investment and interest in a pump track as part of the play experience.
Bowden Park (4 comments)
Comments were highly supportive of the dog park
Cameron Park (3 comments)
The comments propose refinements, including an expanded play area. There was a request to
add a portable toilet.
Cubberley Community Center (3 comments)
The main comment was a request to go much bigger in the vision for enhancement. See the
proposed enhancement scheme located here:
http://www.on40.org/cubberly-master-parks-plan-proposal/
El Camino Park (2 comments)
Support for the concept, with a request to add a pedestrian crossing.
Eleanor Pardee Park (27 comments)
The comments propose refinements to the overall plan (e.g., shade). There was significant
support for restrooms.
4 | P a g e
Greer Park (8 comments)
Comments were supportive of the concept plan.
Heritage Park (16 comments)
There was support for the dog park and a request to add restroom or portable toilet
Hoover Park (11 comments)
There was lots of support for dog park/expanded dog park/separate small and large dog areas.
There were no comments on option 1 vs option 2.
Hopkins Creekside Park (2 comments)
Support for native creekside enhancements and partnerships for stewardship
Johnson Park (4 comments)
There were 4 comments, Including support for adult fitness, opposition to the restroom, and
one support and one opposition the children’s area.
Juana Briones Park (8 comments)
Overall supportive comments with suggested additions: pump track, water play, working
drinking fountains.
Note: fix typo in Native Habitat labels
Lytton Plaza
Supportive comment for Ping-Pong proposal, contained in comments on Rinconada Park
Mitchell Park and Mitchell Park Community Center (56 comments)
More than 80% of comments addressed pickleball. Note that half the comments were from
residents outside of Palo Alto. All comments for Mitchell Park Community Center were focused
on pickleball and conversion of the tennis courts.
There was support for the dog park. There was also a suggestion to convert more turf to native
species or lawn alternatives and to add shade to the dog park and other areas.
Peers Park (14 comments)
There was overall support, especially support for the dog park, and other suggested
refinements.
Ramos Park (1 comment)
Only one comment requesting addition of a dog park for small dogs to open lawn between
proposed restroom and picnic area.
Rinconada Park and Pool (7 comments)
Comments propose minor refinements, with the requested addition of a dog park.
Robles Park (6 comments)
There were 6 comments, mixed. Two are requests to add restrooms., Some refinements were
suggested, including adding a tennis wall or pickleball court, adding shade and replanting with
oaks.
5 | P a g e
Seale Park (1 comment)
Only one comment requesting addition of a dog park
Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields (1 comment)
Only one comment requesting addition of shade/shade trees
Terman Park (1 comment)
Only one comment, supporting a restroom and requesting a water fountain.
Ventura Community Center (3 comments)
The comments are about the importance of this site as a park, and the need for more
enhancements.
Weisshaar Park
No comments received.
Werry Park (3 comments)
Comments were mixed ( keep the same, add shade and fountains, remove dead vegetation).
Non-Site Specific Comments
There were a number of comments that were applicable to more than one site or even system
wide.
Bike improvements
Remove chicanes near Bol Park/Matadero Creek (verbatim comment in Bol Park comments)
Staff note: a chicane is defined as an artificial narrowing or turn
Restrooms
Toilets at each park (pretty sure not all parks have toilets and some, are too far away and not in
a visible area like in Rinconada. (verbatim comment in Rinconada comments)
Exercise/Sports
Overall support for outdoor exercise equipment
Pickleball – convert tennis courts or add pickleball
Identify locations for tai chi (open fields, paved areas) for outdoor exercise. Drawn from
comments on Peers Park.
Add a second swimming pool, either a second tank at Rinconada or at Baylands.
Also, would love to see track floor material in areas that we can use for running, like at
Rinconada, it would be better than the existing dirt floor (verbatim comment in Rinconada)
Dog Parks
If creating or updating existing dog runs, make it also with rubbery, track flooring material
instead of sandy/dirt flooring. (verbatim comment in Rinconada)
Request for grass surfacing in some dog areas (not sand)
6 | P a g e
Request to locate dog parks away from the backyards of adjacent homes (see Robles Park
comments). This could be addressed at Robles and possibly other sites by showing a buffer.
Habitat Enhancement
(Verbatim Comment in Baylands)
As a long-term Palo Alto resident, I thank you for incorporating native habitat into parks
throughout our city. As further park and recreation improvements are considered, I ask that
the City of Palo Alto incorporate the following ideas:
Prioritize the integration of native habitat into city parks
Minimize conversion of existing habitat to other uses
Steward native oak trees and avoid activities and maintenance practices that could
potentially harm these trees.
Plant a band of riparian tree species (cottonwood, CA sycamore) and oaks near creeks
(yes- even those concrete channels)
Create a large "birding park" for migratory songbirds in the 10 acres vacated by the golf
course, by Baylands Athletic Park, San Francisquito Creek, and Geng Road
Provide a linkage maps to emphasize wildlife connectivity
Enhance habitat in Palo Alto Baylands, Pearson Arastradero and Foothill Parks
Employ a very light touch!
Prioritization
I think there is good thinking in all the park plans. I can't see that I could add many valuable
comments to any one park. (Verbatim comment)
Rather, I want to suggest that the prioritization for the park renovations needs to be very
thoughtful. Meaning, for example, that you should start by funding one park in each area of the
city (i.e. Downtown, Community Center--not Lucie Stern, but Pardee or Rinconada), midtown,
west side, south PA (Cubberley) etc. Clearly there is millions and millions of dollars worth of
work suggested here and it will take more than a decade to implement all.
People are hungry for improvement (I'm personally eager for a dog park somewhere in north
palo alto). Recognizing that we can't have it all, please be clear about when and what people
will see.
1 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT D
To: Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission
Cc: Rob de Geus, Daren Anderson, Kristen O’Kane, Peter Jensen and
Elizabeth Ames
From: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore and Ryan Mottau, MIG
Re: Chapter 7 Approach
Date: August 16, 2016
In ongoing discussions with the City staff, the project team is developing an approach
to the Master Plan Chapter 7: Implementation that seems most appropriate for the
needs of Palo Alto. This final chapter will be a toolkit that builds the case and provides
the key information for implementing the plan.
Chapter 7 will provide staff with three tools that can inform decisions by the City Council
to set the strategic direction for funding levels and building community support:
A prioritization process,
A process for evaluating future projects, and
A progress reporting methodology.
The outline presented below provides detail on the proposed sections of this chapter.
Chapter 7 Outline
A. Action Plan: proposed actions for the next 20 years (across all areas of the plan)
and phasing recommendations of what moves forward first
B. Funding Today and Tomorrow: summary of existing funding, the gap between
that and the total of the action plan and potential funding opportunities
2 | P a g e
C. Evaluating Future Projects: the process for incorporating new ideas while
remaining true to the direction from the community
D. Progress Reporting Methodology: indicators to show how the City is moving
forward with the plan direction over time, including at least some existing
indicators
E. Call to Action: a closing statement summarizing what needs to happen next to
put this plan into motion
A. Action Plan
This section of the plan will represent the recommendations of what projects and
programs should move forward first. The Action Plan will:
o Align with the 5-year capital planning process, which is revisited annually
o Include “keep-up” and “catch-up” projects that were identified in the
Final Report of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC)
o Include potential new facility and park amenities
o Provide recommended projects that are distinguished between near-
term, mid-term and long-term planning horizons.
o Include an Action Plan specific to recreation programming
o Estimated capital, operational, and/or programming investments for those
projects and programs that will occur in the near-term (within five years of
Master Plan adoption)
o Include a separate analysis of long-range, high investment capital
projects (for example, Cubberley Community Center) including a
prioritization process for competing projects
B. Funding Today and Tomorrow
The description of funding, both existing and potential, is critical to the practicality of
this plan. This section will include:
o Existing funding sources
o IBRC programmed investments (“keep-up” and “catch-up”work that is
already identified)
o The gap in funding
o Potential funding options
C. Evaluating Future Projects
While the Master Plan will provide direction for enhancing the parks, trails, natural open
space, and recreation system over the next 20 years, it is likely that additional new
projects or programs will be proposed in the future. This chapter will include a process
for evaluating those projects not identified in the Master Plan, while considering the
needs of the community.
3 | P a g e
D. Progress Reporting Methodology
As a long-range plan, it will be important to keep the community up-to-date on the
City’s progress toward meeting the goals of this plan. This section focuses on identifying
and reporting on a set of indicators that are relevant and measurable. Examples of
what indicators could be included are:
o Remaining “catch-up” costs compared to original 2011 inventory
o Number of users in parks (counted in preserves, not in other parks)
o Amount of water used for irrigation
o Number of timeslots used on sports fields (removing field rest times but
including unpopular but available timeslots)
o Number of new recreation programs, events and locations piloted
E. Call to Action
As the final chapter in the plan, key recommendations will conclude the document.
The summary of the plan will be included in the executive summary at the front of the
document.