HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-28 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 March 28, 2017 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 COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. Areasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission
reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV.BUSINESS
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 28, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting – PRC Chair Keith Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project Design Update–Public Works Staff
Megha Bansal – (60 min) – Discussion ATTACHMENT3. Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study– CSD Staff Daren Anderson – (45 min) – DiscussionATTACHMENT4. Dog Park Discussion– CSD Staff Daren Anderson – (60 min) – Discussion
ATTACHMENT
5.Upcoming PRC Retreat, Friday, May 19, 9am-1pm – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – (5min)
6.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion (15 min)
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR APRIL 25, 2017 MEETING
VII.ADJOURNMENT
APPROVED
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
February 28, 2017 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11
12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff LaMere, Don McDougall, Keith Reckdahl, Jeff 13
Greenfield, David Moss 14
Commissioners Absent: Ryan McCauley 15
Others Present: Adrian Fine 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Kristen 17
O'Kane 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS:20
Commissioner Reckdahl: Next is any agenda changes, requests or deletions. Does 21
anyone have any changes they want to make? Failing that, we'll move on to Oral 22
Communications. 23
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:24
Commissioner Reckdahl: We have David Carnahan. David is going to speak to us now. 25
David Carnahan: Thank you, Commissioners. David Carnahan in the City Clerk's 26 Office. Normally you see me here when we're recruiting for Boards and Commissions. 27 We're almost ready to do our spring recruitment, but we're not quite organized enough yet 28
for me to have that information for you. I'm here tonight to present a Proclamation and a 29
gift of appreciation to Commissioner Reckdahl. These gifts and Proclamations are 30
typically prepared annually for each Board and Commission Member. Unfortunately, our 31
event this year was held on a night where there were so many competing City events; 32
numerous folks were not able to attend. I, on behalf of the Mayor, on behalf of the City 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Council, am presenting a Proclamation and a gift to you. I promise I will not read the 1
whole thing. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. David and Anne, you attended? 3
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, we were there. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: You're ahead of me then. Thank you. A collector's item 5
signed by Mayor Burt. Now, we'll move on to—failing any other Oral Communications, 6 if anyone has any subject they want to talk with us on the agenda or not, please fill out a 7
card and hand it over to the secretary. We'll move on to business. 8
IV. BUSINESS: 9
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 14, 2016 Parks and 10 Recreation Commission. 11
Approval of the draft December 14, 2016 Minutes as presented was moved by 12
Commissioner Cribbs and seconded by Commissioner Moss. Passed 3-0. 13
2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'll move now to election of the Chair and Vice Chair. 15
Kristen O'Kane: Commissioner Reckdahl, I thought it might be helpful if the 16
Commissioners introduced themselves. The majority of our Commissioners are new, 17
which is exciting. We thought it would be good to have some introductions and just a 18
brief background on why you applied to be on the Parks and Rec Commission and maybe 19
what your interests are, and then we'll do the same here from the staff end. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'll start on the left. Jeff, do you want to start? 21
Commissioner LaMere: My name is Jeff LaMere. My interest in the Parks and 22
Recreation Commission stems from a background in college athletics. I spent 19 years in 23
college athletics and have seen the impact that the outdoors and doing things as a group 24
but also what exercise can do for people and for a community. I also have a 5-year-old 25 who loves going to the parks. I've seen the value of what the Palo Alto parks can do for 26 people. I think the parks here are tremendous. After reading through the proposed 27 Master Plan, I'm very excited to be a part of this Commission and try to see some of these 28
initiatives through. 29
Commissioner McDougall: I'm Don McDougall. I've recently been on the Library 30
Commission and am very happy to be now on the Parks and Recreation Commission. 31
My interest is more associated with the habitat, the Baylands, the Foothills. I'm heavily 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
involved with environmental volunteers. We take kids on hikes into the Baylands and 1
into the Foothills as well. I'm involved with Audubon, and I'm involved with Point 2
Lobos as a docent. The natural habitat is my interest, and we have such a wealth of that 3
in the City. 4
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm Anne Cribbs, and this is my second year on the Commission, 5
so I'm one of the old guys, I guess, now. I'm really looking forward to working with all 6 the new Commissioners. I'm happy to take this time to welcome everybody. As for 7
background, I'm an Olympian from 1960, a 35-year resident of Palo Alto, raised my kids 8
here, played in the parks here, worked for recreation at one time, and absolutely love 9
recreation and working on this Commission. It was so exciting to do the Master Plan. 10
Looking forward to getting it all approved. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm Keith Reckdahl. I am now starting my fifth year with the 12
Parks and Rec. I joined 5 years ago just because growing up with my kids or raising my 13
kids, the park system was such an important part of our family life. I wanted to make 14
sure that that kept on, the high quality of the Palo Alto parks everyone else could enjoy. 15
David. 16
Commissioner Moss: I'm David Moss. This is the beginning of my second year. Like 17
my two predecessors, I have been here for 30-plus years. My wife and son are out there. 18
The five of us have used the parks forever, and we still use them all the time. Like Don, 19
we are especially appreciative of the open spaces, and we'll do everything we can to 20
promote them and to protect them. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm Jeff Greenfield. I'm a new Commissioner. I have an 22
interest across the parks and rec spectrum. I've been a Palo Alto resident for 19 years, 23
have a couple of daughters. My younger daughter is a sophomore in high school now at 24
Gunn. I've been a long-time member of the local soccer community, a board member and 25 past president of the Palo Alto Adult Soccer League. I've been a youth coach and referee. 26 I'm refereeing high school games now in soccer. Also, very interested in the outdoor side 27 of things. I hike regularly in the local open spaces. In Foothills Park, Los Trancos Trail 28
is my favorite. I can't wait until it's open again, but it's going to be a while. I also 29
volunteer regularly with Canopy, and I'm working with Grassroots Ecology on some 30
invasive species removal at Foothills as well. Interested in a lot of different things and 31
excited to be a part of this. 32
Council Member Fine: Hello. I'm Adrian Fine, just a neighborhood kid who turned into 33
City Council and grew up in our parks here and always loved them and the trails and the 34
ways to get around the City. I'm really interested to serve with all of you and learn what 35
you think our City could do and the opportunities and the wonderful benefits we have 36
here. A lot of folks have mentioned our open space, and I think that's absolutely vital and 37
just so great about Palo Alto. There's also just interesting urban interfaces too, and I'd 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
just love to see what our Parks and Rec is capable of in the City compared to many 1
others. 2
Rob de Geus: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Rob de Geus; I'm the Director of 3
Community Services, the Department in which Parks and Recreation falls among other 4
things. We'll talk a little more about the Department later. Congratulations to all of you 5
and Keith for returning. I'm glad you're back on, because we've got a lot of new folks 6 here. It's a real privilege to work with all of you. I think one of the most exciting things 7
about working in Palo Alto, I find, actually is working closely with the residents of Palo 8
Alto. They're so engaged and so interested in what we do and passionate. In all the 9
places you could choose to volunteer or serve, this is by far the best one, right here, the 10
most impactful and the most fun, and you've got these two who are really great 11
individuals, Kristen and Daren. 12
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you, Rob. Good evening and welcome. I'm Kristen O'Kane. I'm an 13
Assistant Director of the Community Services Department, overseeing parks, recreation, 14
open space and golf. I've been with the City just a little bit over a year and working with 15
the Parks and Rec Commission during that whole time. I'm really excited to get to know 16
all of you and work with all of you. We have some really exciting things coming up this 17
year. We're looking forward to working with all of you on those. Thank you for being 18
here. 19
Daren Anderson: Hi, my name's Daren Anderson, and I'm the Division Manager for 20
Open Space, Parks and Golf. It's been my privilege since 1999 to help serve and protect 21
and enhance the open space and parks. The love of my life is taking care of open space 22
and parks. Looking forward to working with you to keep making it better and better. 23
Thanks so much for letting me work with you. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Now, we'll move on to the election of the Chair. The Chair 25 every week meets with or talks at least on the phone with Kristen—back in the old days, 26 it was Rob—to look at the agenda and figure out what we're going to talk about and what 27 are we ready to talk about and what we need to bump to next week. You may have to 28
interface with other groups, whether it be the Council Members or other ad hocs, and 29
accumulate all the information that we want to present to the public and get that in about 30
a week ahead of time so that can be released. Then, during the meeting the Chair runs the 31
meeting and organizes both the speakers from the public and also the speakers within the 32
Commission. Now, we're opening up the floor for nominations. You can nominate 33
yourself. We are—go ahead. 34
Commissioner Cribbs: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Reckdahl for a number of 35
reasons but certainly because of your experience over the past 5 years. I know you've 36
been a very good steward of the Commission, have had a lot of experience in the work 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
that we've done. I would feel very comfortable with you as the leader this year. I know 1
we haven't talked about this. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. I would be interested. I was Chair 2 years ago, 3
and it was a reasonable amount of work, but it was worthwhile. I would be willing to do 4
that again. 5
Commissioner Moss: I nominate Anne Cribbs for Vice Chair. 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: We first vote on Chair. Any other nominations? Failing that, 7
we will now vote for Chair. 8
Catherine Bourquin: Six for Reckdahl for Chair. 9
Keith Reckdahl elected unanimously as Chairman. 10
Commissioner Cribbs: Congratulations. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. I was nervous about that one. The next action is 12
to nominate people for Vice Chair. Do I hear any nominations? 13
Commissioner Moss: I would like to nominate Anne Cribbs for Vice Chair. She has 14
been involved in this group for over a year and even before that. She has always been 15
very fair and honest and not afraid to give her opinion. I think she would be an excellent 16
Vice Chair. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs, are you interested in being Vice Chair? 18
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm actually interested in knowing if David would like to serve in 19
that capacity. I think that would be a good idea this year as I seek to get used to my new 20
shoulder. Thank you very much. 21
Commissioner Moss: Okay. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: David does accept the nomination. Any other nominations for 23
Vice Chair? Failing that, we will vote for Vice Chair. 24
Ms. Bourquin: Six for David Moss for Vice Chair. 25
David Moss elected unanimously as Vice Chair. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Congratulations David. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: Congratulations. 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Commissioner Moss: Thank you. 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: One of the things that's nice about the Parks Commission is 2
that it is very flat. The Chair and the Vice Chair do not do the majority of the work. It 3
really is spread out quite a bit. All the newbies will have to, like it or not, be relied on to 4
do a lot of work. 5
Commissioner Cribbs: Speaking of that, could we ask that Jeff trade places so that he's 6 not so far away from all of us? There's a person in there that's not here. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we know is Ryan … 8
Mr. de Geus: He's not able to make it. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: He's not able to make it. Move in please, so we are more 10
intimate here. 11
Commissioner Cribbs: That would be nice. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are we planning the retreat this month in the upcoming month 13
or is it after the next meeting? 14
Ms. O'Kane: We'll talk about that at the end of the agenda. We do need to pick a retreat 15
date today. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: Will we do a Doodle poll or will we try and do it tonight? 17
Ms. O'Kane: We can try to do it tonight. 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'll give it a shot and see how people's schedules are. In the 19
past sometimes, if we have scheduling problems or people don't know their schedules, 20
Cat will send out a Doodle poll, and then we'll figure out the date. A bird in the hand is 21
always better. 22
Ms. O'Kane: (inaudible) 23
Chair Reckdahl: One important thing we want to do is get assignments for the ad hocs. 24
We have ad hoc committees here. Because of the Brown Act, we can't have a majority, 25 but we can have two or three people go together and study an issue and talk with staff and 26 gather facts and then assemble facts and present it as a time-saving measure for us. A lot 27 of those ad hocs, that's where the work is really done. Go ahead, David. 28
Vice Chair Moss: For the newcomers, that was a real education at that retreat, 29
understanding all the subcommittees that have already been created and really deciding 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
what area you want to focus on. Bearing in mind that you really have to deal with all of 1
the areas, there are some that you can focus on. There's a lot to be done, especially since 2
we've got this huge Master Plan that has a lot of work to be done. We have to carve it up 3
into some meaningful chunks. I encourage everybody to come to the retreat. 4
Chair Reckdahl: Sometimes people can't make the retreat, which is a shame, because we 5
really do get a lot of work done during the retreat. It's also good just to get in a different 6 environment. Do we think it's going to be in Foothills this year? Do we know? Or down 7
in … 8
Ms. O'Kane: We haven't discussed logistics yet. 9
Chair Reckdahl: The tradeoff is up at Foothills is a different environment. It's a little 10
more relaxed, but it's also more of a schlep up there. It's a tradeoff. 11
3. New Commissioner Orientation. 12
Chair Reckdahl: Moving down to new business. Next is new Commissioner orientation. 13
Kristen is going to give us an orientation, which sounds—actually something I wish had 14
been done 4 years ago. 15
Mr. de Geus: Chair Reckdahl, I thought I'd just kick this off real briefly here. Again, 16
Rob de Geus, Director of the Department. As we talked about, this first meeting has a lot 17
of new Commissioners. We thought it would be good to take a little bit of time to talk 18
about the Department and what's involved with the Department, specifically related to 19
parks, recreation, open space and the golf course. We've prepared a presentation—20
Kristen really has done the presentation. She'll go through that and lay out some 21
questions that you might have. Secondly, we'll talk about the Master Plan, probably the 22
biggest project we've worked on for the last couple of years. With regard to the 23
Department, I also would say getting out and doing a tour with the staff is a good thing. 24
We do a lot, and we're all over town. Just getting out with Kristen or Daren and walking 25 some of the trails and talking about some of the issues that we're going to be facing or 26 talking about as policy matters is just a great way to get to know the park system and the 27 recreation system. I encourage you to do that. The presentation will focus mostly on 28
parks and recreation, but it goes beyond that. We have a dedicated Art Center, as you 29
know, a dedicated Children's Theatre, a Junior Museum and Zoo. We have three 30
theatres. It's a large Department; there's 80 full-time staff and several hundred part-time 31
staff. Depending on the season, that can get as high as 300. I like to think that anyone 32
who's working in this field couldn't work in a better place than Palo Alto. The reason for 33
that is because of people like you, and for decades and decades Councils and 34
Commissions have dedicated time and energy and resources toward dedicating parkland 35
and investing in facilities like an Art Center and a Junior Museum. We've got these 36
amazing assets to work with. The focus for this Commission, though, really is in parks, 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
open space and recreation. The focus of the Commission is really policy oriented. I 1
think that's important to understand and appreciate. The Commission is advisory to 2
Council and helping staff as we come across challenges sometimes where there are 3
competing interests of community members. We try and figure out how we best either 4
create access or other issues. There may be a policy issue that comes to play. That's 5
where the Commission is really important for us and for the Council. With that, I will 6 add again I think you're very fortunate to have Kristen and Daren as your guides as a 7
Commission because they really do a fantastic job. Kristen, I'll pass it on to you. 8
Ms. O'Kane: Thank you. Before I start, I did fail to introduce our two staff to my right; 9
we couldn't we do any of this without them. Do you want to quickly introduce 10
yourselves? 11
Ms. Bourquin: I'm Catherine Bourquin. I've been an assistant to the Parks and Rec 12
Commission since 2002. I've been with the City for going on 27 years. Now, I'm 13
handing it over to Tonya, but I'll be her backup. She won't be alone. 14
Tanya Schornack: Hello. My name's Tanya Schornack. I've been working for the City 15
for the past 4 years. My husband and his dad grew up in Palo Alto. I'm now raising my 16
daughter in Palo Alto as well. We are big fans of the Baylands and Foothills Park. 17
Ms. O'Kane: You may receive quite a few emails probably from Tanya. If we receive 18
correspondence from the public, they may come from Tanya directly as opposed to me, 19
just so you know. Good to put a face to the name. On that note, I'll start just an 20
orientation, like Rob said, on the Department focusing on parks, recreation, open space 21
and golf. The mission of our Department is to engage individuals and families in creating 22
a strong and healthy community through parks, recreation, social services, arts, and 23
sciences. We have five different divisions within the Department: Administration; Open 24
Space, Parks and Golf of which Daren is the Division Manager; Recreation; Human 25 Services; and Arts and Sciences. This is just an overview of our Administration Division 26 with Rob being the lead. I am on the top there, Assistant Director, along with Daren 27 alongside me. Rhyena Halpern, you may see her once in a while throughout the year. 28
She's the other Assistant Director, overseeing Arts and Sciences, so the Art Center, 29
Public Art Program, the Junior Museum and Zoo. We also have a strategy and operations 30
team who does a lot of our analyst work and budget management. I'm going to turn the 31
next slide over to Daren. 32
Mr. Anderson: I'll just share a little bit about Open Space, Parks and Golf. We have 33
4,000 acres of open space, which is really special and unique. It's due to foresight and 34
vision on behalf of our Council from many years back. They had the idea of preserving 35
these areas when other people were still using them as landfill. We're really grateful to 36
have it. This 4,000 acres is spread over Foothills Park, Baylands Nature Preserve, 37
Pearson-Arastradero, and Esther Clark Park. Esther Clark Park is one of those seldom-38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
used open space areas that we're looking forward to doing something with when we do 1
our Comprehensive Plan in FY '19 for that area. More to come on that, I hope. We've 2
got 43 miles of hiking trail. It's a challenge to take care of it, and we're doing the best we 3
can. As Commissioner Greenfield pointed out, we've got one trail right now partially 4
closed because of the storm. We're actively working on fixing it. We've got 32 5
neighborhood parks with 174 acres. There's 30 playgrounds within those parks. A lot of 6 assets. At one point, we tallied every single one of our sprinkler heads that our irrigation 7
team goes out and manages. The point is there's just a tremendous number of assets for 8
people to enjoy, and we get to take care of. Lastly, we've got our Palo Alto golf course, 9
which should be fully renovated and back open for business in October or November of 10
this year. We're excited about that. Fun fact, 9 out of every 10 residents has been to one 11
of our parks. On this next slide, we have some of the assets broken down. I've already 12
mentioned that we've got 30 playgrounds, basketball courts, tennis courts, sports fields—13
that's 32 sports fields; some of those include the PAUSD fields as well—39 different 14
picnic areas, the two pools, three dog parks. Hopefully we'll be adding another one very 15
soon with your help. We've got the three interpretive centers at Foothills Park, Baylands, 16
and Pearson-Arastradero. The other fun fact, one we've been working on increasing, 93 17
percent of our residents are satisfied with the quality of Palo Alto's parks. We're shooting 18
to increase that. 19
Ms. O'Kane: Thanks Daren. Recreation Services, this is quite a large division within our 20
Department, and it includes our three community centers, all of which are very different. 21
Cubberley Community Center, the City only owns 8 acres of that entire site. The rest of 22
the site we lease from the Palo Alto Unified School District, but we operate it as the 23
community center. We also use the fields for various community events. We have 24
Mitchell Park Community Center, which includes the Teen Center, and Lucie Stern 25 Community Center, which is actually under renovation right now and should be back 26 open April 1st or 2nd. Our recreation has quite a few programs, classes for the 27 community. We have an aquatics program that operates year round. We also have adult 28
fitness programs. Our recreation programs as well as our summer camp program, which 29
is very popular. We're kicking that off really soon. I'm sure you're all aware of the 30
process called the draw, where people put in their requests for summer camps, and it's a 31
lottery as to which camps they get selected to participate in. We also have numerous teen 32
programs, many of which are operated out of Mitchell Park Community Center. The 33
Recreation Division also plans and manages many of the City's special events, the May 34
Fete Parade, the Chili Cook-Off. There's an Earth Day Festival that we're participating in 35
coming up in April. A lot of events that we also manage through Recreation. There are 36
some fun facts, as Daren says, on the bottom of this slide as well. 84 percent of residents 37
rated recreation classes positively, and 81 percent rated recreation centers or facilities 38
positively. There's two other divisions within the Department that I'm going to talk about 39
very briefly. Our Human Services Division provides resources for the community. A lot 40
of our partners in our Human Services Division are listed on this slide. These are groups 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
that Human Services works with directly or receives grant funding through this division. 1
Arts and Sciences, as Rob mentioned earlier, we have the Palo Alto Art Center, the 2
Public Art Program, theatres, the Cubberley Artist Studios as well as the Junior Museum 3
and Zoo. I wanted to mention that a lot of what we do, we do with our partners, pretty 4
much everything we do. We can't do it alone. We do it with our City departments as 5
well as other Commissions. The Parks and Rec Commission is one and probably the 6 most frequently, obviously, Commission that we partner with. We also work with the 7
Human Relations Commission as well as the Public Art Commission. There's also three 8
Friends groups that we work with frequently, as well as the Palo Alto Recreation 9
Foundation and the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation. Of course, we couldn't do it 10
without the members of the community. As Rob mentioned, the community is why we're 11
here, but they're also a big part of helping us proceed with our projects and advance our 12
projects. I wanted to go a little bit into Community Services by the numbers. Rob 13
mentioned we have about 82 full-time staff, but we have hundreds of hourly staff, many 14
of which are hired just in the summer months. We really rely on our hourly staff to get 15
our work done and to keep our programs operating. The Department has an annual 16
operating budget of about $25 million. Our revenue for fiscal year '17 is projected to be 17
almost $6 million. Our annual capital budget on average is about $2.1 million. This slide 18
just breaks down our operating budget by division. You can see that Open Space, Parks 19
and Golf this year is about $8.9 million. The golf course, as you know, is under 20
construction right now, so that number is a little bit deceiving because of that. Our 21
Recreation Division operating budget is about $6.6 million. This slide I'm just going to 22
touch on at a very high level. We'll go into this in more detail at our retreat. When we do 23
the retreat, we'll talk a lot about what we'll be doing in 2017. As Commissioner Moss 24
and Commissioner Reckdahl said, we'll be putting together a lot of ad hoc committees 25 that will help staff advance these projects and programs forward. Just briefly, these are 26 some high-level things, big policies and programs and park improvements, that will be 27 coming your way probably in 2017. The Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation 28
Master Plan, I'm going to go into quite a bit more detail on that in the next presentation. 29
We're getting close to wrapping that one up, very, very close. It's just right there; we're 30
almost there. We'll also be doing some master planning for the Cubberley Community 31
Center. As I mentioned, we own 8 acres of that. We've been working with the School 32
District to think about what we might want to do with that property in the future, either 33
the City in itself or in partnership with the School District. We also are kicking off a 34
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Also, there is a 10-1/2-acre site at the 35
Baylands Athletic Center that we need to look at and determine what the best 36
opportunities for that site are moving forward. We also have a 36-1/2-acre piece of 37
property within the Baylands that was the former ITT property. The City now has full 38
ownership of it. Again, that's a site that we need to look at how we're going to manage 39
that site, what we're going to do with it moving forward. We also have some changes 40
coming in the aquatics program. Also, there's a Buckeye Creek hydrology study that 41
Daren's been working with a consultant on. That's something that will be coming 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
probably next month, I believe. There's also various park improvements that will be 1
coming your way, a new dog park, possibly a park restroom. There's a 7.7-acre parcel up 2
at Foothills Park that, again, we are in a stage where we need to identify what the best use 3
of that site is. Also, the Junior Museum and Zoo is going to be rebuilt. That is located 4
within Rinconada Park, so that will require a Park Improvement Ordinance. There's also 5
possibly some pickleball discussions coming your way. Commissioner Cribbs is very 6 excited about that. There could be some other Park Improvement Ordinances coming 7
your way as well. There's a lot of exciting things, big master planning efforts underway 8
and kicking off that we'll definitely need the Commission's input on. The next part of this 9
presentation I'm shifting a little bit. Rob and I thought we would talk about the 10
Commissioners' role within the City process and also responsibilities. The Commission 11
is an advisory body to Council. The intent is for that advice to be on policy-related issues 12
specific to, of course, parks, recreation, open space and golf. I have three examples here. 13
We're going to go through these examples to show what staff's role is, the Commission's 14
role, and Council's role in these different examples. Do you want to kick off the field and 15
tennis court use policy, Rob? 16
Mr. de Geus: This is an interesting one. It's related to athletic fields and parks and 17
access to the parks and who gets to use them. Before I even get into that, these policy 18
matters can come up in a variety of ways. A lot of times they'll come up through staff. 19
We're trying to be good stewards of recreation and park assets and want to be sure that 20
the community is inclusive and has full access, but there's some type of competing 21
interest of the community. We really don't want to resolve that on our own; we need to 22
resolve that with the community. That's partly the Commission's role, to help us think 23
through the tradeoffs of one course or the other. Sometimes it'll come from the City 24
Council; the City Council will see an issue or hear an issue and ask the Commission to 25 look into this a little deeper because the Council's got a million things going on. You can 26 dive in that way. That will happen from time to time. Other times, Commissioners 27 themselves will—you're out in the community, eyes are open, ears are open to all issues 28
related to parks and rec because you're engaged and involved. You'll hear policy-related 29
issues that you'll bring forward for discussion. This particular one, access to athletic 30
fields, came to us from a lot of different angles. The Commission heard about it; we 31
certainly heard about it; I think even the Council did. We have a great park system, but 32
we are a very built-out community. We have a very athletic citizenry here in Palo Alto. 33
We have a lot of sports being played, a lot of clubs, kids playing as young as 3 years old, 34
a lot of adults and seniors wanting access to athletic fields. We have a great balance of 35
gender on our fields, which is fantastic. We're also dealing with new sports entering into 36
the area. We recently have people wanting to play cricket and want us to have—I'm a 37
little partial to that being from Australia. No, I'm kidding. Lacrosse is starting to get big 38
and other sports like that, pickleball. We have sports now being not seasonal but year 39
round. Soccer is not fall; it's all year, and baseball all year round. In any case, we're 40
faced with how do we balance the interests of all of the different folks that want to have 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
access to the fields. We know that we can't give everybody space fully, equally or 1
certainly to the extent they want it. What is the appropriate criteria for allocating the 2
space throughout the year, children versus adults, different neighborhoods? Even parks 3
themselves, they're not all equal we discovered. Some parks and athletic fields are close 4
to neighbors, where we've got neighbors right up against the athletic fields. Other fields 5
are away from the neighborhood and can actually sustain more play. We have synthetic 6 surfaces and regular grass. This was a really good example where the Commission 7
played an integral role in helping staff figure out how we might develop a set of 8
guidelines and policy for the Council to consider to allocate space in a reasonable way—9
not that everybody gets everything they want—that appreciates all the different tradeoffs 10
and interests. It's not perfect, but it's a good example where we were able to develop a 11
pretty extensive policy that's easy to understand and bring it to Council. They then 12
approved that. We check in on that policy every few years. We thought this was a good 13
example. Again, it goes through this process of identifying the policy issue at hand. 14
Staff will often do some pre-work for the Commission, so that you have something to 15
react to and respond to. It goes back and forth with the Commission and staff. More 16
often than not, we decide that we need to talk to the community and have a public 17
meeting or a forum or something. We'll have an ad hoc committee maybe that'll do some 18
extra work on the side. Once staff and the Commission most often come to alignment on 19
what we think is an appropriate policy recommendation, then it will go to Council for 20
review. Sometimes Council will say, "Thank you, but we're going to go in a different 21
direction." That's their authority. More often than not they're really interested in what 22
the Commission has done and the thinking of the Commission. It weighs heavily on their 23
deliberation and decision. Sometimes it will come back. 24
Chair Reckdahl: This graphic is nice, but I wish it was that simple. In this particular 25 case, in real life, we bounced around between those top two boxes for a long time, 26 including the ad hoc and having public input, because we didn't know the right answer. 27 Staff didn't know the right answer. We really had to work back and forth, back and forth, 28
and back and forth. It took us months to figure out what we thought was a good solution 29
and made the public happy. 30
Mr. de Geus: That's a really good point. We want it to be simple so it can be understood, 31
but it is more complicated than that. One thing we talked about just this afternoon and 32
what's not obvious here is the community engagement is throughout this process, at every 33
step of the way. The Commission's always had this perspective and staff has too and tries 34
very hard to think about—it's not an easy answer always—what is in the best interest of 35
Palo Alto residents where you get 66,000 residents with lots of different interests. Trying 36
to navigate the different data sources and come up with a recommendation for what is 37
truly in the best interests of residents as a whole is challenging at times, but certainly 38
impossible unless you really talk to the community. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Chair Reckdahl: One of the things I didn't appreciate is I thought people just cared about 1
slots. It's not just slots; they wanted priority. For example, they wanted to cluster them 2
together. They wanted all the (inaudible) at one time so the rest could go from game to 3
game and parents go from game to game. That makes a lot of sense. We were doing it 4
with a lottery system, so you would do one field at a time. It made it hard. In retrospect, 5
we should have thought of that. In the end, we got something that made people happy. 6
Ms. O'Kane: In this case, the Commission's role is to review the policy. Where staff 7
writes the policy, drafts it, the Commission would review it. Like Commissioner 8
Reckdahl said, it may go in cycles where it goes back to staff for revision, and that may 9
happen a few times. The Commission doesn't actually approve the policy. The 10
Commission would review it and then recommend to Council that Council approves the 11
policy. I'm going to move on to the next example, which is the Master Plan. Again, I 12
know this makes it look really simple. It went this smoothly, didn't it? In this case, staff 13
did along with the consultant a lot of the data collection, community outreach, drafted the 14
goals, policies and programs, and prepared the Master Plan in and of itself. There was a 15
Master Plan ad hoc who contributed quite a bit outside of Commission meetings. We sat 16
together, staff and the ad hoc group, and wordsmithed policies to get them just right. 17
There is that level of detail that occurs. For the Commission overall, the role was to 18
review the goals, policies and programs; provide input; ensure that those policies are 19
reflective of the community's needs and desires; and also review the Master Plan; and 20
then eventually recommend to Council that Council adopt the Master Plan. In this one, 21
we did include the arrows that show it's a cycle, that it went around quite a few times as 22
well with Council. We've been to Council many times with the Master Plan at various 23
stages, requesting input, and then that goes back to staff. 24
Mr. de Geus: As long as there is an exit ramp eventually. 25
Ms. O'Kane: Yeah, it's not a continuous, infinite loop. That's our goal. City Council 26 provides feedback, like I said, and ultimately would adopt the Plan. Again, this is an 27 example where the Commission is the advisory body to Council, where the Commission 28
has reviewed the Master Plan, has worked with staff throughout the process, and then 29
gets to a point of being comfortable with the Master Plan to recommend to Council that 30
Council adopt the Master Plan. It goes back to staff for implementation. We know that 31
continues on. As we start to implement the Master Plan, there are going to be times 32
where we come back to the Commission as well as Council to approve or recommend 33
approval of specific items that come out of the Master Plan. Really, I wanted to focus 34
that the Commission's role here was to help with the policy piece of that and also advise 35
Council on their acceptance of the Master Plan. One thing that we added to this side was 36
on the left side, that bar that says community. This is an example where the community 37
and specific stakeholder groups have been involved all along the way. This Master Plan 38
is really by the community and for the community. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Mr. Anderson: The dog park example, that we're going to go through, has a similar 1
process as the others. Staff and usually an ad hoc from the Commission will work an 2
issue. Unfortunately, we've been stuck in those first two boxes now for many, many 3
years. We made good headway with our last ad hoc committee. There were two 4
Commissioners working with me directly, putting in a lot of effort, especially tied to our 5
endeavor on the Parks Master Plan. With that bigger outreach that was connected to the 6 Master Plan, I think we've got a good way forward. We've held some public meetings 7
recently, again as part of that Box 1 of reaching out to the community. I think there's 8
light at the end of the tunnel, and we're ready to move on to the second and third boxes, 9
where we can come back to the Commission soon. I'll be, a little later tonight, asking 10
you to re-form that ad hoc committee and asking for a couple of Commissioners to help 11
me work this issue a little bit more. Hopefully come back next month for the full 12
Commission to have a robust discussion. The following month—do you see that little 13
note, prepares PIO? That's called a Park Improvement Ordinance. Any time there's any 14
construction or fundamental change in a park, you're required to do this ordinance that 15
has to be approved by Council. We'll build some consensus with our ad hoc, come back 16
to discuss it in March. If everything goes well, I bring you a draft Park Improvement 17
Ordinance in April. You'll take a vote on that and decide whether you'd like to 18
recommend that move on to Council for their approval. At that point after Council 19
reviews it and decides to approve it, there's a certain waiting period, and then we're 20
allowed to construct that dog park. I'm really looking forward to working with you on 21
this one. 22
Ms. O'Kane: That concludes our presentation. We're here to answer questions, if anyone 23
has questions on all that information we just threw at you. Any questions? 24
Commissioner Cribbs: I really liked the presentation. Thank you very much for putting 25 it together. I'm wondering if you're posting it any place. 26
Ms. O'Kane: We could post it. I could also email it. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: Email would be good. For the broader picture, maybe there's 28
some things that are unique to the Commission. Just in terms of information about Palo 29
Alto, it's another way of putting out communication. 30
Ms. O'Kane: We could post it on the Commission's website. Thank you. 31
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 32
Chair Reckdahl: It's very nice. I wish I had that 4 years ago, because it does give you a 33
bigger picture. One thing that we did was the tour with Rob. Are you going to try and 34
schedule that with the new Commissioners? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. 1
Chair Reckdahl: You'll do that by email and find a time that's good? 2
Ms. O'Kane: If anyone would like a tour of—I started, I think, when Commissioner 3
Cribbs and Commissioner Moss started, and I was on their tour as well. Daren is a great 4
tour guide. Just let us know, and we'd be happy to take you on a tour. 5
Vice Chair Moss: I have one comment. It's incredible to work with your staff. I found 6 last year things went really, really smoothly. Also, with the Council, you pretty much 7
sheltered us from the Council. I appreciate that, but I hope we can continue to have a 8
smooth working relationship with the Council so that things move as quickly as possible 9
and that we're not off in a vacuum doing our own thing. We're relying on our 10
representative here to keep us honest and you people as well. As you mentioned, we 11
really have no power. We just advise. We want to make sure that our work is useful. 12
Council Member Fine: Thank you for that, Vice Chair. In some ways, it's the other way 13
around, that you actually keep us honest. It'd be so helpful if this Commission filters up 14
information. I really appreciate staff's presentation. Coming from Planning Commission, 15
it seems like you guys have a much better process about how things work here and how 16
the Commission and staff work together and move things forward. I think that efficiency 17
is really valued. I would say people do say that these Commissions are advisory. If you 18
hear something in the community—it doesn't have to be policy related—filter that up 19
because that matters. Layering that information is really helpful. 20
Commissioner McDougall: On page 9, when it lists the partners, does it makes sense—21
coming from the Library Commission—to include the Library as a partner? It seems to 22
me that you do things in conjunction with them or is that a conflict? 23
Mr. de Geus: It's certainly a partner, a part of the City of course. Our Department and 24
libraries are increasingly working more closely together. Certainly, you see that at 25 Mitchell Park where we're right next door. Don, as you know having been on the Library 26 Commission, libraries are going through a transformation about who they are. It's a 27 whole lot more than books. It's a lot more like Community Services and gathering 28
places. I actually think it's an exciting time for libraries and Community Services to 29
think about how we can collaborate and work together. 30
Commissioner McDougall: I do too. I think it would be worth calling out to call our 31
attention to. It's a real opportunity. A different question. The thing that the Library 32
Commission does is assign what they call Council buddies to individual Commissioners. 33
Sometimes it really works well. I had a relationship with Marc Berman that was really 34
good. Sometimes it doesn't work so well. It was a way of reinforcing and making a 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
connection. I'm very pleased that we have Council Member Fine as our delegate. Some 1
plan like that—it turned out to be useful. We also had a Council representative as well. 2
Ms. O'Kane: I'd be interested in hearing more about that, maybe after the meeting. 3
Commissioner McDougall: Thanks, Kristen. 4
Chair Reckdahl: There are a couple more things I wanted to mention. If you look at the 5
agenda for tonight, for example, we have action items and we also have discussion items. 6 When we put together the agenda ahead of time, we have to know are we just going to 7
talk about this or is there going to be some vote. If we want to have some binding vote, 8
for example sending our recommendation to the Council, we have to ahead of time put 9
that down as an action item. Sometimes we put down a discussion item and then, half 10
way through discussion, we say we want to tell the Council this, and then we have to put 11
that off to next week. Keep in mind when you look at the agenda, when it says action or 12
discussion, that actually means something. We also have to post this. What's the 13
requirement, 7 days in advance? 14
Mr. de Geus: Seventy-two hours. 15
Chair Reckdahl: Seventy-two hours in advance. We usually go for a Thursday morning 16
to get it out. If you at the last minute have some—if you're an ad hoc and you have some 17
data, you can bring it and distribute it, make copies and give it to the public and then 18
hand it out at the meeting, but we prefer to have it 72 hours in advance so it can be part of 19
the packet that goes out to the website. Finally, the last thing is Brown Act. Do you want 20
to say a few words about the Brown Act? 21
Ms. O'Kane: We thought we would get into that at the retreat and get into those … 22
Chair Reckdahl: The short answer is that you can't have a meeting outside of a meeting. 23
You can talk to one or two people, but you have to be careful they don't talk to one or two 24
people because that becomes a serial chain. That's something to be aware of for new 25 Commissioners. 26
Vice Chair Moss: I have one more comment based on what Don just said. One of the 27 things I realized in this past year is how many different stakeholder groups are interested 28
in our work. They certainly come out of the woodwork. It's absolutely dozens and 29
dozens and dozens of stakeholder groups. I don't know how you keep it all straight. 30
When you had that bar over there that said community, you're not just talking to 31
individuals; you're talking to groups that represent a whole lot of other individuals. I 32
think that's a really powerful concept, and we have to take full advantage of it. Having 33
that somehow on the slide—when we go through the Parks and Rec Plan, some of those 34
will start coming up. Going to any meetings with the public, you find out who they are. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Commissioner Greenfield: One thing I'd just add to that, that I don't think got touched on 1
within the process, is you're dealing with lots of groups of stakeholders. They often have 2
competing interests. Part of the magic of the process is getting the stakeholders with 3
competing interests to work together and sort out priorities and compromises themselves 4
and do the heavy lifting with the group, and then hand the answer forward. That's 5
certainly an approach that is worth modeling and works well. Keep it in mind. 6
Mr. de Geus: On the Brown Act question, I know that staff has put together or is putting 7
together a manual for each of the Commissioners, that has a lot of background, a lot of 8
information about the Brown Act and some of the rules around Robert's Orders. There's 9
also training that the City provides annually on conflict of interest and the Brown Act. 10
We'll let you know when that happens. It usually happens here that you can attend. We 11
also, of course, have a City Attorney's Office. If you have questions about the legality of 12
anything, you can work through staff, and we can get you in touch with our Attorney's 13
Office. 14
Chair Reckdahl: The most dangerous part, I think, is when you're on an ad hoc and you 15
have two or three people working on that. You have to be very disciplined not to talk to 16
someone else. Sometimes you know that someone has worked on something, and "I want 17
some advice for this." You have to be very careful that it doesn't end up breaking into a 18
bigger meeting that would violate the Brown Act. Very good, we'll move on to the next. 19
4. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. 20
Chair Reckdahl: Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, we'll 21
have a discussion. 22
Mr. de Geus: I'm just going to kick this off again, Chair Reckdahl, real briefly before 23
Kristen goes into the presentation. I did want to say that this is probably the most 24
significant work the Commission has worked on for the last 2 years or a little more. We 25 talked about our process, very community focused and many, many stakeholders. 26 Bringing them together and trying to find common interests takes a lot of time. You end 27 up with a better product at the end, but it does take time. We're happy to have done that, 28
but especially happy that we're at a point where we think we have a Plan that is not 29
perfect but pretty darned good. We're ready to get this in front of the Council so we can 30
really start working off the Plan. It really represents a vision for the future of parks, 31
trails, open space and recreation facilities. I think it's been a labor of love for prior 32
Commissioners and many community members and staff that have been engaged in this 33
work. It's intended to be a 20-year Plan. The last thing I'll say before I hand it over to 34
Kristen is one of the most interesting and challenging parts of working on this and putting 35
this together, which is not uncommon for any kind of master planning process, is trying 36
to strike the right balance between aspiration and specificity so that it's providing 37
sufficient guidance to actually be meaningful when you're faced with options. We've 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
tried to do that. We spent a lot of time thinking about that. I think we've got a good 1
balance here. I think it's just very relevant, even the conversations around the 2
Comprehensive Plan and how detailed do you go versus not. It's a very difficult thing 3
actually to do. You can go too far one way, too prescriptive. It's in some ways a 4
snapshot in time because it's our understanding of conditions today and the environment 5
today with the best information today. We know tomorrow it will be different; certainly 6 next year it will be. When it's a 20-year Plan, a whole lot is going to change so how 7
specific can you be with programs and other things. On the other hand, you can easily go 8
the other way too, where it's just too aspirational and anything goes and you can make it 9
fit anything as long as you can be creative. That doesn't work either. It's just a reality we 10
have to face with any master planning project, recognizing that it'll never be 100-percent 11
perfect in a lot of ways. It ought to be, I think, a working document that we continue to 12
work and refine throughout the term of the Plan as we get new information and continue 13
to work and discuss with the public where their interests lie. In any case, I think we've 14
got a pretty good Plan here. I'm really interested to hear the new Commissioners' 15
perspective once they have a chance to really take a look at it. Kristen. 16
Ms. O'Kane: First, I'd like to apologize to the three Commissioners who've heard this 17
presentation ad nauseam and could probably give it as well. Thank you for sitting 18
through it one more time. This is a big program, a big Master Plan that we've spent a 19
considerable amount of time on. We thought it would be good to provide some 20
background. I wanted to also introduce to my right Peter Jensen. He's the City's 21
Landscape Architect, and he's in the Public Works Department. He's been quite a 22
contributor to this Master Plan and the process as well, so he's going to help me out with 23
this presentation. I will kick it off. The purpose of the Plan is to guide decision-making 24
for future development of our system, parks, trails, natural open space as well as 25 recreation. The elements of the system that this Master Plan cover are, just as I 26 mentioned, parks, trails and open spaces, recreation facilities, and recreation programs. 27 I'd like to point out that open space piece. The intent with this Master Plan is not to go 28
into the conservation piece of our open spaces. That's being done separately in the 29
Conservation Plans that we're working on, the Baylands being the first one that we're 30
doing. It will only be the developed part of the open spaces, the picnic areas, restrooms, 31
things like that. The last bullet there is recreation programs. There's sort of two 32
components to this Master Plan. There's the "what can we do to improve things" that are 33
more capital projects, and then there's also the programming side of it. All of that is 34
included in the Master Plan. The process that we went through is really a three-phase 35
process, the first being analysis and engagement. We did quite a bit of technical analysis, 36
looking at what we have existing, where parks are in relation to where people live, how 37
do people get to parks, what sort of natural environment exists within our parks. We also 38
did considerable community engagement both online and in person, at different events, at 39
specific community meetings. We gathered all of this information together, and we came 40
up with our needs and opportunities, what did we want to accomplish with our Master 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Plan. That led us into Phase 2. We used that information to develop some goals. 1
Following those goals, we have some policies to help us achieve the goals. Even further, 2
we have programs to help us achieve the policies. The third phase is how are we going to 3
implement it and then also just getting the Master Plan adopted. I'm going to kick it over 4
to Peter right now. 5
Peter Jensen: New and old Commissioners, good evening. Peter Jensen, Landscape 6 Architect for the City of Palo Alto. I've been working on the Parks Master Plan with the 7
staff here and with the Commission before and looking forward to working on it with you 8
as well. I'm going to review with you the first few chapters of the Master Plan report. 9
The report is broken into five different chapters. The first three focus on the early aspects 10
of the master planning process, the actual analysis and community engagement that went 11
into getting the feedback and information that we need to start to create the Master Plan. 12
As Kristen said, Phase 1 was a proactive community engagement process. It had a 13
comprehensive inventory and analysis of all the parks and open spaces, looking at the 14
physical conditions and the elements in the parks that we had. It is the basis of Chapters 15
1-3 of the Master Plan. I'm going to say as the presentation before talked about 16
community engagement, the community has been engaged throughout the entire process 17
as well as the Commission itself, even starting with the initial Request for Proposal that 18
went out and delving into it at that stage. The Commission has been a key factor along 19
with the community of putting the Master Plan together. Phase 1 also included, once we 20
had the analysis work, looking at opportunities, what were the opportunities to enhance 21
or make the system better for parks and open spaces and for programming. It shouldn't 22
be lost that the Master Plan not only looks at physical aspects and facilities but also looks 23
at the program aspects of it. Out of that analysis, there's a series of slides here that looks 24
at different park search areas. The first one basically is looking at the City of Palo Alto. 25 You can see the blue areas are where we're lacking parkland that is a distance away from 26 walking. These would be the areas that we would start to focus on. If we were to add 27 amenities or to add parkland, these would be the places to look at. This slide pops up, 28
and you can see that the areas do have different aspects of them as well. You can see 29
that, I believe, "E" down at the bottom has the highest population density. One of them 30
has higher population, and then the lowest. These geographic analyses help us 31
understand where we should start to provide more funding for more enhancement to our 32
park system. The next two slides are very similar. They start to route different 33
connections between the parks and link the park systems. Not only should the parks be 34
thought of as just one standalone entity but trying to connect those entities so they 35
become a vast and broader system, especially in Palo Alto where our City is pretty much 36
built-out and it's hard to produce parkland. The idea of connecting the parkland and 37
providing those clear links together is a main aspect of optimizing the space that we have. 38
This does that in the same way, but it starts to look at the natural systems and, along those 39
major connection points, also establishing some type of environment either extending the 40
park along the streetscape, planting native trees along these routes that can connect 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
habitat to each of the parks. This is another geographic analysis to look at to understand 1
how the actual full park system links together. In the analysis, there was the key findings 2
from the community engagement. We did a lot of different types of that, intercept 3
groups, meeting people out in the parks. We did multiple surveys, community meetings, 4
of course the PRC meetings that we had, Council updates. There was a lot of 5
engagement with the community to get feedback on what the park system needed. Of 6 course, the technical assessment was all the assessment of our physical aspects that we 7
have in our park system. That led to the needs and opportunities finally distilled down to 8
a part that we did work on for a while. When you have that much analysis done and that 9
much information, there is a lot of information and how you distill those things into what 10
we really want to focus on and the enhancements and improvements that we want to 11
make in our park system. The led us to the development of these areas of focus. There's 12
12 of them altogether. These areas of focus represent those things that we want to 13
concentrate on to enhance the system. They were also used as an aspect of a community 14
survey to get feedback on what the community felt were the top areas of focus to look at. 15
When we start to talk about what is recommended and what has high priority, those 16
things all come with a price tag, of course. Not everything is free; most of it is very 17
expensive. Those areas of focus help us narrow down not only how we want to 18
recommend but how we want to spend the funding that we have. Phase 2 is the goals, 19
policies. It starts out with development of the principles, and the eight principles 20
represent the collective direction provided by the community. It's building on our assets, 21
our vision of the future, and what we'd like to have and see for our park system. You can 22
see they are—this is a broader aspect of what our aspirations are of the park system. As 23
we narrow it down to the goals and the policies and the programs, they each become 24
more specific along the way until you do get to programs that lead you to doing specific 25 projects or adding specific programs. Along with the principles, the next phase was 26 developing the goals. There are six goals altogether. These are very important in how 27 the framework of the Master Plan is formatted. The goals, like the Comprehensive Plan 28
that is being redrafted, follow the same structure as the City overall Comprehensive Plan. 29
We do have a set of goals, and off those goals we build policies and programs that guide 30
future development. These six goals are to provide high-quality facilities and services 31
that are accessible, inclusive, and distributed equally across Palo Alto; enhance the 32
capacity, quality, and variety of the use of existing systems of the park, recreation, open 33
facilities and services. Goal Number 3 is to create environments that encourage regular 34
activity and passive activities to support health, wellness, and social connections. Goal 35
Number 4 is to preserve and integrate nature, natural systems, and ecological principles 36
throughout Palo Alto. Goal 5 is to develop innovative programs, services, and strategies 37
for expanding the system. Goal 6 deals with how we maintain our system and make that 38
more efficient. It's manage Palo Alto's land and services efficiently, effectively, and 39
sustainably, which is also very important, using quantitative and qualitative measures. 40
Not only trying to do that but also setting up parameters that we can understand if we're 41
meeting those goals and what the quality of us meeting those goals are, and how we 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
quantify that we're meeting them. As I said before, that leads us to policies and 1
programs, which again is the same basis that our City Comprehensive Plan is set up on. 2
There are six goals; under each one of those six goals is a policy. Under each one of 3
those policies is a program. As you go down into the programs—a program is where you 4
start to get into specific projects or expanding the system. Those are the main ideas that 5
you can act on to enhance the system. Of course, also in the last presentation, there are 6 some very unique opportunity sites in Palo Alto that either require further study or just 7
require more sensitivity because of their natural systems. Of course, the Cubberley 8
Community Center is a large one. As Kristen pointed out earlier, that's going to start 9
undergoing its own master planning process. The Baylands Athletic Center is a new 10
10.5-acre parcel of land that was created when the golf course was redeveloped, which is 11
very exciting. Like I said, it's very difficult to create new parkland in Palo Alto because 12
of the way it's built-out. The Baylands Nature Preserve has the new ITT property, 13
another 36.5 acres that could eventually become part of the Baylands and will become 14
part of the Baylands and restored that way. Of course, the 7 acres at Foothills Park and 15
what to do with that. 16
Chair Reckdahl: ITT is not dedicated yet? 17
Mr. Anderson: Not yet. 18
Chair Reckdahl: Our plan is to rehabilitate it and then dedicate it or dedicate it and then 19
rehabilitate it? 20
Mr. Anderson: Dedicate it first. 21
Chair Reckdahl: What timeframe is that? 22
Mr. Anderson: I'm hoping we get it in the next couple of months. 23
Ms. O'Kane: Phase 3 is the phase we're in right now. It includes development of the 24
final chapter, which was implementation as well as review of the Plan by Council and 25 adoption of the Plan. It also includes California Environmental Quality Act review, 26 which is something we didn't have included. We weren't clear that we needed to have 27 that step completed for the Plan, so we started that a little bit late. It's underway right 28
now. I'll be going through that schedule towards the end of this presentation. Chapter 5, 29
like I said, is implementation. This was a difficult chapter for us to put together because 30
there's a lot in the Master Plan. Like Rob said, it's aspirational. We're not necessarily 31
going to complete everything in this Plan; it would be nice if we could. Realistically, it's 32
probably not feasible. Everything, like Peter says, does have a price tag associated with 33
it. We need to go through that process annually to start to implement the Master Plan. 34
How we do the prioritization process moving forward, we really struggled with that. We 35
have these five sort of criteria that we're looking at as we go through prioritization. The 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
first one is fill existing gaps. For example, on the map that we saw earlier, where there 1
are areas of high population density but there isn't a park in close proximity to residents, 2
that is a gap we might need to fill. Another might be a pool on the south side of Palo 3
Alto; a gap we need to fill. All of these things we consider higher on the priority side. 4
Also, responding to growth is a criteria, addressing community preferences, maximizing 5
public resources. Completing a project that might meet multiple benefits would allow us 6 to use public resources more efficiently, which is the final bullet as well, realizing 7
multiple benefits. We also list in the Master Plan in Chapter 5 high priority projects and 8
programs. These are ones that, we learned through the process, are considered to be high 9
priority. We know this. The Commission agrees. The community agrees. These are 10
ones that we feel either need to be started and completed in the nearer term or for longer 11
process projects—for example Cubberley master planning, that's not something that can 12
be done quickly, but we recognize that the process needs to start soon. These are all 13
described in that chapter as well as considerations like how much they will cost to plan, 14
how much would they cost to implement. Also, potential funding options is something 15
that we've also included in this chapter, and how we're going to evaluate future projects. 16
This is what we know today in the Master Plan, but there's going to be things that might 17
come up, that we don't even know about. When those do come up, how do we address 18
those and how do we incorporate those into the Master Plan? Finally, how do we report 19
on our progress every year? That's Chapter 5 in a nutshell. Like I said, we're really close 20
to the finish line here. We've done significant community review. Also, the Parks and 21
Rec Commission did review. I have approval up there; I'll explain what I mean by that. 22
First, I want to go quickly into the most recent online community review that we did. 23
This was the draft Master Plan, the one that you have in your packets. It went out to the 24
community for review in November and December. We received responses from 82 25 people; 96 percent of the respondents were residents. What we did is we gave them some 26 questions to answer. Instead of making it an open forum for comments, we asked them 27 specific questions. The first being which of the principles is most important to them. 28
What we were trying to accomplish here is just circle to the beginning of the process and 29
ensure that where we started and where we ended up still align. What we found is that 30
over half of the respondents felt that health was the most important principle we had with 31
the Master Plan. Sustainable and nature being the second and third. This really does 32
align with what we've heard throughout the process, especially most recently when we've 33
done community outreach. We also asked which of the goals are most important to them 34
and should guide the City's implementation of this Plan. The goals that received the 35
highest rating was Goal 3, which is supporting health, wellness and social connections, 36
and Goal 4, which is preserving and integrating nature and natural systems and 37
environments within our parks and open space system. On December 14th, we came to 38
the Commission and asked them these specific questions. They took action, and I will 39
admit it's worded a bit odd. The reason for that is because we don't have the CEQA piece 40
done yet. Our legal advice from our City Attorney was that the Parks and Rec 41
Commission couldn't put their formal stamp on it without understanding what the 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
environmental impacts of that could be. The action that was taken was to accept the draft 1
Master Plan as the embodiment of the programs and policies that are tentatively 2
recommended by the Parks and Rec Commission and then requesting that staff perform 3
CEQA analysis. That action was voted unanimously. That was the final step in the Parks 4
and Rec Commission's role in the Master Plan as far as the goals, policies and programs. 5
Back to this slide. Those first two steps are done. The CEQA review is underway, and 6 we anticipate the public review period will be March 20th to April 18th. During that 7
period of time, we will have a public hearing. We anticipate that public hearing will be at 8
the March Parks and Rec Commission meeting, which is March 28th. Following that, we 9
do have a Council meeting where we are on the agenda; it's April 3rd. This will be an 10
action. It's similar to what we've had in the past, which were Study Sessions, but this one 11
will be an action in that we're asking for the Council to actually provide us comments that 12
we would then act upon in the Master Plan. This allows the Council—sometimes what 13
happens in Council meetings is a Council Member will make a comment, but they don't 14
close the loop on whether that's the Council's direction to us to make that change. By 15
having an action, it allows that to happen. We will know if Council is agreeing on that 16
change for the Master Plan. We're tentatively planning on Council adoption on 17
May 29th. 18
Chair Reckdahl: Parks and Rec has to review it after CEQA? 19
Mr. de Geus: The final adoption. 20
Chair Reckdahl: Our final adoption will be somewhere before 5/29? 21
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. I would imagine it would be the April Parks and Rec Commission 22
meeting. 23
Mr. de Geus: Chair Reckdahl, if I could just add one thing. Just a thank you to the 24
Commission. It's great to have Commissioners Cribbs and Moss join the team and 25 contribute a lot in this last year to get us to the end, and Chair Reckdahl from the 26 beginning has been there. A couple of Commissioners that really carried a heavy load are 27 not with us anymore but just contributed really significantly; that's Commissioner 28
Jennifer Hetterly and Ed Lauing, who was chair for a couple of years. They worked 29
tirelessly really with staff and with the community and on ad hoc committees. Just a big 30
thank you to all of you. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Not only a lot of work, but a lot of thoughtful work. They just didn't do 32
the simple stuff; they thought about it and really tried to think what's the best way to 33
attack this. We are very grateful for that. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Vice Chair Moss: If the CEQA review is not done before the Council review, is that an 1
issue? Will you know enough about the CEQA review to give the Council enough 2
information during their review? 3
Ms. O'Kane: Are you referring to the April 3rd meeting? 4
Vice Chair Moss: Yes, as opposed to April 18th, the end of the CEQA review. 5
Ms. O'Kane: The meeting on April 3rd is really to have them provide feedback on the 6 Plan itself. There's been changes made since the last Council meeting, many of which 7
were in response to Council comments. We'll be sharing those. They'll have the 8
opportunity to review the CEQA piece at the May 29th meeting. The CEQA component 9
isn't required for the April meeting. They're really looking at the Master Plan as it is 10
written, not what the potential environmental effects could be. 11
Chair Reckdahl: I don't have any CEQA experience. Are they going to come back and 12
actually change the Master Plan conceivably or would there be some appendix that we 13
have to add, that would be these are the impacts of the Master Plan? 14
Ms. O'Kane: I don't think the Master Plan would necessarily change. The CEQA 15
document will describe the potential impacts of the Master Plan. Because it's a Master 16
Plan, there's going to be in the future—for example, the CEQA document will be an 17
environmental assessment of what we know. For example, restrooms, we don't know 18
necessarily which parks will get a restroom, so there may be further environmental 19
analysis that has to be done later. It's really a programmatic CEQA document. There 20
may be additional CEQA that has to be done later, depending on what comes out of this. 21
For example, even Cubberley, if we do something at Cubberley or, say, we construct a 22
new pool somewhere, the CEQA document that's done for this Master Plan isn't going to 23
cover the environmental impacts of those projects. There will have to be additional 24
CEQA done. It's pretty high-level CEQA that's done for this. I can't imagine it would 25 change anything in the Plan itself. 26
Chair Reckdahl: It still seems strange that you need something like CEQA for an 27 inspirational document, but I guess I'm preaching to the choir. 28
Ms. O'Kane: Any other questions? 29
Mr. Jensen: I would like to add that there is a project webpage, paloaltoparksplan.org. 30
Right now, on the front of the page it's real easy to open the document and look at it, if 31
you'd like. If you scroll down to the bottom on the right-hand side, there is an appendix 32
that you can click on. It starts to follow through the full analysis work. If you're 33
interested in seeing some of the analysis work that went on, that's a good place to follow 34
the progress. That's where everything is stored to look at. The webpage is a good tool to 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
use if you want to do more research about the Master Plan. As you can see, if you click 1
that review box, the document is located there, and you can open it up and see it. There's 2
the actual document to look at. Back on the webpage, if you click on this top one, each 3
one of these is a link to that analysis work that went on. If you want to see demographic 4
work or the analysis of the actual parks and what's in there, the analysis of all the 5
programs and how many are there, they exist right there. You can click on the link and 6 open that up. That's an easy way to look at it. You can see Kristen's binder in the back; 7
that's basically the size of the analysis work that went into the project. It does entail quite 8
a bit. It's easier to look at it in this respect. 9
Mr. de Geus: More than just analysis, it's the public input process. I think there was 10
probably 15 different sources of public input that we gathered. I think people were tired 11
of hearing about the Parks Plan by the end. We asked the question about people's 12
interests in a whole variety of different ways, which was actually quite interesting. A 13
Mapita program where it was an interactive map where people could pick their favorite 14
park or recreation facility and then tell us about it, why they like it. Intercept surveys. 15
We even had towards the end a survey where we understood the priorities and were 16
testing them against the public, but then gave them a certain amount of money that they 17
could spend on all those priorities, and how would they allocate that funding. That was 18
fascinating, to get that input. Just a whole lot of different ways. I think it was effective 19
in the end. It's worth going to the website and taking a look and just exploring those 20
documents. 21
Chair Reckdahl: It was interesting. There were some topics like dog parks that most 22
people didn't want to fund. Those who wanted to fund it really felt strongly about it. The 23
same with accessibility. If you look at the survey, accessibility is fairly low, but there's a 24
lot of people that feel very strongly about accessibility. We have to balance that when we 25 look at it. You can't just look at—it's not simple. 26
Mr. de Geus: One of the challenges of doing this outreach is that often you have a whole 27 number of new questions once you get the survey results back. That's part of what the 28
Master Plan is, a guide. As we get into implementing and executing on a project, it's 29
back to the public again and making sure that we got it right, that we understand it 30
correctly before we actually start building. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you very much. That was good to hear one more time. It's like 32
an oldie on the radio station. 33
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 34
Chair Reckdahl: The next one is ad hoc updates. David or Anne, do you have any ad 35
hocs? 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
Commissioner Cribbs: Jim and I were on the gym sharing space ad hoc committee. I 1
think once we got into the Master Plan and started talking about some of the goals and 2
objectives, that committee seemed to be either redundant or not important. I think we 3
don't really have an update. In fact, I'm not so sure we need that committee, but we can 4
talk about that at the retreat. 5
Vice Chair Moss: I was involved in two committees. One of them was about Matadero 6 Creek bike or pedestrian path. I just wanted to let people know that when we had the last 7
set of storms, I happened to be on the Greer Bridge over Matadero Creek. The water was 8
all the way up to the top. It makes it pretty clear that it's a very difficult challenge to have 9
a path along that creek because flood control is such an important part. I'm not sure how 10
we're going to solve that or if we're going to solve that. It became abundantly clear that 11
flood control is a tremendous aspect of that challenge. 12
Chair Reckdahl: We had the same challenge on the Adobe underpass, and we were able 13
to work and get that through. Obviously, it's not going to be a year-round path, but I 14
think half the year we can have an underpass at Matadero that's still possible. You also 15
had … 16
Vice Chair Moss: The second item was we started working on the Baylands 17
comprehensive plan. I wanted to know when you'll come back with the first information 18
about that. Is there any update? 19
Mr. Anderson: Yes. We just finished the process of interviewing and selecting the firms 20
that will lead that plan. We've got a company that we're just entering the contract with 21
them now. The expectation would be we'd get them onboard in probably 2-3 weeks, I 22
think. We'll start reaching out to stakeholders. One of the core elements will be the ad 23
hoc from the Commission to join that along with some other environmental stakeholders 24
around the Baylands. 25
Vice Chair Moss: Will the new ITT property be part of that comprehensive plan? 26
Mr. Anderson: Yes, it will, but it won't include elements—Commissioner Moss and I 27 had looked at this in-depth, and we realized to some degree it needs a great deal of 28
hydrology study, of what's happening in that wetland area. It won't get into an in-depth 29
scientific study of the hydrology. It'd be more broad than that, I believe, but it'll tie into 30
the overall context of the Baylands Preserve, which will be great. 31
Vice Chair Moss: We talked about some low-hanging fruit, about being able to connect 32
to the regular part of the Baylands. If we can talk about that, that would be great. One 33
other thing. You're doing a tremendous amount of work out there at the Baylands Center. 34
Will that be part of the Baylands comprehensive plan or will it be separate? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Mr. Anderson: No, that will be included too. The analysis of how it functions in 1
coordination with the environmental volunteers, EcoCenter—because we've got these 2
dual interpretive centers in the same preserve, we want to make sure they're 3
complementary and spreading the right kind of interpretive messaging. Also the signage 4
around the center itself and within itself will be tied into the overall preserve and making 5
sure that they're in concert and telling the full story. 6
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I have. 7
V. DEPARTMENT REPORT 8
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to Department Report, dog park update and selection of 9
new ad hoc committee. 10
Mr. Anderson: I mentioned a little earlier in our discussion about the Parks Master Plan 11
our process in the City and that we're working on adding a new dog park. In fact, we've 12
been working on it for almost a decade. Before we even started the Parks Master Plan, 13
we've been talking about adding dog parks. As I mentioned, we've made some good 14
headway. We held public meetings in December to look at two nearer-term options. 15
When I say nearer-term, the concept was—before we had the turnover on the 16
Commission, there was a will on the Commission to see if we could make a dog park 17
happen in advance of the Parks Master Plan actually being approved. They knew very 18
well the process takes time to get through all the iterations. They knew the CEQA 19
process would be lengthy. They didn't want to wait because we have a very patient but 20
very sincere group of stakeholders advocating for dog parks. As I've mentioned, they've 21
been doing this for years, and their patience is wearing thin, and they are expecting some 22
action. We'd love to help make it happen. Because this is such a longstanding need, it's 23
nothing we didn't know about long before we embarked on the outreach of the Parks 24
Master Plan. It's not like this was an unknown; it's a very well-known need for our 25 community. With that knowledge, the Commission sent a memo to Council saying, 26 "We'd like to proceed and have approval to go ahead and pursue a nearer-term dog park 27 in advance of your approval of this Parks Master Plan." The Council seemed to indicate 28
that they agreed with that, so we proceeded. We held these public meetings. 29
Unfortunately, we couldn't move on because the Commission wasn't filled yet. Now that 30
we're filled, what I'm asking tonight is if I could have a couple of volunteers to join an ad 31
hoc committee, work with me directly. Hopefully we can move this forward relatively 32
quickly and come back for the March meeting for a full discussion. Shortly thereafter, if 33
there's the will and the agreement both with the Commission and our community on a 34
way forward, make that happen. I should also note that Commissioner McCauley 35
indicated that he might be interested in serving on this if there wasn't anyone else who 36
was really interested. 37
Chair Reckdahl: Anyone interested? 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Commissioner Cribbs: I am definitely interested. 1
Chair Reckdahl: Any other interests? Any other dog people here? 2
Council Member Fine: I'm a dog person, so keep me in the loop. 3
Chair Reckdahl: We'll have Commissioner Cribbs and Commissioner McCauley, if he's 4
still interested. We can revisit this at the retreat, but let's go forward with those two. 5
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 6
Chair Reckdahl: A couple of questions. We are now to Comments and Announcements. 7
Aquatics, that was passed. You want to give us an update on the aquatics? 8
Mr. de Geus: Chair Reckdahl, we've talked about aquatics a couple of times before the 9
new year. As we discussed, we were planning to go to the City Council with a contract 10
for the swim lesson component of the aquatics program, which we did. It was approved. 11
Very happy to report that we'll be able to offer almost twice as many swim lessons in 12
2017 as we did in previous years. That's really great for the public. More lessons during 13
the summer period but also in advance of summer, so families and kids can learn to swim 14
before the summer is underway, starting in April and May and then also swim lessons 15
that will go into October, August, September and October. Thrilled with that. The next 16
step on the aquatics program is thinking about a one-firm operator for the entire 17
program—as you know, we're looking at Team Sheeper for that—and comparing that 18
against what would it take if we kept it in-house and what would that look like and what 19
would the cost be for doing that. We're going through the analysis of that, and we'll be 20
back to the Commission to discuss that and hopefully go to Council and have a 21
recommendation through the spring, which really ties to the operating budget process that 22
we're just beginning now. 23
Chair Reckdahl: We might revisit this in a couple of months? What's the timeframe? 24
Mr. de Geus: Within the next couple of months certainly. We continue to work with the 25 lap swimmers, with the Rinconada Masters, with the Palo Alto Swim Club and others that 26 are interested in this, and meeting with them and getting Team Sheeper and them together 27 to try and figure out if there is a way to come up with a set of terms and use of the pool 28
that works for everybody. 29
Chair Reckdahl: I think this is a solvable problem. 30
Mr. de Geus: I think so too. 31
Chair Reckdahl: I think we can come to a solution. This is again public input; it takes 32
time. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
Mr. de Geus: It does. 1
Vice Chair Moss: Did you say that the number of swim lessons during the summer will 2
be about the same, but you're going to offer them in April and May and early June and 3
September and even October? That's how you're going to double the number of lessons. 4
Is that right? 5
Mr. de Geus: Yes, but we will have more swim lessons in the summer as well. What we 6 haven't done in the past is have swim lessons on Saturdays and Sundays. That's 7
something that we know the community is interested in. We will be providing Saturday 8
and Sunday swim lessons this summer. We'll have more swim lessons in the summer as 9
well as the extended swim lessons during the year. 10
Chair Reckdahl: Another subject, that AT&T property. There was talk about buying that 11
and having that be Boulware Park expansion. What's the status on that? 12
Mr. de Geus: I don't have an update on that. I haven't heard much about that. 13
Chair Reckdahl: I heard a lot, and all of a sudden it went quiet. 14
Mr. de Geus: Right, it's been quiet for us too. I know that our Office of Real Estate was 15
looking at that and had been in contact with the property owner. I don't know more than 16
that at this point. 17
Commissioner Greenfield: I have another question going back to the swim lessons. 18
Often there will be lessons at another pool in addition to Rinconada, whether it's Gunn or 19
JLS. Are there plans for that this summer? Will Team Sheeper be leading those lessons 20
as well? 21
Mr. de Geus: Great question. We rent a School District pool every summer. We really 22
like to do that in south Palo Alto because we know we have a lot of families down there. 23
Unfortunately, this year we couldn't get any south Palo Alto pool. The only one we could 24
get was Jordan, which is fairly close to Rinconada Pool, but it is an additional pool. We 25 will have swim lessons throughout the summer at that pool. Yes, Team Sheeper will be 26 providing the lessons. 27
Vice Chair Moss: You're talking about the pool at JLS. You used to do lessons at JLS. 28
Mr. de Geus: Right. JLS is under construction, so we couldn't get that pool. We couldn't 29
get Gunn High School or Terman pool either. Jordan pool was the only one available to 30
us, so we took it. 31
Vice Chair Moss: Back to the AT&T property. One of the challenges that we have is 32
obviously that we want to expand the parks. Properties come up with very little notice, 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
and they're gone with very little notice. How do we expedite this particular property 1
before it goes away? 2
Mr. de Geus: I'll have to get back to the Commission on this. There's a lot involved with 3
buying a piece of property, that the Council needs to be very involved in. I know the 4
Council is aware of this, that there is a potential opportunity here. I don't think it's clear 5
yet, though, whether the property is actually for sale. At this point, I feel like I just don't 6 have enough information to answer the question specifically. I will find out and get back 7
to the full Commission, or Kristen will. 8
Vice Chair Moss: One of the challenges is going to be not just looking at this one 9
property but a fast-path process and maybe a slush fund of some sort that's available for 10
immediate use and that we develop that ahead of time and not just in reaction to a 11
particular property. I met with the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. They don't have very 12
much money. They'll talk about benches and picnic areas. To buy a piece of property is 13
not something they've talked about in the past. They might change. That's why it would 14
be nice to continue to pursue this quickly. 15
Mr. de Geus: I had a couple of other announcements. I'm just taking advantage of the 16
time, because I'm not at every one of these meetings, (inaudible) most capable staff over 17
here. I did want to be here, for sure, at this meeting. I'm here a lot actually. A couple of 18
other announcements. We do have our summer camp fair this Saturday. That's a chance 19
for families to meet all of the different camp providers and meet counselors and meet 20
Team Sheeper, the new swim instructor firm. Is it at Mitchell Park? It's at Mitchell Park 21
Community Center from 11:00 to 1:00, I believe. If you could share that with your 22
networks. I also wanted to let you know that the—most of you probably know this. The 23
Centers for Disease Prevention and Control came to Palo Alto and did what's called an 24
Epi-Aid study on the teen suicide clusters that we have experienced as a community since 25 2009. They were called in initially by the School District with the support of Palo Alto 26 and Project Safety Net at the beginning of 2016. The report is now complete and will be 27 released this Friday. That's a pretty lengthy, detailed report with a number of 28
recommendations. That will be interesting, I think, for the Commission to take a look at. 29
Certainly all the Project Safety Net partners and all the folks involved with youth and 30
teen wellbeing and suicide prevention will be engaged in that. There is a Project Safety 31
Net meeting planned for March 22nd. The location is to be determined, but it is from 32
4:00 to 6:00. That's the topic of that meeting. If you're interested in attending, it's open 33
to the public. There will be a summary of the report and other things. You may be 34
interested in that. The last thing I wanted to share is … 35
Vice Chair Moss: Wait. What about the … 36
Commissioner Cribbs: What's the date of that? 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Vice Chair Moss: … that thing on Friday? 1
Mr. de Geus: It's March 3rd. The Santa Clara Public Health Department is our interface 2
with the CDC. The report will be published on their website, and we'll make sure to send 3
a link to the Commission. Then, you can just click through and also call us if you have 4
any detailed questions about that. 5
Chair Reckdahl: The Project Safety Net meeting is when? 6
Mr. de Geus: It's March 22nd from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. 7
Commissioner Cribbs: Would that be an appropriate presentation for a Commission 8
meeting agenda or would it be redundant? 9
Mr. de Geus: I think what might be better is to have maybe Mary Gloner, the Executive 10
Director of Project Safety Net, come and talk about the collaborative, all that's happening 11
within the collaborative and the partnerships, and then also speak about this study and the 12
future of the collaborative and what this particular study means for how we might change 13
what we're doing or do things with a little more emphasis in one way or another. We can 14
certainly set that up. We'll add it to the plan. You had other questions on that? 15
Commissioner McDougall: I don't know if it's ever been done, but that sounds to me like 16
a great opportunity for a joint meeting with the Human Resources Commission and the 17
Library Commission or whatever, where Project Safety Net would get to embrace 18
everybody. 19
Mr. de Geus: That's not a bad idea at all. Any other questions on that? I had one last 20
thing. I think some of you may have seen this. One thing that I'm particularly interested 21
in is doing a better job of performance management and being able to tell the story of 22
what we do as a Department and why we do it and what the outcomes are. It's very 23
motivating for staff to know that, to have this compelling scoreboard, if you will, that 24
we're making a difference. Also of course, in order to make decisions you need to 25 measure how you're doing. It's hard to know whether you're being effective. A lot of 26 what we do is certainly something staff are proud of, that residents are proud of. They 27 love our parks and recreation programs. We thought what if we did an annual report with 28
a calendar and actually created a calendar where every month we highlighted the Art 29
Center or our open space properties or our parks and playgrounds, Human Services. This 30
is the first year doing that. We're a little late; it took a long time to get it done, but we got 31
it done. It's still imperfect, but it's something I think you'll appreciate. Some of you may 32
have got it in the mail already. It talks a little bit about the Department, and it talks about 33
outputs and outcomes of the Department. Also what we tried to capture, which is the 34
most meaningful, is the impact. The way we tried to get at that was by the voices of the 35
community, of residents, of kids that actually go to a park or participate in the Children's 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Theatre. In each page, you'll see at the very bottom a quote from a parent or a child, 1
someone. I think that's the most meaningful part of the calendar. We tried to put in dates 2
and things, special events and other things, that we know about and that would be helpful 3
for the community. Mainly, we're using the calendar for those that are most close to our 4
Department. What we'd like to do is build on this and make it available next year with a 5
new one that's more broadly shared with community members generally. This is a first 6 pass. The last four pages of the calendar is the annual report. As you heard about all the 7
different divisions within the Department, each page has a division and some highlights 8
and key statistics related to 2016 and a description of the Department. I'll pass it over to 9
you, Council Member. Take one. I've been meeting with all of the staff in the 10
Department, all the different work groups, and sharing the calendar and annual report 11
with the staff so they can see, as a sense of pride for themselves, the work they do and 12
understand the impact they have. I'm also asking staff to share it with people they know, 13
that visit their center often or contribute in some way, to say you can take a calendar. 14
You can do the same thing with a neighbor or someone that cares about parks and rec. 15
Vice Chair Moss: It's really great to see, because we had the discussion, I think, in 16
November or December that you had about five special events, when really you have 17
dozens and dozens of events on this calendar for every month. When we started to list 18
them, it's unbelievable how many events we have that you don't really take credit for. 19
Really, you need to include them, and you've done that. That's a fantastic thing. I bet 20
that if we kept this going, we would probably double it, the number of events. It's a great 21
first start. 22
Ms. O'Kane: I had a few announcements as well. I'd like to mention another event that is 23
coming up in March. I guess I didn't write down the actual date. I apologize. This is our 24
Cubberley Day. If you drive by Cubberley, it's—you have it on there, great. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Saturday, the 25th. 26
Ms. O'Kane: The 25th. Cubberley Day is a day for the community to see what goes on 27 behind the doors of all those rooms at Cubberley. We're basically taking all those 28
programs and bringing them outside. The community can come and learn about them. 29
There's performances; there's tree planting. A lot of the artist studios open their doors, so 30
you can go inside and see what goes on there. It's really a neat event. If you drive by 31
Cubberley, you see some cars, but you're not really sure what's going on. It's just a great 32
way to promote their programs to the community and for the community to learn about 33
them. That's happening in March as well. I also wanted to report on some things that 34
Daren provided to me. With the winter storms we had combined with some king tides 35
within the Bay, there were some flooding issues at the Baylands Nature Preserve. The 36
rangers deployed almost 900 sandbags to protect the levee from damage in the Baylands. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
It was also a team effort with some other departments and some other agencies to make 1
sure that the levees were staying intact. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Was this one spot or do you know where it was? 3
Ms. O'Kane: It was one spot. Rob and I looked at the video. There's actually a hole 4
through the levee where water started seeping through. They got into action right away 5
and put some sandbags there, so that the levee wouldn't fail completely. 6
Chair Reckdahl: Kind of by the old golf course? 7
Ms. O'Kane: Yeah. 8
Vice Chair Moss: Do you have some volunteer organization that you could draw on or 9
just City staff? Is there some kind of hotline where you could get Canopy or Acterra or 10
other volunteers to help out? That would be great for community building if we have a 11
situation like that again. 12
Mr. de Geus: We have the Office of Emergency Services led by Director Ken Duecker, 13
who does a fantastic job. We did activate the Officer of Emergency Services office 14
during some of the heavier storm events. Mostly, it was Community Services staff and 15
Public Works staff that were deployed to resolve this. To your point, we do have a list of 16
all of those partner agencies. They are on the ready to support and help under emergency 17
circumstances. 18
Ms. O'Kane: During those storms, there was also a 2-mile section of Los Trancos Creek 19
at Foothills Park with some damage as well as many trees down. We're probably going 20
to wait until the end of the rainy season to do those repairs. That 2-mile stretch is going 21
to remain closed for the rest of winter. In addition, the Byxbee Park Hills renovation is 22
nearly complete. There's new trails, benches, and interpretive signs. There's a few more 23
interpretive panels that are going in, in the near future, and then that renovation will be 24
completed. Finally, Sarah Wallis Park was renovated by park staff. There is new 25 pathways, landscaping, seating, trash and recycling containers. That is all I have. 26
Chair Reckdahl: The gathering spot up at Byxbee is done. It looks nice. Although, the 27 north-south compass is not north-south. It's northeast; it's almost like 45 degrees. It's 28
aesthetic, not scientific, I guess. It looks nice. We had a lot of debate about that. It 29
ended up being a good decision. I was looking at this. One thing I wanted to add is the 30
Boardwalk is coming back. I'm not sure if that was June coming back. We should put 31
that on the list, so that doesn't fall between the cracks. The Lucy Evans Boardwalk is 32
going to be returning in summer for a design update. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Ms. O'Kane: Another thing I'd like to mention about the calendar of future agenda topics 1
that's in your packet is if there's something that any of the Commissioners would like to 2
hear about or learn about, we'd be happy to come and share that. We can use this to keep 3
track of what we're doing throughout the year. If you mention something and we feel like 4
August might be the appropriate time because we know of something that's happening 5
associated with that topic, we can put it on this list. That will remind us to agendize it in 6 the future. 7
Mr. Jensen: There are a few projects that you will see this year, that are fairly large scale. 8
The 101 pedestrian bridge over the 101. Of course, the Junior Museum and Zoo will 9
come back to you with its redesign. A Buckeye Creek hydrology study, which is actually 10
the creek along with Los Trancos that runs through Foothills Park, will be done too. 11
We'll be looking at those projects as well. 12
Commissioner Cribbs: As we're talking about partnerships, I don't know if this is 13
appropriate, Rob, for agenda setting. It would be really great for me to hear a 14
presentation by the Friends of the Park, just short, about what they're doing and what 15
their goals are, and also the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation. Those two seem to have a 16
lot to do with what we do. I really don't know much about them. That would be great. I 17
was wondering why the Junior Museum was so far off. It seemed like we were going to 18
talk about that earlier in the year. Are they just not ready? 19
Mr. Jensen: Like the Parks Master Plan, it's also going through its own CEQA review. 20
They also reduced the size of the construction scope as well because of the high cost of 21
construction right now. To meet the budget they have, they've gone through some 22
redesign of that. I do anticipate fairly soon that we will be able to see something. 23
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 24
Vice Chair Moss: Along the lines of the Friends of Palo Alto Parks, they have their 25 monthly meeting or maybe it's a quarterly meeting sometime in the next 2 weeks. 26 Because I showed an interest in the last meeting—I think it was the one you led at 27 Mitchell Park Community Center—they invited me to listen to what they're doing. If I 28
can get that date and time to you, can you pass it along to everybody else, see if anybody 29
else wants to go? 30
Ms. O'Kane: Sure. Just send that to me, and I'll send it out. 31
Vice Chair Moss: I have a couple more items that have come up in this meeting. It 32
sounds like in April you're going to put the CEQA approval before us. That's going to be 33
in April. The approval of dog parks is going to be in April or maybe in May, I'm not 34
sure. It would be nice to have something about the ITT park dedication. When you find 35
out about that, it would be nice to talk about it. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Mr. de Geus: On the ITT site, I think the Commission's already voted on that 1
unanimously. Staff (crosstalk) in agreement … 2
Vice Chair Moss: Just coming back to us. 3
Mr. de Geus: I think it's probably just reporting to you. We're on our way to Council to 4
make that happen. 5
Vice Chair Moss: You have the Team Sheeper meeting sometime in April or May. 6 That's it. 7
Chair Reckdahl: We can talk at the retreat about do we want an ad hoc for the aquatics. 8
There may be need if there's community input. We can talk at the retreat about that. 9
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 28, 2017 MEETING 10
Chair Reckdahl: Agenda for next month. We are looking at—Buckeye Creek is 11
bouncing to next month, and then a dog park discussion. Anything else? 12
Vice Chair Moss: AT&T. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Rob or Kristen will provide an update on the AT&T/Boulware 14
expansion property. Are there any other topics that people want to talk about next 15
month? Do you have anything else for next month? Any other comments? 16
Commissioner Greenfield: Were we going to talk about the retreat date? 17
Chair Reckdahl: Yes. Historically, we've always had it on a Friday morning. Do you 18
have dates that you would want to investigate? 19
Ms. O'Kane: March 10th, which is not too far away, March 31st or April 7th. 20
Vice Chair Moss: I cannot make the April 7th, but the 31st would be great. 21
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes on April 7th for me, but not the 31st. Sorry. 22
Commissioner Greenfield: April 7th is during the PAUSD spring break, so that might 23
not be a great time. That's a no for me. The early date in March, 10th, I'll be out of town 24
that day as well. Was it the 28th or something? 25
Chair Reckdahl: The 31st was another option. 26
Commissioner Greenfield: The 31st is okay for me, the day before spring break. 27
Commissioner McDougall: When you say morning, what is morning? 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Chair Reckdahl: Some years, we've started, I think, as early as 9:00 or 10:00. Other 1
times we've started … 2
Commissioner McDougall: I'm more worried about when does it end. 3
Mr. de Geus: It's usually 9:00 to 1:00. We have lunch, and it's a working lunch. 4
Commissioner McDougall: It's not 9:00 to 5:00. 5
Mr. de Geus: No. 6
Commissioner McDougall: That's okay with me if it is. 7
Mr. de Geus: It usually ends between 1:00 and 2:00. 8
Chair Reckdahl: I think last year some people had morning commitments, so we started 9
right about lunch and went 'til 4:00 or something like that. I think in general it works out 10
better if we start at 9:00 or 10:00 and do the 4 hours over lunch. 11
Commissioner Greenfield: Would March 24th be a possibility? That would be the 12
Friday before the next Commission meeting. 13
Ms. O'Kane: I'm actually on vacation that day and the Friday before. 14
Commissioner Greenfield: Point well taken. 15
Commissioner McDougall: My vote would be the 31st, but I would prefer 9:00 to 1:00 16
or 8:00 to—the earlier the better. 17
Ms. O'Kane: We might have to send out, like you said, a Doodle poll with some other 18
options. We'll go ahead and do that. 19
Vice Chair Moss: The meeting with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks is March 21st at noon 20
at 1950 University. 21
Chair Reckdahl: March 22nd you said? 22
Vice Chair Moss: March 21st at noon. 23
Commissioner McDougall: Would they really want us all to show up or would they 24
prefer a delegate to show up? 25
Vice Chair Moss: I don't know; I'll be there. I can certainly represent us. 26
Mr. de Geus: This is a board meeting, right? This is the Friends board meeting. 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
Vice Chair Moss: Yes. 1
Mr. de Geus: They would appreciate knowing if there's going to be people there. 2
Vice Chair Moss: They wanted to tell me stuff. They didn't want me to tell them stuff; 3
they wanted to tell me stuff. I can report what I hear. 4
Mr. de Geus: I think that'd be great, to have a representative from the Commission attend 5
and report back. 6
Commissioner McDougall: Should we in fact appoint an official representative so that he 7
has some responsibility to us and authority with them? 8
Mr. de Geus: I think that's a good idea. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Any other comments, questions? 10
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 11
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Cribbs and second by Commissioner 12
McDougall at 9:12 p.m. 13
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Public Works Department
Date: March 28, 2017
Subject: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project
Recommendation
No action to be taken. Staff is providing the Parks and Recreation Commission
(Commission) with a progress update on the design of the Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project (Project).
Background
This Project includes construction of a new, year-round, grade-separated, shared
bicycle and pedestrian crossing over Highway 101 and Adobe Creek, and it will
improve connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East/West
Bayshore Road businesses and the regional San Francisco Bay Trail network. The
Project will replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz underpass of
Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor.
In May 2016, Council approved a contract with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
(BCA) (Staff Report ID# 6578) for design of a 12-foot wide prefabricated steel
truss bridge spanning Highway 101. Subsequently in November 2016, BCA
presented the 15% design of the bridge along with optional enhancements for
Council consideration and input. Council direction to staff was to proceed with
the Bowstring Bridge type and alignment discussed in the body of this report
(Staff Report ID# 7209).
Discussion
Per Council direction in November 2016, the following project elements were
included for 35% design development and environmental assessment:
• Three span steel truss bridge with 12-foot clear and 14-foot total widths:
- Principal span: Prefabricated bowstring steel truss; 165 feet spanning
Highway 101.
- Steel trusses spanning East and West Bayshore Roads, 70 and 60 feet,
respectively.
• Cast-in-place concrete approach ramps, an eastern plaza with basic
amenities and an additional 140 feet steel truss over Adobe Creek on West
Bayshore Road.
• Standard architectural elements such as railings, fencing and handrails.
• Basic landscaping features.
• Eastern approach overlook: The eastern approach overlook offers sweeping
views of the Baylands and Adobe Creek setting. Amenities such as benches,
educational signage will be located on the overlook structure.
• Western approach access ramp: An access structure will be included in the
Western Approach structure to improve access for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Integrating the existing sidewalk into the bridge approach ramp
eliminates the need for a stairway and provides bicyclists with a dedicated
bike lane over Adobe Creek Bridge on West Bayshore Road.
• West Bayshore roadway modification and Adobe Creek trailhead
improvements: Best practices in bikeway design support a one-way
separated bikeway on each side of West Bayshore Road. The new Adobe
Creek Reach Trail will connect West Bayshore Road to East Meadow Drive
with a new west plaza and trailheads.
• Enhanced lighting: Ground-mounted and handrail lighting are being
considered to provide low-impact direct pathway lighting and reduced glare
beyond the bridge and pathways. Light poles along the western approach
will limit glare by incorporating shields to push light away from the
Barron/Adobe Creeks confluence. Interactive lighting will also be explored.
• Enhanced amenities (drinking fountains, benches, trash receptacle, and
interpretive signage): These amenities will improve user comfort and
provide educational opportunities. Salvaged wood from the Baylands
boardwalk decking could be repurposed for benches, deck elements and
informational signage.
The project elements listed above are configured to meet a total project budget
of $14 million. Attachment A includes the 15% concept plans and graphics and
Attachment B includes a detailed project description.
Art Coordination
The City’s Public Art Program selected an artist for the project by interviewing a
number of prequalified artists with previous experience working on similar
projects. Upon approval of the contract from Art Commission and Council in
March/April 2017, the artist will join the design team to identify opportunities to
incorporate artwork in the design.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for this project is included in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project
(PE-11011) - Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project.
The current project funding is as follows:
Funding Source Funding Amount
Santa Clara County Recreation Fund $4.0 million
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 2* $4.35 million
General Fund $4.65 million
Google Contribution $1.0 million
Total: $14.0 million
*Approval of the OBAG Cycle 2 funds, which replace Surface Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds removed by the California Transportation
Commission due to a funding shortfall, is expected in 2017.
Policy Implications
The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and
programs.
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote
walking and bicycling.
Goal T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open
space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-
model transit stations.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of
the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles,
transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Timeline
Upon completion of the 35% design, an environmental assessment will be
prepared to conduct a Site and Design Review with Boards and Commissions to
obtain input in fall 2017.
Schedule and milestones:
Phase 1:
• 15% design – Completed in November 2016
• Complete 35% design and public review meetings – Fall 2017
• Complete environmental assessment – Winter 2017
• Complete 65% design – Winter 2017
Phase 2:
• Authorize Phase 2 and Phase 3 services – Fall 2017
• OBAG Cycle 2 access to funding – October 2018
Phase 3:
• Begin construction, construction administration – early 2019
• Complete construction – early spring 2020
Environmental Review
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration analyzing the proposed project will be prepared for public
review and for consideration by advisory and decision-making bodies prior to
project approval. Because the project may include federal funding, the City will
file for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Attachments
Attachment A: 15% Project Concept Plan and Graphics
Attachment B: Project Description
PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________
Megha Bansal
Project Engineer, Public Works Engineering
ŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ
ϭϱйW^Θ ŽŶĐĞƉƚWůĂŶĂŶĚ'ƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ
WĂĐŬĂŐĞϮdd,D EdWĂĐŬĂŐĞϮƉƉĞŶĚŝdžAttachment A
1
A
A
BB
CC
2
3
4
+,*+:$<08/7,86(3$7+29(5&5266,1*352-(&7$7$'2%(&5((.
3+272*5$3+,&',63/$<1(,*+%25+22'&217(;7
EŽƌƚŚďŽƵŶĚ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐEŽƌƚŚͿ ^ŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐ^ŽƵƚŚͿ
ĂƐƚĂLJƐŚŽƌĞZŽĂĚ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐEŽƌƚŚͿ tĞƐƚĂLJƐŚŽƌĞZŽĂĚ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐ^ŽƵƚŚͿ
EŽƌƚŚďŽƵŶĚ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭĂƚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚKǀĞƌĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĂƐƚͿ ^ŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJϭϬϭĂƚWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚKǀĞƌĐƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐtĞƐƚͿ
tĞƐƚĂLJƐŚŽƌĞZŽĂĚĂƚĚŽďĞƌĞĞŬ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐ^ŽƵƚŚͿ ĂƐƚDĞĂĚŽǁƌŝǀĞĂƚĚŽďĞƌĞĞŬ;>ŽŽŬŝŶŐEŽƌƚŚͿ
ŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ
ϭϱйW^Θ ŽŶĐĞƉƚWůĂŶĂŶĚ'ƌĂƉŚŝĐƐ
WĂĐŬĂŐĞϮdd,D Ed
Eastern Approach
Overlook
PRINCIPAL SPAN
STRUCTURE
Enhanced Pathway Lighting
Informational /
Educational
Signage
Enhanced
Amenities
Western Approach
Access
WESTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PROJECT PLAN VIEW
EASTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
West Bayshore Rd
Improvements
Adobe Creek
Reach Trail
Trailhead at W. Bayshore Road
PRINCIPAL SPAN
STRUCTURE EASTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
WESTERN APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PROJECT OVERVIEW
LOOKING NORTH
N
70’
EASTERN APPROACH OVERLOOK
This overlook will provide users the opportunity to pause, rest, view and appreciate the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve. The architecture of the overlook
will compliment the main bridge structure elements, including railings and concrete facing textures and colors.
The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in texture and
color. The decking and the bench elements could be constructed from recycled and repurposed existing timber decking from the adjacent Baylands
Boardwalk Project.
Amenities such as benches and informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for the users.
WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS
An access structure will be incorporated into the baseline Western Approach Structure.
For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road, the access structure can
reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet.
Three initial alternatives were considered: 1) Access Stair Option 1: Located near the
interface of the Principal Span and Western Approach Structure; 2) Access Stair Option
2: Located lower along the path where the overcrossing structure becomes supported
on fill; and 3) Access Ramp/Raised Sidewalk: Located between the existing parking lot
and the Adobe Creek Bridge.
The access ramp/raised sidewalk alternative is preferable since it creates equal access
to mobility impaired trail users and it provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing
bike lane along West Bayshore Road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe
Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can
be used as primary ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes the trail access area
for their channel sedimentation maintenance.
Access Ramp/Raised Sidewalk
(Looking SE)
WEST BAYSHORE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Currently the existing bicycle lane drops off at the Adobe Creek Bridge
at West Bayshore Road and the bike lane and sidewalk merge into an
approximately 5-foot wide single raised shared sidewalk. A feasible
and economical means to accommodate a separate bicycle and
pedestrian facility at West Bayshore Road at Adobe Creek was
investigated.
We reviewed widening the existing roadway structure to accommodate
the bicyclists and pedestrians but the multiple utilities carried by the
existing structure are problematic and would require considerable
retrofit of the existing structure. Based on conversations with the
SCVWD, it was preferable to limit the amount of intrusion into the creek
from both the bridge structure and its associated retaining structures.
The access ramp/raised sidewalk alternative allowed us the opportunity
to essentially accomplish the desired goal with one element.
Access Stair
Option 1
Access Stair
Option 2
Access Ramp/Raised
Sidewalk (Baseline)
WEST APPROACH
STRUCTURE
PRINCIPAL SPAN
Demolish Exist Sidewalk
for Bike Lane
TOP MOUNTED GALVANIZED POST
POTENTIALBIORETENTION
AREA
POTENTIALFUTURE
PUMPFACILITY
TREES AND
VEGETATIONPLANTING
AREA
TREES ANDVEGETATION
PLANTINGAREA
TREE ANDVEGETATION
PLANTINGAREA
TREES AND
VEGETATIONPLANTING
AREA
PARKING LOT
RECONFIGURATION
PORTION OF
EXISTINGPARKING LOT
TO REMAIN
POTENTIALBIORETENTION
AREA
POTENTIALBIORETENTION
AREA
VEGETATION
RESTORATION/HYDROSEED
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
EAST PLAZA 0 5’ 10’ 20’
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
Planting Bands
Drinking Fountain/Bottle Filler
Decorative Concrete Bay Restoration Planting
Bike Racks Interpretive SignageTrash/Recycling Receptacles
Public Art at Trailhead
E N H A N C E D A M E N I T I E S
ŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ
ŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ>ŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ
WESTERN APPROACH
AERIAL
VIEW
WESTERN APPROACH
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
PRINCIPAL SPAN
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
EASTERN APPROACH
DAYTIME VIEW NIGHTTIME VIEW
NTS
ŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ
ĚŽďĞƌĞĞŬZĞĂĐŚdƌĂŝů
Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing
Palo Alto, California PJ315 Palo Alto Highway 101 POC 2016 09-28.indd
September 30, 2016
WEST PLAZA 0 5’ 10’ 20’
TREE TO BE REMOVED
ATTACHMENT B
HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE PATH OVERCROSSING PROJECT AT ADOBE CREEK
WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing (Overcrossing) is located in the City of Palo Alto
in Santa Clara County, between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway
101, and will replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass of Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor. The grade-separated crossing will provide year-round connectivity from
residential and commercial areas west of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve
(Baylands), East Bayshore Business Park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The project will include a new bridge structure over Highway 101 and West and East
Bayshore Roads, a trail connection along Adobe Creek to East Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along
West Bayshore Road, and landscaping and habitat restoration within the Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. The project lies primarily within City and Caltrans rights-of-way, although the
south/west project area includes Santa Clara Valley Water District property and private property owned by
Google.
The proposed Overcrossing will consist of multiple structure types in order to maximize the benefits of the
different structure types for the various constraints present in the project. The Overcrossing structure is divided into the following four major elements:
1. Principal Span Structure: Three span structure over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads
2. West Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located west of West Bayshore Road
3. East Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located east of East Bayshore Road
4. Adobe Creek Bridge: Simple span crossing of Adobe Creek west of West Bayshore Road
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION:
PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURE
The Principal Span Structure is set to a straight alignment that is essentially perpendicular to the Highway
101 and Bayshore Road alignments. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans spanning across West Bayshore Road, Highway 101, and East Bayshore Road. At this location, Highway 101 is a 12-lane
highway with a 162-foot wide right-of-way (See Figure below). East Bayshore Road consists of two travel
lanes with a 20.5-foot wide traveled way and two 6-foot shoulders. West Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with an approximately 20.5-foot wide traveled way and a 5.5-foot shoulder and 6-foot bicycle
lane.
The span over Highway 101 will consist of a 165-foot long, simply-supported prefabricated steel bowstring truss. The bowstring truss is able to achieve the long clear span while keeping the profile depth from the top
of deck to bridge soffit to a minimum. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over West Bayshore Road will
consist of a 60’-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. The adjacent side span clear-spanning over East
Bayshore Road will consist of a 70-0” long prefabricated steel Pratt truss. All spans will accommodate a 12-
foot clear width pathway.
Bents under the Principal Structure spans will consist of 2-foot thick non-skewed concrete pier walls on cast-
in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations. In order to reduce traffic control requirements within Highway 101,
the pier walls adjacent to Highway 101 (Bents 6 and 7) will be founded on a concrete pile cap supported by CIDH piles located within the medians between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The
concrete pier walls supporting the other ends of the steel Pratt trusses (Bents 5 and 8) will be founded on a concrete pile cap which is supported by CIDH piles. Pier walls at Bents 5 and 8 will support both the steel Pratt trusses of the Principal Span Structure and the end of the West and East Approach concrete slab spans.
Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the Principal Span Structure. The railings will consist of 8-foot tall galvanized welded wire safety fencing.
WEST APPROACH STRUCTURE
The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure over Highway 101. The alignment closely abuts the adjacent Barron Creek to enable retention
of all parking spaces with in the Google parking lot and to provide the maximum elevation gain between the adjoining Principal Span Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge crossing.
The West Approach Structure consists of a four span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure
supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The
columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type
abutment supported by a large diameter CIDH pile. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway.
Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the West Approach Structure. The railings consist of 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water.
EAST APPROACH STRUCTURE
The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximate 168-degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to
conform at the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The
span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type
abutment supported by CIDH piles. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway.
Bent 8 supports both the end of the concrete slab of the East Approach Structure and the end of the steel Pratt truss span of the Principal Span Structure.
Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the East Approach Structure. The
railings will be 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water.
An overlook area consisting of an extension of the reinforced concrete slab will be located between Bents 10
and 11 in order to provide the trail users an opportunity to pause, rest and view the adjacent Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle through traffic. The architecture of the overlook will extend from
the main bridge structure elements including railings and concrete facing textures and colors. The overlook
will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give
it some warmth in texture and color. The decking and the bench elements could potentially be constructed
from the existing timber decking being removed from the adjacent Baylands Boardwalk project that can be recycled, refinished and repurposed as part of the Overcrossing Project. Amenities such as benches and
informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for
the users. Benches will be located along the overlook to allow users to rest and/or view the surrounding vistas of the Baylands.
ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE
The Adobe Creek Bridge consists of a 140-foot long prefabricated steel Pratt truss, spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks, adjacent to the existing Adobe Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 37C-
0060) along West Bayshore Road. The bridge will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway allowing for travel in both directions.
The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the 4 foot high safety railing for the structure.
The abutments will consist of concrete seat type abutments supported by large diameter CIDH piles.
ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS:
WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS
A pedestrian access ramp has been incorporated into the Western Approach Structure between the Google
property (3600 West Bayshore Road) and Adobe Creek Bridge to provide continuous access for pedestrians
along West Bayshore and access to the Overcrossing. For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road the access structure can reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet. This access structure also
provides equal access to mobility impaired trail users and provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing
bike lane along West Bayshore road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can be used as a primary ingress/egress if and
when the SCVWD closes the trail access area for their channel sedimentation maintenance.
STRUCTURE LIGHTING
Lighting design will be provided for the Overcrossing that contributes to the project goals of providing
connectivity while addressing environmental concerns. The Overcrossing paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support pedestrian and bicycling activates, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from higher illuminated urban areas on the western side of Highway 101 to the lower lighting of the Baylands to
the east. Photometric levels will conform to standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society.
The Western Approach Structure will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to the surrounding environment. Pole mounted luminaires will provide uniform illumination along the pathway
and at landscaping areas leading to the Overcrossing. At the Principal Span Structure, lighting will be integrated into the guardrail where possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Direct view of any
light source is to be shielded from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for
drivers. Lighting at the Eastern Approach Structure and Eastern Approach Overlook will be integrated into the urban infrastructure components, such as railings and benches, in order to reduce visual interferences of
the Baylands.
Careful consideration will be given to providing appropriate illumination at environmentally sensitive areas such as areas adjacent to Adobe and Barron Creek and the Baylands. Lighting on the Eastern Approach
Structure will be minimal in order to reduce potential glare and distraction for wildlife with the Baylands.
Step lights will be utilized, meeting photometric requirements, to provide low levels of functional lighting
along the pathway. Warm color lighting techniques will be used to reduce lighting effects to migratory birds
and other wildlife.
The lighting system will be designed to be mindful of the surrounding environment. Lighting poles and bollards with full-cutoff capability will be used in order to reduce light emitted above the 90° plane, limiting
contribution to light pollution. Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with
limited activity. Light levels dim down on a set time schedule synced with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their presence, allowing the lighting to change in response to pedestrian and
bicycle activity.
PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER RETENTION
Landscaping is limited to restoration of areas disturbed by construction. Primary areas for restoration
include: 1. The portion of the Baylands under and adjacent to the Eastern Approach Structure which will be restored with native grasses and planting as well as some hardscape and planting at the east plaza where the East Approach Structure joins the San Francisco Bay Trail. Trail head amenities in the form of trash and
recycling receptacles as well as an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 2. Disturbed areas of the Google Parking Lot under and adjacent to the Western Approach Structure will be landscape to provide screening to the structure and will include accommodation of a bioretension area, replacement of
existing landscaping trees affected by construction and reconfiguration of the existing Google Parking lot resulting in no net loss of parking. 3. The west plaza at the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Head will include
hardscaping at the plaza and existing aggregate base along the SCVWD maintenance road compatible with
the regular SCVWD maintenance operations and materials, as well as proposed trail head amenities including trash and recycling receptacles and an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 4.
Storm water collection into bioretension systems will include native planting and drainage swales leading
into retention basins to filter storm-water. These systems will be located in landscaping areas in the vicinity of the western and eastern approaches.
ADOBE CREEK TRAIL
The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail involves designating a 10-foot wide by approximately 800 linear feet of the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road on the east side of Adobe
Creek, between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a more direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West Bayshore Road for pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. The trail will utilize the existing
SCVWD maintenance road along Adobe Creek (maintaining the existing aggregate base surfacing) and will include installation of safety railing along the top of bank of Adobe Creek (subject to acceptance by the SCVWD). The project will include trail heads at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Trail heads
will consist of simple concrete connections to the adjoining streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and street signage. Resurfacing of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail will not be included
in this project. However, potential trail resurfacing as part of a future project, will be environmentally
cleared as part of this project.
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 28, 2017
SUBJECT: BUCKEYE CREEK HYDROLOGY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. Staff presents an update on the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study and recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss the study and provide feedback.
BACKGROUND
Buckeye Creek, which originates in Foothills Park and flows to Los Trancos Creek, has long standing erosion and flooding problems. During heavy storms, the creek down-cuts causing erosion. The eroded sediments wash downstream and deposit in various locations along the
creek, especially along the 7.7 acre parcel which can lead to flooding during heavy rain events.
Past erosion control measures using gabions and check dams have not been effective at reducing
erosion.
Buckeye Creek was heavily modified by grading related to agricultural activities that took place
prior to ownership by the City. The creek was also modified when underground utilities were
installed in the 1960s. These modifications straightened and channelized the creek for
approximately 1-mile through the current park. Based on review of historic United States Geologic Survey (USGS) maps between 1898 and 1960, it appears that the alignment of
Buckeye Creek is substantially different now than before agricultural and mining uses were
introduced to the area in the early 1900s. The channel was likely more centered in the Wildhorse
and Las Trampas Valleys and moreover, the entire valley floor was likely used as alluvial
floodplain which dissipated energy and allowed for moderate deposition and erosion processes for the creek system.
The City contracted with ENGEO in July 2016 to study the hydrology of Buckeye Creek and to
provide recommendations to reduce erosion that results in sediment deposition and flooding
conditions in Foothill Park and the 7.7 acres parcel of parkland located at the northern boundary of Foothills Park.
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family retained an
estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased
the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel. On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed
the Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly
2
dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc Committee was formed to help
direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
On May 31, 2015, Council agreed that the Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any recommendations on how to use the 7.7 acres. The rationale was that the
recommendations on how to best address the hydrology challenges may alter the City’s decision
on how best to use the land. For more information on the 7.7 acre parcel please see the February
24, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report (Attachment A)
DISCUSSION
Concept Development:
ENGEO performed preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and developed initial creek
improvement concepts to address the creek’s erosion issues.
The initial concepts (Attachment B) would restore and modify portions of Buckeye Creek by widening portions of the creek channel to create seasonal wetland floodplains in the lower reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel), and by creating a new creek channel in the upper reach (Wildhorse Valley), which would allow the creek to more closely follow its historic channel alignment and floodplain. a)Lower Reach (Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel)The recommended improvements to the lower reach of creek would create approximately 4.6 acres of additional floodplain and wetlands. This reach is divided into two sub-reaches for purposes of discussion- Las Trampas Valley and the 7.7 acres parcel. Widening the creek in the 7.7 acres of undeveloped parkland would create a 1.2-acre floodplain at approximately the ordinary high water mark and extend westerly at a 2% slope approximately to the extent of the 100-year water surface elevation. Based on hydraulic modeling performed, the area of the proposed floodplain will be above the current 100-year water surface elevation and therefore creation of a floodplain by lowering portions of the parcel adjacent to the current creek channel would help dissipate peak flows, equilibrate sediment transport and provide the opportunity to enhance habitat. Energy dissipation consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations. Trails could be built within the floodplain area, to allow park visitors access to the creek to learn about riparian habitat, with the understanding that they would need to be maintained after large rain events. Widening the section of creek along the Las Trampas Valley would create approximately 3.4-acres of floodplain by removing soil material in the existing grass field, which appears to consist of fill material placed in the historic floodplain. The existing channel could be moved closer to its historic alignment, and the grade adjusted to create an extensive floodplain above the ordinary high water mark. As in the 7.7 acre area, energy dissipation
3
consisting of rock rip-rap would be installed at both expansion and contraction locations that would help with flow reduction, sediment transport equilibrium, and habitat enhancement. Some tree removal is required in this reach of creek to create the floodplain. b)Upper Reach (Wildhorse Valley):The recommended improvements to the upper reach of creek along Wildhorse Valley would recreate historic floodplain functions by re-routing flows entering the westerly portion of the upper Buckeye Creek within the Wildhorse Valley in a recreated channel that would meander through the historic floodplain in an alignment more similar to its historic state. The new channel would be designed using geomorphic principles, including a low flow channel, a stable slope and a floodplain. The upper westerly tributary to Buckeye Creek would need to be re-routed near the existing sediment basin at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley to capture flows and a stabilized confluence would also be installed where the new creek would meet the existing channel. Several aging wooden and gabion grade control structures, installed in the early 1980s, in the existing channel would also be retrofitted to meet current restoration standards. The existing sediment basin located at the base of the creek system at the top of Wildhorse Valley would also be eliminated. Approximately 2,655 linear feet of channel creation are possible in this area.
Stakeholder Meetings and Input:
a)Community MeetingOn December, 6, 2016, a community meeting to discuss the project and initial concepts was held at Foothills Park. Approximately 25 people, including stakeholders from Grassroots Ecology and Audubon Society attended the meeting. There was broad support for the initial concepts. The notes from the community meeting are in Attachment C. b)Regulatory Agencies CoordinationOn February 8, 2017, ENGEO and staff attended an inter-agency regulatory agency meeting conducted with representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This informal meeting was an opportunity for collecting feedback on the preliminary restoration concepts from the regulatory agencies. The feedback collected included the following notes: 1.Although there was some interest in incorporating habitat features forSteelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) into the proposed restoration projectat the public meeting in December 2016, the general consensus from theUSFWS and RWQCB was that the potential for these species was too low toconsider specifically accommodating this specie into design elements. Thereare also two significant fish barriers (8’ vertical drops) on private property justdownstream where Buckeye Creek leaves Foothills Park. Therefore, several ofthe large grade control structures in the creek channel could be replaced with
4
updated structures. 2.The RWQCB representative expressed interest in expanding the creation ofriparian habitat to the maximum extent possible.3.The RWQCB representative strongly prefers for the improvement in the upperreach (Wildhorse Valley) to result in a new single channel of the creek (notdual channels), and to remove the sediment basin at the top of WildhorseValley. (The original initial concept called for maintaining the existing channel,which would result in a dual creek channels in Wildhorse Valley). Per theguidance from RWQCB, the design will change to realign western flows into alarge area between the existing road alignment and the westerly toe of slope,thought to be the approximate historic creek alignment, and will leave theexisting flows entering the valley from the east and south in the createdchannel.
Challenges and Impacts: While the proposed improvements would have a number of benefits, including resolving the erosion and sedimentation issues, creating more (and vastly improved) riparian habitat, providing public access to the creek areas and enhanced environmental education opportunities, reduced ornamental turf and potable water savings, there are challenges and impacts from the proposed initial concepts. 1.Utilities and Roads:Based on the topographic survey, record utilities drawings, and field verificationfrom Park Rangers, major utilities bisect both Las Trampas and Wildhorse Valleys,where Buckeye Creek is currently located. These utilities include a sanitary sewer,a pressurized water main, and major fiber optic, phone and electric lines.Relocation of major utilities is cost prohibitive. In the Wildhorse Valley area, theseutilities are located for the most part within a roadway alignment that bisects thevalley. The roadway serves a pump station for municipal water supply located atthe upper end of Wildhorse Valley and thus cannot be readily removed.2.Maintenance Buildings:The Foothills Park maintenance buildings and equipment yard, located in the LasTrampas Valley at the lower end of the project appear to be located in an area thatwas once part of the historic creek alignment. It is cost prohibitive to relocate themaintenance buildings and equipment yard.3.Recreation Impacts:The grass field in Las Trampas Valley has been used for recreation activities sincethe park opened in 1965. In addition to individual park visitors and families relaxingand recreating on the field, the area is also frequently used by park visitorspicnicking at the adjacent Orchard Glen picnic area and by people who have rented
5
the Oak Grove picnic area. The Oak Grove picnic area accommodates up to 150 people. The lawn area is also used by City’s Recreation Division to host hundreds of children who participate in the Foothills Park summer camps. Staff have evaluated the amount of use on the grass field, and believe that half of the grass field could be used for restoring the creek, and the remaining half of the turf (approximately 5 acres) could still meet the recreational needs for the park visitors. Recreation staff believes the proposed improvements to the creek would allow them to incorporate more nature elements into the curriculum for the camps. Improved access to riparian areas next to the turf will be a helpful addition.
Permitting: The preliminary Biological Assessment for the project defines waters of the United States and waters of the State of California for the project, as well as potential for species to occur on site which are protected under State and Federal wildlife codes. In order to implement the initial concepts of restoring portions of the creek, the project would likely require the following permits: 1.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE):According to the feedback received at the interagency meeting, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration, which has no impact limit, will be required for this project. If there is also infrastructure maintenance work and the project limits impacts less than ½ acre of jurisdiction waters of the United States, the project would likely be classified under a NWP 3. 2.United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):Based on discussions with the USFWS, they would provide Section 7 consultation to the USACE in terms of impacts to species covered under the Federal Endangered Species Act listed in the preliminary Biological Assessment. This would occur as part of the USACE permitting process. 3.Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB):The project would need to apply for a 401-water quality certification from the RWQCB for impacts to waters of the State of California. The RWQCB would be the lead agency in terms of creek restoration technical guidance. 4.California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):The project would also need to apply for a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) fromCDFW since it intends to grade within their jurisdiction.5.Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD):
6
The project would not need to apply to this agency for a permit unless there is an easement or right-of-way that encumbers Buckeye Creek where the project intends to work. Based on discussion with the agency, it is unlikely that there are easements or rights-of-way dedicated to SCVWD in this part of Palo Alto. A title report could confirm this.
The project would need to also complete a document to show compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to receive permitting clearances from CDFW and RWQCB. Overall, we expect 18 to 36 months to complete all of the permitting requirements.
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
Obtain PRC input March 2017
Detailed hydraulic analysis and refine alternatives April 2017 Community/Stakeholders 2nd Meeting April 2017
Draft Project Report May 2017
PRC meeting to present findings and obtain input on draft report May 2017
Council study session June 2017
Finalize report and present to Council for approval July 2017
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: February 24, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report Regarding the 7.7 Acre Parcel
Attachment B: Initial Concepts to Restore and Modify Portions of Buckeye Creek
Attachment C: December 6, 2016 Community Meeting Notes
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM:DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:FEBRUARY 24, 2015
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION REGARDING POSSIBLE USES FOR THE 7.7
ACRES OF NEWLY DEDICATED PARK LAND AT FOOTHILLS PARK.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council approve of
the following course of action regarding use of the newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land at Foothills
Park:
1.Fund and implement a Capital Improvement Project to conduct a hydrology study of
Buckeye Creek.
2.Keep the 7.7 acre parcel closed until after the hydrology study is completed.3.Renew the Acterra Nursery lease for one year so that the lease expiration will coincide withthe approximate timeframe to complete the hydrology study. The lease should include theoption for renewal on a yearly basis for four additional years pending mutual agreement andCity approval.
BACKGROUND
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land. Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of
9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at
Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the
newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting.
Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and
at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were
discussed. On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee
provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel.
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
DISCUSSION
On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the
newly acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park. Several Commissioners noted that
because of the timing of the hydrology study and the Parks Master Plan, we should not expect the
Parks Master Plan to identify specific direction on how to develop the 7.7 acre parcel. The
Commissioners also noted the Parks Master will provide information about what gaps and needs
throughout the City’s park system that will be helpful in forming a decision about the future uses of
the 7.7 acre parcel.
There was general consensus among the Commissioners on three issues regarding the 7.7 acre
parcel:
1.Buckeye Creek hydrology study should be completed before making any recommendationson how to use the land. The recommendations on how to best address the hydrologychallenges may alter the City’s decision on how best to use the land.
2.The Acterra Nursery lease should be renewed on a short term basis so that the City has theflexibility to act on whatever options and recommendations develop from the hydrology
study.
3.The site should remain closed until after the hydrology study is complete. Investing in
fencing and supervision to open the site to the public before the hydrology study is not
prudent.
The Commission noted that there is no need for additional Ad Hoc Committee meetings on this
topic, and that staff should return promptly to the Commission with a recommendation. The
recommendation of this staff report is the preferred option. The subsequent staff report that will be
sent to Council will recommend the Commission’s preferred option. The Council staff report will
also discuss the alternative options and the associated disadvantages that were considered, which
include opening the parcel to the public and adding park amenities to the property in advance of the
hydrology study.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: January 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission 7.7 Acre Staff Report
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community
Services Department
TO:PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM:DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:JANUARY 27, 2015
SUBJECT:DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE USES FOR THE NEWLY ACQUIRE 7.7
ACRES OF PARK LAND ADJACENT TO FOOTHILLS PARK.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission discuss possible uses for the newly
acquired 7.7 acres of park land adjacent to Foothills Park, and provide guidance to staff on which
concepts should be further developed to include cost estimates.
BACKGROUND
The 7.7 acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the
City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7 acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7 acre parcel as park land.
Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for
specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad Hoc
committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
DISCUSSION
In October 2014, four Ranger lead tours of the 7.7 acres were made available to the public. A total of
9 members of the public attended those tours. On October 18, 2014, a public meeting was held at
Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to best use the
newly acquired park land. There was another Ranger lead tour occurring prior to the meeting.
Approximately 10 people attended this tour and 27 people attended the meeting. At the meeting, and
at each of the tours, the history and the challenges/restrictions associated with the 7.7 acres were
discussed. Attachment A includes the public’s comments and suggestions.
Three major themes were expressed from the public on the tours and the public meeting:
Theme 1: Recreational Activities
Concepts ranged from adding a campground, picnic area, structure for special events, and an off-leash dog area.
Theme 2: Restoration
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
The public suggestions regarding possible restoration strategies vary greatly. Concepts ranged from
simple restoration involving planting native grasses and some trees, to significant restoration
involving more involving de-channeling Buckeye Creek and restoring the original meandering creek
flow; removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to one contiguous valley.
Theme 3: Sustain the Acterra Nursery
There were numerous comments supporting the Acterra Nursery on the site. There were also some
suggestions about providing space for an additional environmental partner.
Challenges for Developing the 7.7 Acre Parcel
Current Soil Conditions
When the 7.7 acre parcel was owned by the Lee family, the land was used as a place to store the
overburden (spoils and rock) from the adjacent quarry. The north hillside (on the right side as you
enter the property from Foothills Park) is comprised of highly compacted overburden from the
quarry. The approximately 2.1 acre valley floor (flat area without trees) of the 7.7 acre parcel has
approximately 5 feet of overburden. The compacted and poor soils do not drain well and make it challenging to grow trees and other vegetation.
The former lessee of the 7.7 acres parcel struggled to sustain and grow trees on the site. The lessee used extensive amounts of compost to establish redwood trees along the hillside and edges of the parcel. The trees are stunted in growth, but they have survived.
Buckeye Creek
Buckeye Creek originates in Foothills Park at the upper end of Wildhorse Valley and passes through
the 7.7 acre parcel. The channelized creek has experienced significant down-cutting resulting in
creek erosion. These eroded sediments wash down the creek and deposit in the 7.7 acre parcel during
the rainy season. The collected sediments must be removed two to three times every year to prevent
flooding. The adjacent Open Space Maintenance Shop in Foothills Park was flooded in 1983. The
City created a raised berm along Buckeye Creek, adjacent to the shop, to protect it from the creek
overflowing. The shop area floods now as a result of poor drainage away from the shop and road.
The amount of sediment that accumulates in the 7.7 acre parcel and needs to be removed varies
greatly year to year. Some years, when it is fairly dry, no sediment is removed from the culverts. On
years with average rainfall it can vary between 30 to 100 yards of sediment. On extremely rainy
years there can be as much as 500 to 600 yards of sediment removed. Some of the sediment has been
used to fill in the slopes of the 7.7 acre parcel, some on the valley floor, and some was taken off site.
The removal is especially important before the creek flows through culverts at the end of the 7.7
acres (back right hand side of property). This is the last opportunity to clear the sedimentation before
heading into the large culverts downstream. The sediments vary from fine to large sands and gravels,
most all the fine, nutrient rich silts wash downstream and do not drop out in this area.
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
The private resident whose property borders the 7.7 acres has managed the creek sediment removal
process up until now at his cost. The City will now be responsible for that work unless an agreement
between the City and the private resident is obtained.
Buckeye Creek Culverts
Buckeye Creek has been channelized in many sections in Foothills Park, including at the (west) end
of the 7.7 acre parcel. Buckeye Creek flows into a series of culverts and then flows under private
property for several hundred feet. The culverts start as a single seven foot diameter opening and
then reduce down into multiple three foot culverts. The first large culvert is approximately seven feet
below the valley floor of the parcel. Access to the culvert is currently not secured, and would be
dangerous if someone ventured down into it or was washed into it during a rain event. The culvert would need to be secured with fencing and a gate (to allow access for heavy equipment to clear the culvert of sediment) before the site is opened to the public.
Some stakeholders have suggested that Buckeye Creek could support steelhead habitat. Buckeye Creek flows into Los Trancos Creek, which has been documented to have steelhead. Since a significant portion of the creek is channelized and deeply incised, it has an increased slope resulting in a high stream velocity. This accelerates erosion and prevents the formation of pools and riffles
needed for good fish habitat. It is uncertain if there is enough water flow in the creek to support
steelhead.
No Utilities on Site
There are no electrical, water, or sewer lines on the 7.7 acre parcel. Any infrastructure that requires
these amenities would need to factor in the added expense to provide the necessary utilities.
Hydrologic Study
A hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is needed to help analyze and find solutions to the historic
channelization and resulting down-cutting and erosion problems. Staff recommends that this study
be funded and completed as soon as possible. Staff also recommends that the hydrologic study be
completed before developing permanent plans and investing significant funds to construct any
facilities on the site that might limit some of the possible recommendations and solutions that will be
proposed by the hydrologic plan. A $75,000 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for a hydrologic
study of Buckeye Creek was proposed by staff in fiscal year 2013, but it was not funded. Staff will
re-submit a CIP request to fund a hydrological study.
Easements and Other Restrictions
There is an emergency ingress and egress easement that runs through the parcel to Los Trancos
Road. This easement must be maintained for emergency response and evacuation of Foothills Park.
Development is limited next to Buckeye Creek. Environmental regulations preclude any permanent
structures or parking lots within 50 feet of Buckeye Creek. (The 50 feet is measured from the bank
of the creek.)
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
The 7.7 acres is bordered on three sides by a private residence. There is only one public entry and
exit point to the 7.7 acres. It is through Foothills Park, and passes through the Foothills Park
Maintenance Facility and staff parking area.
The flat area of the parcel (approximately 2.1 acres) is the only viable usable space within the total
7.7 acres for constructing any type of structure. This includes the current .53 acre nursery parcel.
The remaining portion of the parcel is hillsides, exclusive easements and setback from Buckeye
Creek. The approximate size of this flat area was ascertained through measurements taken from the
City’s GIS system.
The Parks Master Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan is underway and will have information that will provide valuable insight to any functions that may be currently underserved in our park and recreation system.
Joint Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
On November 10, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee provided an update to Council regarding the 7.7 acres parcel.
There were several Council comments and questions from Council regarding the parcel:
1.Suggestion to make the property accessible to the public during the interim period while the
City decides how best to use the property.
2.Suggestion to have a joint Council/ Commission study session on just the topic of the future
of the 7.7-acre parcel, potentially at Foothills Park.
3.Discussion about the need to secure the site with fencing due to security and safety concerns.
4.Question about whether the gravel, rock, and sand be commercially mined from the flat
portion of the parcel to remove the spoils and perhaps make money for the City. (CSD staff
explored this option with Public Works staff who manages the City’s soil importation project
to cap the former landfill. Public Works explained that developers pay to dispose of clean
soils. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would pay to haul away quarry spoils that could
not be sold when they were originally mined.
5.Question about the cost to fence off the nursery and culvert in order to make the 7.7-acre
parcel accessible to the public (Staff will get an estimate for these costs and an estimated
time frame on how long it would take to install).
6.Suggestion about a trail connection between the parcel and the Nature Center along the
upland margin of the property close to Mr. Arrillaga’s (adjacent neighbor) fence line.
7.Suggestion that staff and the Commission should recommend short-term and long-term
phases for the parcel and include costs and estimated timing.
Feasibility and Needs Analysis for the Major Themes
The feasibility and needs assessment in this report is based on analysis of reservations of existing
park facilities, and observations from staff in the field. Information from the Parks Master Plan will
provide additional information once it is complete in November 2015.
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
Recreation Theme Concepts
Camping Needs assessment:
There is demand for additional camping at Foothills Park during Friday and Saturday nights
throughout the summer.
The existing Foothills Park Towle Camp has eight campsites. It is typically booked to capacity every
Friday and Saturday nights all summer long, with holidays, May, June, and September (popular for
school groups) being reserved 6 to 12 months in advance.
Camping Feasibility:
1.Noise from a campground in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may be an
issue for both campers and for the adjacent land owner. There may also be issues with smoke
generated from campfire circle or barbeques. No matter where a campground is placed on
the 7.7 acre parcel, it would only be about 300 feet from the adjacent land owner’s backyard.
2.Unless the campground was very small (less than 15 visitors) and designed to be a primitive,hike-in-only campground, a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area would be necessary.
3.Restrooms will be needed for primitive or car camping.
4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed, the campground would be at some risk offlooding during extreme rain events. The 7.7 acre parcel is the lowest valley location in the
park and has the coldest temperatures in the park during the winter.
5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for an additional
camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8,
where there are nearby utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See
Attachment C).
Group Picnic Area Needs Assessment:
There is demand for large group picnic areas during the summer months. Any group of more than 25
people must have a permit and there is only one existing group picnic area in Foothills Park. The
Oak Grove group picnic area may be reserved and can accommodate groups up to 150 people. The
picnic area is typically booked to capacity on weekends from June through September. There are
five other picnic areas in Foothills Park available for groups of less than 25 visitors on first-come
first-serve availability.
Group Picnic Area Feasibility:
1.Noise from a group picnic area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may
be an issue.
2.It would require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. We couldn’t use the existing
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
STAFF REPORT
parking lot adjacent to the Oak Grove Picnic Area because that lot is full when Oak Grove is
being used.
3.It would require adding restrooms.
4.One attraction for the existing popular picnic areas (Oak Grove and Orchard Glen) is the
large lawns adjacent to these areas for activities and games. Adding irrigated lawns to the
7.7 acres would be an expensive, water intense addition.
5.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the picnic area would be at some risk of
flooding during extreme rain events. There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that
may be better suited for an additional camping area or group picnic area. There is a flat area
just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby utilities, parking, and noneighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C).
Trail Needs Assessment:
The existing Foothills Park trail system is 15 miles long. The trails offer a wide variety of hiking experiences, challenges, and views. There were no requests for trails in this area from the public that
participated in the Ranger led tours or the public meeting to discuss the possible uses for the site.
Trail Feasibility:
1.A simple trail on the flat area of the 7.7 acres could be constructed.
2.More information is needed on the feasibility of constructing a hillside trail.
Group Meeting Area Needs Assessment:
The Foothills Park Interpretive Center and Orchard Glen Picnic Area often serve as a group meeting
areas, as they are located in central areas within the park and have accessible parking, restrooms, and
drinking fountains available. Staff have neither noticed nor received feedback from park visitors that
a group meeting area is desired. Though, some participants at the public meeting on the 7.7 acre
parcel suggested adding a group meeting area to this site.
Group meeting Area Needs Feasibility:
1.Noise from a group meeting area in close proximity to the adjacent land owner’s homes may
be an issue.
2.It may require adding a parking lot in the 7.7 acre area. The existing parking lot adjacent to
the Oak Grove Picnic Area is full when Oak Grove is being used.
3.It may require adding restrooms.
4.Unless the hydrologic issues can be addressed the group meeting area would be at some risk
of flooding during extreme rain events.
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
5.There are alternative locations in Foothills Park that may be better suited for a group meeting
area. There is a flat area just below the hill from Fire Station 8, where there are nearby
utilities, parking, and no neighbors in close proximity (See Attachment C).
Restoration Theme Concepts:
Habitat Restoration Needs Assessment:
1.The site would benefit from habitat restoration, especially for riparian habitat restoration
adjacent to Buckeye Creek. The habitat of the flat section of the 7.7 acre parcel is largely
bare soil (comprised of five feet of compacted overburden quarry spoils) and some weeds.
The sloped sides of the parcel consist of a mix of redwood and eucalyptus trees and some
coyote brush shrubs. The habitat value could be improved by planting native vegetation andcontrolling invasive weeds.
Habitat Restoration Feasibility:
1.There are no utilities on the parcel. Any plantings would require a temporary irrigation
system be installed. The closest water line is at the maintenance shop.
2.The poor soil conditions should be mitigated in order to have successful vegetation growth.
For the flat section of the parcel, one option is rip the hard compacted ground and add
compost and other soil amendments. Composting has been demonstrated to gradually
improve the soil on the adjacent quarry site parcel. Another option could include removing
the overburden and use compost and other soil amendments. By removing the overburden
the flat parcel elevation would be lowered creating the opportunity for riparian habitat and
flood zones along Buckeye Creek. This concept could be explored through the hydrologic
study.
3.If the Acterra Nursery remains on site some of the habitat restoration projects could be
incorporated to the Acterra Nursery agreement or the Acterra Stewardship work plan.
De-channeling Buckeye Creek and Restoring the Original Meandering Creek Needs Assessment:
1.One concept to mitigate the historic channelization of Buckeye Creek would be to remove
much of the overburden in the flat portion of the 7.7 acres and allow for a natural
meandering and flooding of the creek. The hydrologic study should address this issue in
terms of need and feasibility.
Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee
A recommendation from the Ad Hoc Committee is premature at this point since the Commission has
not had an opportunity to discuss the 7.7 acre parcel. However, the Ad Hoc Committee did create the
following options to consider, which may be helpful as ideas for fostering discussion on the topic.
Options to consider:
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
1. Extend lease with Acterra for another five years, with the caveat that they may be required to
move elsewhere within Foothills Park pending the result of hydrology study. The existing lease will
expire in July 2015.
2. Assuming the CIP for the hydrologic study of Buckeye Creek is approved, start the study as
soon as possible- July 2015.
3. If the Commission and Council determine the site should be opened to the public, City staffshould install fencing and gates to ensure that the culvert is safe and that the open areas are separatedfrom the Acterra Nursery.
4. Inform the neighbors well in advance of the date that the parcel will be opened to the public sothat they can make arrangements to put up fencing to secure their areas.
5. Avoid investing in any improvements or amenities for the site, other than fencing and gates,
because the hydrologic study may provide recommendations that would necessitate changing where
we locate certain amenities.
6. Open the property to the public after the necessary fences have been installed.
7. Continue Commission discussions on development plans for the 7.7 acre parcel.
8. Continue to collect feedback from park visitors regularly using the parcel for what they would
like to see long term on the property.
9. The scope of the Parks Master Plan could be expanded to include recommendations for
development of the 7.7 acre parcel. The recommendations would be based on the findings of the
Master Plan, and feedback from the public, Commission, and Council. The Parks Master Plan will
be completed by November 2015. The hydrological study, if approved, would most likely not be
completed by that date, so any Master Plan concepts for future use of the parcel would not
incorporate recommendations from the hydrological study. Because of the timing of the Hydrologic
study and the Master Plan, the recommendations for the 7.7 acre parcel from the Parks Master Plan
would be limited to a list of possible uses of the land, rather than drawings depicting specific
locations for development.
10. Refine the development plans for the parcel once the hydrology study is complete.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Public Comments from Public Meeting
Attachment B: Acterra Nursery Facts
Attachment C: Aerial Photos Illustrating Configuration of Amenities on 7.7 Acre Parcel and on
Alternative Site.
PREPARED BY:__________________________________________________________
DAREN ANDERSON
Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division Manager, Community
Services Department
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
STAFF REPORT
Public Meeting
Subject: Gather community input on how to use the 7.7 acre area
Date: October 18, 2014
Location: Foothills Park
Eighteen people signed the sign‐in sheet. There were some late arrivals. Total number of
meeting participants was about 27.
Public Suggestions:
1.Open sided building for various special events. Ideally allowing horses. It would bring
more people into the park. Possible uses could include hay rides, weddings, etc. The
fact that there is a large flat area is a positive.
2.Note that the 5’ of overburden soil (this is the material that was excavated from the
adjacent quarry) that was placed on the 7.7 acres limits the restoration options. The
overburden material is not good for growing plants. Alternatives to restoration should
be considered. It would take a lot of effort to restore. Bounded with only one entry is
also a challenge. We need to think outside the box.
3.The flat area is good thing. It would be a good location for a primitive campground with
limited amenities. We could use the existing amenities, such as the restrooms at Oak
Grove and the parking near Oak Grove picnic area.
4.Move the existing park maintenance building into the 7.7 acre area, and restore the site
where the maintenance building is currently sitting. The maintenance yard is the entry
to this space, and the entry should be attractive.
5.All options considered for this space should retain the Acterra nursery, and build on
access to the nursery. The nursery should be instructional, not just commercial.
(someone notes that classes of children do visit the nursery).
6.There are numerous benefits of the nursery, and it should be maintained on site.
7.There should be a place holder for option of including a Canopy tree nursery at the site.
8.It would be great if there was public access into this area through Los Trancos Road.
Don’t do anything that would preclude or prevent future connectivity through this site
to the rest of Foothills Park.
9.Restore original creek. Consider removing the overburden soil and restoring the area to
one contiguous valley. It would take a long time, but with time and grants it is possible.
10.Leave the site alone. Just add a simple trail.
11.Concern about emergency exit from the park. How is an individual inside the park
supposed to escape the area if there is a gate that can only be opened by emergency
response staff?
12.Acterra nursery should be allowed to stay on the site because it is a benefit to the City.
13.Make sure this issue is covered by the press (Weekly). It will ensure that more people
are aware of the discussion.
14.The Parks Master Plan may identify needs that cannot be met with our existing space in
the park system. Keep this area open for needs that are identified in the Master Plan.
15.Keep Acterra Nursery on the site.
16.Support the Acterra Nursery and expand the stewardship and educational
opportunities.
17.Use the area for athletic fields.
18.Question about how often the campground and group picnic area are booked? (Staff
explained that during summer weekends the campground and group picnic area are
fully booked.)
19.Camping could be a great use for this site.
20.Cabin camping with platforms would be a good use for the site. It would increase winter
camping.
21.Consider removing the eucalyptus trees from the site.
22.Adding something like the Oak Grove Picnic Area and including some new trees.
23.Include placeholders for connectivity.
24.Restoration could bring lots of grant money.
25.Canopy tree nursery
26.Creek restoration concept. There are lots of grants for this kind of work.
27.Improve the soil and let nature take its course. Remember, this is a nature preserve.
28.Respect the neighbors to this site. Need to take into account noise issues for whatever is
considered for this area. You wouldn’t put a campground right next to other neighbors’
homes anywhere else in the park system, so why would you do it in this situation?
Acterra Native Plant Nursery Facts
The Acterra Native Plant Nursery has been in operation since 1996 and located on the current
site since 2003. Acterra is a Palo Alto non-profit organization engaged in various activities
intended to protect and enhance our local environment.
The current lease for the nursery site expires in 2015 and can be renewed for another fiveyears by mutual agreement between Acterra and the City of Palo Alto. In lieu of a cash
rental payment for the nursery, Acterra provides the City with $10,000 in value per year
consisting of plants, materials and volunteer restoration services. Acterra meters and
pays for all the nursery water usage. Electricity is generated on site via solar panels.
The entire nursery, including all structures, the solar electric system and water line was
built from the ground up by volunteers frequently using their own tools and employing
donated and salvaged materials whenever possible.
The nursery is staffed by one full-time and one part-time Acterra employee assisted byseveral regular volunteers. Staff duties extend beyond nursery operation to includerelated activities such as seed collecting and restoration consulting.
Specializing in plants grown from local wild-collected propagules, the nursery grows
about 150 species and more than 30,000 plants annually, some of which are endangeredand difficult to propagate.
The nursery provides all plants used in Acterra Stewardship program restoration projects,
as well as being a key supplier of plants for other local public agencies such as the Santa
Clara Valley Water District and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. For
example, the nursery is the primary plant supplier for Mt. Umunhum Restoration.
In Palo Alto alone, Acterra Stewardship provided 10,000 volunteer hours of habitat
restoration and installed more than 14,500 nursery plants at seven different sites last year.
The primary focus of the nursery is growing plants for wild land restoration. It alsoserves commercial and residential landscapers who wish to install water wise eco-friendly plants. The nursery pioneered the lawn replacement concept. Local schools,
parks, demonstration gardens and rural farmers also use plants from the nursery.
The nursery attracts an abundance of birds, butterflies, native bees, and other wildlife.We are especially proud of our large tree frog population. We facilitate the hatching ofhundreds of tree frogs each year.
ATTACHMENT A
February 24, 2015
PRC Staff Report
ATTACHMENT A February 24, 2015
staf report
Alternative location for a possible nursery, group picnic area, or campsite. Between Boronda Lake to the south and Fire Station 8 to the north lies a flat
undeveloped cut slope from the original construction of Foothills Park. The area has two existing paved parking lots (for development that never occurred), and
both water and sewer utilities nearby.
Composite image pastes the existing Acterra Nursery and a proposed covered 5000 sq. foot group picnic pavilion (for groups up to 100). The area can
accommodate a new restroom connected to existing sewer system.
Composite image with the picnic pavilion and a group campsite for 50 visitors.
Composite image showing the 7.7 acres with the Acterra Nursery remaining and an added 18,000 sq. foot parking lot and group picnic pavilion. The area could
accommodate a new restroom on septic system.
GROUP PICNIC
PAVILION
EXISTING
NURSERY
EXISTING
MAINTENANCE
YARD
EXISTING
PARKING
PARKING
1+0
0
2+00
3
+
0
0
4+00
5+0
0
6+0
0
7
+
0
0
8
+
0
0
9
+
0
0
10
+
0
0
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+
0
0
18+00
19+00
20+00
21+00
22+00
23+00
24+00
25+00
26+00
27+0
0
28+0
0
29+0
0
30+
0
0
31+00
32+00
33+
0
0
3
4
+
0
0
35+0
0
36+
0
0
37
+
0
0
3
8
+
0
0
3
9
+
0
0
4
0
+
0
0
4
1
+
0
0
1+2
0
1+1
1
1+
3
0
1+
5
8
2+9
0
2+
1
6
40+
3
5
40+8
0
39+
8
1
39+
2
0
38+10
37+90
37+
8
0
FIGU
R
E
2
FIGU
R
E
1
FIGU
R
E
2
14
+
3
0
22+
8
0
24+94
22
+
0
3
21+
0
7
20
+
3
3
19
+
5
9
19
+
4
9
19+
3
2
18
+
5
9
17+
5
1
16
+
8
1
15
+
8
2
13
+
1
6
12
+
4
5
11
+
5
4
10+
1
5
9+2
5
8+34
7+58
6+93
6+63
6+3
66+
1
8
5+9
95+6
9
5+2
4
4+8
0
4+3
2
3+
6
6
4+0
03+3
2
37+
2
1
38+2
6
37+
7
5
36+
6
7
36
+
2
4
35+
3
5
34+4
8
33+
6
2
32+
3
5
31
+
2
6
30+
7
9
29+93
28+40
29+0
9
27+53
26+79
25+8
3
9+2
0
10+
7
5
23+
8
3
FIGU
R
E
1
NN
EXPLANATION
10+00
BUCKEYE CREEK
Expect Excellence
0
0 FEET
METERS
100
50
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT MAP
BUCKEYE CREEK
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
13010.000.000
AS SHOWN 1
LIMITS OF GRADING
HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM
WATER MAIN
SANITARY SEWER
FIBER AND ELECTRIC
PHONE
PROVIDE ENERGY
DISSIPATION AT
CONTRACTION
PROVIDE ENERGY
DISSIPATION AT
EXPANSION
PROVIDE ENERGY
DISSIPATION AT
CONTRACTION
PROVIDE ENERGY
DISSIPATION AT
EXPANSION
RETROFIT EXISTING
GRADE CONTROL
STRUCTURES (3)
NEW FLOODPLAIN
NEW FLOODPLAIN
APPROXIMATE CREEK
HISTORIC ALIGNMENT
REPLACE EXISTING FOOT
BRIDGE
RELOCATE LOW FLOW
CHANNEL AWAY FROM TOE
OF SLOPE
PROVIDE ENERGY
DISSIPATION AT
EXPANSION
RELOCATE PHONE LINE
32+00 33+00
34+0
0
35+00 36+00 37+00
38+0
0
39+0
0
40+
0
0
4
1
+
0
0
4
2
+
0
0
43+00
44+00
45
+
0
0
46
+
0
0
47
+
0
0
48
+
0
0
49+0
0
50+
0
0
51+
0
0
52+0
0
53+00
54
+
0
0
55+
0
0
56+
0
0
57
+
0
0
5
8
+
0
0
59+00
60+00
61+00
62+00
63
+
0
0
64
+
0
0
65
+
0
0
6
6
+
0
0
67
+
0
0
6
8
+
0
0
69
+
0
0
70
+
0
0
70+08
69+69
69+30
68+91
68+59
68+49
67+85
66+97
66+06
65+42
65+10
64+52
63+95
63+07
63+31
62
+
7
9
62+4
8
62
+
0
8
61
+
8
6
58+
5
1
61
+
4
2
60
+
5
1
60+
7
8
61
+
0
2
60+
3
0
60
+
1
1
58+
9
6
59
+
5
8
58+
0
1
56+98
57+4
0
56
+
6
5
56+
3
4
55+
7
5
55
+
8
0
55+
7
2
55+
5
5
54+
5
1
53
+
7
7
51+
1
8
46+
3
5
45+
8
8
45+
4
8
45+
4
6
4
5
+
3
4
4
5
+
1
9
45
+
0
4
44+
9
7
44
+
8
2
44
+
3
1
43
+
5
4
42+7
7
40
+
3
5
41+36
41+9
0
40
+
8
0
39
+
8
1
39
+
2
0
38+1037+90
53
+
0
4
52
+
4
8
51
+
9
0
51
+
9
6
51+
8
3
50+
6
5
50+
0
8
49+
4
6
47+
8
3
47+
2
2
48+5
6
37
+
8
0
64+15
FIG
U
R
E
2
FIG
U
R
E
1
FIG
U
R
E
2
37
+
2
1
38
+
2
6
37
+
7
5
36
+
6
7
36
+
2
4
35
+
3
5
34+
4
8
33
+
6
2
32
+
3
5
FIG
U
R
E
1
BUCKEYE CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
NN
Expect Excellence
0
0 FEET
METERS
100
50
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT MAP
BUCKEYE CREEK
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
13010.000.000
AS SHOWN 2
EXPLANATION
10+00
LIMITS OF GRADING
HEC RAS CROSS SECTION AND STATION LABEL FACING DOWNSTREAM
WATER MAIN
SANITARY SEWER
FIBER AND ELECTRIC
OVERFLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE
TRANSITION TO EXISTING CREEK
RETROFIT EXISTING GRADE
CONTROL STRUCTURES (7)
RESTORED CREEK CHANNEL
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HISTORIC CREEK ALIGNMENT
REMOVE EXISTING SEDIMENT BASIN
ATTACHMENT C
December 16, 2016
Community Notes Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study Community Meeting December 6, 2016
Foothills Park
Questions from the participants:
Q.Do the proposed concepts restore the creeks to their original alignment?
A.The earliest aerial photos (around 1958) show that there was already a ranch road and
that the creek had essentially been channelized in its current location. It is likely that the
creek meandered through Las Trampas Valley and Wildhorse Valley. The concepts doinvolve restoring some of the creek flow to what was likely the original alignment, but
without removing the road and utilities.
Q.Would the concept replace the existing creek channel in Wildhorse Valley?
A.No. The regulatory agencies typically do not support filling in creeks. It would likely be
a dual creek system that would allow high flows to follow one route and slow flows to theother. But, these concepts need to be studied by ENGEO further to know exactly how it
would work. The intent is to ensure that the public and stakeholders generally support the
initial concepts before developing them.
Q. What does the service road along Wildhorse Valley go?A.The road goes to a Water Reservoir, utilities station, and the Towel Campground. There
are a number of utilities that are located next to the existing creek channel (16’’ water main,
10-12’’ sewer line, telephone line, fiber optics, etc.). They were installed in the 1950s and
60s. The utilities serve residents above and below Foothills Park, in addition to the park
itself.
Q. Did your study include analysis of the 7.7 acre area?
A. Yes, that area was included in the hydrology analysis.
Q.It seems like the concept for Las Trampas Valley would result in about ¼ or more of theturf grass being changed to riparian habitat. What would that look like?
A. There are several examples of projects in our area that would be similar. Staff and the
consultant will bring examples to the next meeting.
Q.How would the creek flow around the maintenance shop buildings, which is an areawhere the creek constricts? One solution to consider is a detention basin to slow down the
water and meter it out gradually.
A.ENGEO will study that area in more detail, and consult with the state and federal
regulatory agencies. A bio-retention area may be helpful in this area.
Q. Can the maintenance buildings be relocated?
A. It may be possible, but would be very expensive.
Q. What is the maintenance shop used for, and why would it be so expensive to move?
A. The maintenance shop is where Open Space staff store vehicles (Ranger patrol trucks,
dump trucks, tractors, mowers, etc.) and equipment necessary to maintain the 1,400 acre Foothills Park and the 622 acre Pearson Arastradero Preserve. There is also a fuel tank used
to fuel park vehicles and equipment, as well as the Fire apparatus when Fire Station 8 is
staffed. Staff doesn’t have a cost estimate to move the all the buildings, but a crude guess
from an previous staff member was that it could cost as much as $10 million to demo the
existing buildings, restore the creek through that area, and design, get permits, and construct a new maintenance shop, vehicle bays, fuel station, and parking area. If Council directs staff
to pursue that option, we can develop a cost estimate to do that work.
ENGEO explained that while more space for the creek is always helpful in terms of reducing
peak flows and reducing erosion, they will study the concepts they have created to see if they are adequate to address the creek’s hydrology issues.
Q. If the City developed both concepts (widening the creek in Las Trampas Valley, and
creating a separate channel in Wildhorse Valley) would it resolve the erosion and sediment
issues down-stream and in the 7.7 acre area? A. ENGEO will further develop the concepts to be able to answer that question. The intent of
the concepts is to reduce erosion, which will help resolve the sediment issues down-stream.
However, you can’t stop all erosion. Creeks naturally transport some sediment. Ideally, any
improvements made will limit erosion and sediment to natural levels.
Q. What are the rates of the high flows in the creek?
A. The analysis showed that the high flows were 1,000 cubic feet per second (CFS)
Q. Peak flow retention areas would be helpful. Are you looking at terraces or widened creek
channel? A. ENGEO needs to study it in more detail to determine which would be best.
Q. Studies indicate that S.F. Creek sedimentation is due to seismic influences. This may
change some assumptions.
Q. Species that are most endangered are often ones that depend on ephemeral habitat, which
is sometimes created by erosion. By solving the erosion problem are we taking away some of
this habitat?
A. Meandering creeks actually create ephemeral habitat. Regulatory agencies like creeks that
have the ability to meander.
Q. Is the project aimed at mitigating impacts to habitat, or creating habitat?
A. The concepts will create much more habitat then would be impacted.
Q. If we take water away from the existing creek channel in Wildhorse Valley to divert it to the new channel, would it deprive the existing channels vegetation?
A. Maybe. However, the existing creek channel isn’t really a riparian habitat. It is so erosive
and channelized that it doesn’t serve as riparian habitat. As it is currently, the channel has
almost no transition zone. Transition zones often provide high quality habitat. The concepts
would allow for transition zones.
Q. My top three concerns are: 1. Peak flow retention. 2. Steelhead habitat. 3. Sediment.
Q. Several participants voiced concern about getting funding through mitigation credits.
They explained that they wouldn’t want to mitigate projects that are destructive to theenvironment. They also said that there are requirements that herbicide be used to maintain
and control invasive plants.
Grassroots Ecology noted that both US Fish and Wildlife and CA Coastal Conservancy have
indicated that there could be grant opportunities for the type of improvements being proposed.
We should analyze the impacts of reducing the turf in Las Trampas Valley.
There was broad support from the meeting participants that the proposed concepts are on the right track and that we should continue developing the concepts.
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 28, 2017 SUBJECT: DOG PARKS
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss adding a new dog park and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee and staff regarding the appropriate location for a new dog park. 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.
In the spring of 2015, a Commission Ad Hoc Committee and staff explored other options for off
leash dog opportunities, including the shared-use model, which involves using an area, like a
baseball field, as a dog park for limited parts of the day. The City of Menlo Park had a shared use dog park at Nealon Park; however, their Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council eventually decided that the shared-use field was not optimal for athletic field users or dog
owners. The City of Menlo Park decided to pursue a dedicated, fenced dog park. For more
information on the shared-use dog park topic please refer to January 26, 2016 staff report in
Attachment A.
Another model staff and the Ad Hoc Committee explored was an unfenced shared-use dog park,
used by the City of Mountain View. Staff visited the shared-use sites, spoke with Mountain View
police and park staff, and found that the rules were not being followed. Off leash dogs didn’t stay
in the unfenced designated areas, nor did their owners adhere to the designated hours. The feedback from a July 30, 2015 community meeting was that residents preferred fenced, dedicated
dog parks.
As a result, the Commission concluded that staff should pursue fenced, dedicated dog parks, and
rather than piecemeal decision-making when park renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of optimal dog park locations within Palo Alto’s park system. During the Parks
Master Plan process, staff and the Ad Hoc Committee analyzed all areas of Palo Alto’s park
system for potential dog park locations. The results helped form the dog park policy and program
included in the draft Parks Master Plan:
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.
2
Program 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:
o Eleanor Pardee Park (North, .41 Acres)
o Bowden (North, .37 Acres)
o Greer Park (Improve existing) (South, .87 Acres)
o Peers Park (North, .73 Acres)
o Hoover (Improve existing) (South, 1 Acre)
o Robles (South, .47 Acres)
o Mitchell Park (Expand existing) (South, 1.2 Acres)
o Kingsley Island (North, .27 Acres)
o Werry Park (North, .31 Acres)
o Juana Briones Park (South, .47 Acres)
o Heritage (North, .27 Acres)
Locations with at least .25 acres that are not currently used for active or programmed recreation
were prioritized. Eleven sites have been identified as potential locations for dedicated dog parks.
Six 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
could 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.
For more information please refer to March 22, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission staff report in Attachment B.
Near-Term Dog Parks
Two of the recommended locations for dog parks, Eleanor Pardee Park and Bowden Park, were
recommended to be implemented in the near-term. Unfortunately, Bowden Park had an issue with public art in the only area suitable for a dog park. The challenges with relocating the public
art require additional research and funding, and make this site less ideal for a near-term dog park.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommended Peers Park as another alternative location for a
near-term dog park. Both Eleanor Pardee Park and Peers Park are located in north Palo Alto
(north of Oregon Expressway), which currently does not have any dog parks.
DISCUSSION
Community Meetings
On December 13, 2016, a community meeting was held to discuss the concept of adding a dog
park at Eleanor Pardee Park. Staff originally selected an area in the center of the park as the proposed location for the dog park. However, both Canopy and Audubon Society objected to this
location because they felt that dog urine will be harmful to the many oak trees along the
perimeter of the proposed location. They also felt that having a dog park would have a negative
3
impact to the wildlife in that natural area of the park. A large grass area near the edge of the park
adjacent to the fence line of residential homes was selected as an alternative location.
Approximately 70 people attended the meeting. About half of the participants spoke in favor of adding a dog park. The other half were against the idea of adding a dog park in the proposed
location. The common objections were that a dog park in this location would cause an undue burden on adjacent residents; a dog park needs to have a set-back/buffer from the homes bordering the park; the park is already heavily used and shouldn’t be overly programmed; and a dog park would create additional traffic, noise, and smell. On December 15, 2016, a community meeting was held to discuss the concept of adding a dog
park at Peers Park (Attachment C). Approximately 25 people attended the meeting. Most of the
participants supported the idea of adding a dog park. There was one family that spoke out against
it. They explained that they walk their dog at the park, often off-leash, but they like the park the way it is.
Budget
Currently, there is no dedicated funding source for building a dog park. However, staff identified
approximately $40k in an existing capital improvement project (CIP) that is dedicated to benches, signs, fences, and other park amenities, that could be used to build basic dog park amenities, such as fencing, drinking water, a double gate, and dog waste bag stations).
Recently, staff learned that a dog park would require certain American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) improvements that may raise the cost of building a dog park beyond the capabilities of the existing funds. However, the current proposed capital budget plan includes a CIP request to fund new dog parks. If the CIP is approved by Council in June, adequate funding would be
available July 2017.
Ad Hoc Committee Staff, the Dog Park Ad Hoc Committee, and two former Parks and Recreation Commissioners (who had previously served on the Dog Park Ad Hoc Committee) met on March 8, 2017 to
discuss adding a dog park. The Ad Hoc Committee and staff agree that adding a dog park at
Peers Park is appropriate, and that staff should proceed with the design phase.
Process and Approximate Timeline for Adding A Near-Term Dog Park Design of the dog park (1 to 2 months)
Commission recommendation to approve a Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO)
Council approval of the PIO
Planning Department Review (Up to 7 months) Solicit Bids and hiring contractor to build a dog park (3 months) Construction (3 weeks)
4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: January 26, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report
Attachment B: March 22, 2016 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report
Attachment C: Potential Location for Dog Park at Peers Park
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016
SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATE ON DOG PARKS
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in meeting the community’s dog park needs.
BACKGROUND The Commission has been interested in expanding the number of City dog parks for many years. Palo Alto has three dog parks: Greer Park (.12 acres), Hoover Park (.14 acres), and
Mitchell Park (.56 acres). The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in Palo Alto’s park system. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary, shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer Park, and Hoover Park. On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal, including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential sites. The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns.
1
a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that current off-
leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto are inadequate, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces, especially in North Palo Alto, dedicated for small dogs, and larger
spaces that allow large dogs to run, especially in North Palo Alto.
b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impacts to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They saidthis would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am). Approximately 75 people attended. The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports teams practice and compete. The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations. Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful. Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas. After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research. 1.Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, HooverPark, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see ifthere are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and eveninghours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of thefield at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the leastconflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experiencewith shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
2
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it
was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative
impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused
some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View
Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent. Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks
At the October 27, 2015 Commission meeting (Attachment A), staff discussed potential near-
term dedicated dog parks. Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc
Committee decided to explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be
implemented quickly and simply, with existing funds, while waiting for the Parks Master Plan to
be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee investigated a few options for locations for additional or
expanded dog parks that could be implemented in the near term.
1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. Itwould require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue the
possibility of using this site as a dog park.
3
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,570.3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff raised security concerns that no longer make this site viable as a dog park.
DISCUSSION
The Ad Hoc Committee working on dog parks recommends expanding the Mitchell Park Dog
Park, and continuing investigating the possibility of creating a new dog park at El Camino Park.
The unfenced, shared-use model, currently being used by the City of Mountain View, and
proposed by MIG as a possible recommendation in the Parks Master Plan, is outside the scope of
the Ad Hoc’s work. The Ad Hoc recommends further investigation and policy discussion around that option. The February Commission retreat may represent an opportunity for the Commission
to figure out the appropriate process for considering the unfenced, shared-use dog park concept,
including the role, if any, of an ad hoc committee.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: October 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report and Approved
Minutes of discussion on item 3
4
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2015
SUBJECT: SHARED USE DOG PARK PILOT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in meeting the community’s dog park needs.
BACKGROUND In the summer of 2009, staff hosted a community meeting about recreational opportunities for dog owners. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. The dog owners expressed a strong desire for off-leash dog recreation in all areas of Palo Alto to improve walkability and connections among neighbors; for more grass surfacing in off-leash areas; and for consideration of designated, non-peak hours for fenced athletic fields use by dog owners for off-leash recreation. The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in Palo Alto’s park system. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary, shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer Park, and Hoover Park (Attachment A). On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal, including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential sites.
1
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns.
a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that there are not
enough off-leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces dedicated to small dogs, and larger spaces that allow large dogs to run.
b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make a baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impact to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They saidthis would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SHARED-USE DOG PARK The Ad Hoc Committee researched what other communities have learned regarding shared-use dog parks. The Committee reviewed a summary of the 2009 Palo Alto community meeting, and the dog policies and rules for San Francisco and for dog parks throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Committee consulted with the Palo Alto and Menlo Park dog owners groups and city staff operating shared-use, off-leash dog parks in Menlo Park, San Carlos, and Cambridge, MA. The following are some important considerations for any shared-use dog park pilot learned from other communities: 1.SafetySafety of both people and dogs is an important consideration for all dog parks. While other communities have successfully allowed shared-use facilities without fencing, the Ad Hoc Committee believes a self-contained field will provide better control of the dogs and increase the comfort of nearby park users. Use rules must require appropriate supervision of dogs and children during shared-use hours and prohibit aggressive dog behavior. In addition, a waste cleanup plan should be in place before opening the pilot in order to protect other field users from abandoned dog waste. Rules should be prominently posted, and cleanup bags and trash cans should be provided. In addition, a double door entry will provide security as dogs enter and exit the facility. 2.SizeThe primary benefit of a shared-use facility for dog recreation is the potential for a grass-surfaced space of significant size. A shared field would provide dog owners legal access, during limited, underused hours, to a recreation space large enough to play fetch or just let their dogs run, while also distributing the impacts of dog wear over sufficient acreage to preserve the quality of the surfacing.
2
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Palo Alto’s existing dedicated dog parks are all small: Greer - .12 acres, Hoover - .14 acres and Mitchell - .5 acres. Both San Francisco and Menlo Park Recreation and Park Departments cited 10,000 square feet (approximately .25 acres) as the minimum acceptable size for a dedicated dog park, with San Francisco preferring a minimum of 30,000 sf (approximately .75 acres) and Menlo Park rating 1.5 acres or more as best. At Mitchell, the City’s largest dog park, a little less than half the surface is grass and the remainder is decomposed granite. Staff perennially reports problems maintaining the grass, due to overuse for its small coverage area. Users regularly complain of disruptions due to grass maintenance issues, but also strongly oppose eliminating this lone grass-surfaced area for off leash dogs.
3.LocationIdeally, a dog park should be located within a neighborhood to allow users to walk to the facility and build community around their shared interests, but sufficiently distant from residences so that noise and activity levels are no more disruptive to neighbors than typical park uses. It should not cause significant displacement of established recreational activities, including passive recreation, and it should not cause a detriment to the facility or surrounding environment such as digging and trampling. In addition, it naturally would be preferred to open a new dog park in an area of town that is currently underserved. If the goal is to test a large, temporary, shared-use area, options are limited to City-owned parks with adequate space to minimize the impacts of wear and with minimal new fencing requirements as fencing represents the primary start-up cost. Unfortunately, the only sites that currently fit that bill are the three proposed sites (Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover Park), all of which fall in the midtown, east-west corridor, already served by two small dog parks. The proposed pilot locations would accommodate fenced, shared-use areas sized as follows:
Baylands Athletic Center: Large field: --- 3.27 acres Small field: ---1.30 acres
Greer Park: --- 2.09 acres
Hoover Park: Inside baseball field: --- .96 acres Turf area outside baseball field: ---1.17 acres.
4.Costs
3
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
The primary expense of a new off-leash dog area is the purchase and installation of fencing to fully enclose the area. All three sites proposed have significant existing fencing that will help keep the cost of a temporary pilot to a minimum. All three would require a new double-gated entry. Hoover and the Baylands Athletic Center would need a negligible amount of new fence length. Greer would need more, but less than half the linear footage required to enclose the entire field area. Staff estimates new fencing costs, including double gated entries, as below. Staff is investigating temporary fencing as an alternative, but do not anticipate significant savings from that option. Baylands Athletic Center: $ 1,000. Greer Park: $ 21,350. Hoover Park (inside baseball field: $ 4,000. Hoover Park (turf outside baseball field: $ 18,775 Additional start-up costs include the installation of waste stations, signage and optional benches that will be the same regardless of location: Signs: approx. $ 250.00 each Waste stations: approx. $ 800.00 for two Benches: approx. $ 1,500.00 each There would be additional costs for water spigots for drinking water or additional cleanup alternatives, and those costs will vary by location. Beyond start-up costs, there would be marginal increases in ongoing maintenance costs in the form of increased staff time. 5.EnforceabilitySuccessful enforcement of rules and hours of use will be vital to justifying the compromises made by neighbors and other users. In other cities, dog owner groups have successfully minimized violations through spot monitoring and peer pressure. San Carlos, however, reported that its dog owners group dissolved quickly, leaving the City to fund all expenses. Where engaged and organized, dog groups have managed waste cleanup and ensured that owners addressed aggressive and loud dogs immediately through community oversight during use hours and volunteer sector-by-sector cleanup in advance of non-dog uses. In recent years, the Menlo Park dog owners’ group has switched over to a professional cleanup service hired and funded by the dog group through user donations at an approximate cost of $6,000 per year. In addition to behavior and clean-up, it will be important to communicate and enforce rain closures for this new user group. Current enforcement of leash laws in Palo Alto operates on a complaint-only basis. Enforcement officers are stretched thin, and according to Animal Services, cannot guarantee stepped up enforcement for a pilot. The Ad Hoc Committee have looked at targeted oversight using contracted staff for a pilot program, but in the long term, an expanded leash law enforcement, City-wide, will be vital to securing and maintaining 4
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
community buy-in for a permanent shared-use site and additional dedicated dog parks. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City develop and budget for a plan of increased enforcement of the leash law City-wide. As for waste clean-up, the City could request that the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group coordinate, manage, and fund a professional clean-up service similar to Menlo Park’s practice. It has been suggested, however, that the City maintains recreation facilities at no cost to other users (un-reserved picnic sites, Skate Park, playgrounds, etc.) and that dog owners should similarly be entitled to services within our city. Others contend that organized field users contribute to maintenance through field rental fees that give them exclusive use at reserved times. Given public sanitation concerns regarding shared use, a professional clean-up strategy may be advantageous.
It would cost approximately $21,000 to hire a contract security firm to enforce the rules and
clean up the dog waste at one shared-use Dog Park for a 6-month pilot program. This is based on 12 hours per week for a period of 26 weeks.
6.Long-term UseThe Parks Master Plan consultants, MIG, and other cities reported that in many cases, once a pilot is opened, it is very difficult to discontinue that use. Furthermore, once regular use is established, there is often an increase in off-hour use of the site when not otherwise occupied. In Menlo Park, the dog owners’ group was helpful in spot checking for off-hour use and talking with violators about the risk of permanent closure. The concern about the ability to curtail off-leash use at the end of the pilot, and the close proximity of the affordable sites suitable for the pilot, are reasons for caution about opening multiple pilot sites. Nonetheless, dual pilots at both the Baylands Athletic Center and a neighborhood park, could provide useful data about usage and the desirability of quite different models – one very large, mostly single use, facility with high fencing at the outskirts of town versus a smaller, walkable site within a popular neighborhood park that currently serves many diverse uses. 7.Metrics and RulesBefore initiating a six-month pilot program it is important to develop criteria that will allow the City to collect and monitor incoming data associated with the pilot program. Based on our discussions with other cities and review of their pilot programs, the Ad Hoc Committee drafted a list of criteria to help measure the success and/or failure of a six-month off leash dog pilot (Attachment B) and proposed rules for use of the facility (Attachment C).
5
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
8.Pros and Cons of Potential Sites
Location Pros Cons
Baylands
Athletic Center Proposed Size: Large Field: 3.27 acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $ 1,000.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt.
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required
Size: Significantly larger than other options – better capacity and reduced maintenance impacts.
Location: High fencing – so even “jumpers” can safely use. Little noise impact – no adjacent residences. No nearby playground. Less risk of inviting unauthorized use due to remote location.
Location: Not in neighborhood:
•Users will more likely drivethan walk, possiblyexacerbating morningcongestion atEmbarcadero/101 intersection;
•Harder for dog owners group tospot check compliance;
•Less community buildingamong neighbors;
•May invite more non-residentusers.Adjacent to delicate Baylands ecosystem – errant dogs could pose threat. If pilot extends beyond 6 months, potential construction of the Flood Control project and the Golf Course renovation could impede access to the site.
6
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Location Pros Cons
Hoover Park Inside the baseball field Proposed Size: .96 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $4,000. Turf Area outside the baseball field Proposed size: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required for inside the baseball field area High costs for outside the baseball field area.
Location: Walkable to neighborhood. Lots of current dog use in and outside of existing dog park:
•Shared use pilot would allowcurrent users to become “legal” during open hours;
•Increased attention to enforcement, maintenance andcleanup could improve conditions for other users.
Location: Frequent use of field by Key School. Nearby playground. Highest potential impact on others:
•Heavily used community park;
•Close proximity to multi-unithousing.
Fencing: Existing fencing is less than 4 feet high in outfield - may have high risk of “escapees.”
Size: Smallest option, yet high current unauthorized dog use:
•May be difficult to get dogowners to stay in fenced area;
•Heavy dog usage would have agreater impact on this smallfield.
7
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Location Pros Cons
Greer Park Proposed Size: 2.09 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $21,350.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Location: Little noise impact. Walkable to neighborhood. Few adjacent residences. Existing dedicated dog park is smallest in the city – currently attracts mostly one-off users (and professional dog walkers) rather than gathering of dog folks. Larger space could allow better community building opportunities.
Size: Midsized option
Fencing/Cost: Biggest fencing need of all the options. Permanent fencing could change the character of the adjacent picnic area.
Location: Current off-leash use is low – pilot may attract more usage during unauthorized times. Nearby playground.
DISCUSSION Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am). Approximately 75 people attended. See Attachment D for notes from the community meeting. The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports teams practice and compete. The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations. Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we 8
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful. Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas.
After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research. 1.Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, HooverPark, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see ifthere are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and eveninghours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of thefield at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the leastconflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experiencewith shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of
their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were
also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal
Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated
dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent.
9
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Palo Alto Consider Permanent Dog Parks
Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to
explore opportunities for permanent dog parks that could be implemented quickly without investing too much money, nor waiting for the Parks Master Plan to be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee are investigating few options for locations for permanent or
expanded dog parks (See Attachment E).
1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. It
would require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park.
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,575.3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff advises that they may need to use this landscaped area for future expansion
and that they have some security concerns because this is the site where the City gets its
power. Another complication is that Utilities pays a significant amount of money to theCity’s general fund for the lease of this site. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed shared-use pilot locations Attachment B: Metrics for evaluation of a pilot dog park
Attachment C: Proposed rules for pilot dog park facility Attachment D: Notes from July 30, 2015 community meeting on dog parks Attachment E: Proposed permanent or expanded dog parks
10
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
1
Greer Park
Proposed size: 2.09 acres. Estimate fencing costs: $21,350
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT AJanuary 26, 2016
2
Baylands Athletic Center
Red Area: proposed size: 3.27 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000
Yellow Area: Proposed size: 1.3 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
3
Hoover Park
Red area: .96 acres; Fencing costs: $4,000
Yellow area: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT B
METRICS FOR EVALUATION
Listed below is how we will be monitoring activity and ways with which we will gather the
pertinent information:
1.Place comment box on site with pen and cards for information gathering and/or post an
email address to send in comments.
2.Spot monitor on site during designated off leash hours to track compliance.
3.Poll participating dog owners on site about off leash opportunity:
a.How did participants get to off leash location? Walk, drive, other?
b.How often are participants using the off leash opportunity (daily, once a week,
etc.).
c.Is the location desirable? How far from their residence?
4.How compliant are dog owners on dog waste clean up?
5.What is the condition of the field/grass after the off leash pilot (take “before” photos to
establish baseline and track with additional photos monthly.)
6.What type and amount of additional maintenance and costs are required to keep
field/grass in proper condition? Weekly, monthly?
7.How many off leash dog owners are participating weekly. (How will this data be
obtained? Staff can do a monthly count when they take photos. Perhaps Dog Owners
Group could keep sign-ins or provide spot counts. Maybe Commissioners?)
8.What is the nature of the complaints, if any? How many complaints per week, per
month, during the six- month pilot? (Daren will track via an excel spreadsheet). How
will the Commission decide how many complaints is too many?
9.What additional city staff and outside vendors (waste clean up service) are required
with regard to hours, costs associated with keeping off leash dog hours?
10.How cooperative is the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group in self -policing violators of off
leash dog rules?
11.How do we handle enforcement of non-compliance?
12.How do we provide notice of field closures? Add field closure hotline to signage?
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT C
RULES OF USE
1.Dogs are permitted off leash ONLY Monday thru Friday, 8:00am-10:00am in this
designated location ONLY.
2.Dogs must be licensed, vaccinated, and wearing a collar with ID.
3.Dogs must be leashed when entering and leaving the off leash area.
4.Dogs in heat or under 4 months of age are not permitted in off-leash area.
5.Dog owner must be in control of dog(s) at all times. Aggressive dogs must leave the off
leash area immediately.
6.Dog waste must be picked up. Please dispose of dog waste in the containers provided.
7.Do not leave dogs unattended at any time.
8.All dog bites must be reported to the City of Palo Alto Animal Services.
9.Supervise small children during off leash hours.
10.No more than three dogs per owner allowed during off leash hours.
11.No food or alcohol is allowed during designated off leash dog hours.
12.If there is a field closure there will be no off lease dog usage until City of Palo Alto
notifies the field is re-opened.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no liability for the users of this area. Use these facilities at your
own risk.
1
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Attachment D
Notes from Public Meeting
Topic: Pilot Shared Use Dog Park
Date: July 30, 2015 6:30pm to 7:30pm
Location: Lucy Stern Ballroom
•75 people in attendance – 4 commissioners & 4 staff
o Why 8-10 Monday-Friday? Teacher is excluded from use. Include early evening after
recreation activities.
o Big need for after work crowd.
o What about using the former landfill for an off-leash dog park? Very large area that could be
used for a dog park.
o Anything around the Baylands will disturb the wildlife. Dogs off-leash around the former
landfill (currently Byxbee Park) will disturb the natural wildlife.
o Real opportunity at Byxbee Park. People and animals can enjoy. Another small fenced yard
in a park will get too much use and it will smell bad. 60% of households have dogs. The time
is now to plan the use of Byxbee Park to be fenced and have multi-use.
o Another resident concerned about birds.
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o There is very little life on Byxbee right now, so the time is now to establish a dog area to not
disturb the flyway.
o Resident likes the ideas. South Palo Alto has the only dog recreation. He would like
something in North Palo Alto.
o Another resident would like the after work hours, which could be after recreation times.
o Another resident likes the idea of after hours. A dog friendly neighborhood park area or
areas. Reduce people driving to locations. Every park should have a designated area.
o Greer Park is a great choice for shared use. Lots of dogs in the neighborhood. No real place
to go. The existing dog park is a joke. The current dog park is being used by people out of
town. Phase 4 area could be used that wouldn’t conflict with athletic field use.
o We need large area as well as small neighborhood off-leash areas so that dogs can socialize.
o The least offensive would be the Baylands Athletic Center. The birds aren’t near the athletic
fields. Byxbee Park could be used where people walk the trails. Doesn’t see the need to have
big and small. They should be able to socialize together in one area.
o Just having morning hours won’t satisfy the need. Fields are used by sports teams until
sunset. Children are environmentally sensitive and important, too. Shared use has a lot of
problems in respect to effective use. Other parks in the region with shared use dog parks do
not have good success. Seen lots of evidence of their shared use dog parks having harmful
effects on the condition of the fields.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o No situation is perfect. Nealon Park (shared use site) can do the professional clean up service
for $6K. At the end of the day, holes and cleanup is minimal.
o After the shared use plan is over, maybe we can try to choose a site that best for everyone
and get a stable, dedicated dog park open all hours..
o Resident doesn’t agree to use baseball fields at Baylands. Recipe for disaster for the kids.
North Palo alto needs a dog park. Mitchell and Hoover exist for south Palo
Alto. North Palo Alto needs a walking distance park. Why not Johnson park?
Hoover Park baseball field is already separated. The yellow portion on the map
(the area outside of the baseball field) could be only for dog parks.
o There are lots of kids in Palo Alto. People are able to walk in a park safely because there are
so many dogs. Hoover Park is always being used for everything. After work, people that live
nearby want to be able to interact with their kids and play sports. Unfortunately, kids and big
dogs don’t always interact well.
o Segregating large and small dogs. There are tragic examples of not doing this. Shoreline Park
has good results with separated areas for large and small dogs.
o Lots of dog owners let their dogs run up to people on bikes, don’t clean up after their dogs.
This will be an attraction for people to come out and let their dogs run out. Parents have to be
concerned with off leash dogs when visiting a park. Small dog parks smell bad.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o Supports the idea of people being able to walk their dogs to their local park. Space for dogs
in several parks would be a good idea. One park is not appropriate. Dogs need an open space
to run. Comparable to humans on 101 during rush hour. Times of usage are important in
order to have a shared use space with wider flexibility. Supports morning and evening times.
In order to establish the concept of sharing, not every single park has to have a sport held in
it. We have enough parks to designate a non-sports field for dog users. Equal number of dog
owner and non-dog owners. Statistics show that there is a greater risk of being hit by a ball
than bit by a dog.
o Morning hours will be very tough for parents to make it. It’s not dog owners vs. kids or
parents.
o A lot of the tension happens when there are shorter hours in the day and when its dark.
o Dogs, children and dog owners should share. Parks should have an area for just kids, and an
area just for kids and dogs.
o We have to find a balance where kids can recreate safely.
o A lot of people can’t get there from 8am-10am, but it doesn’t mean that every place should
be open all day long. Not every park should serve every need. Some in the morning, some in
the evening.
o Dog group founder appreciates the meeting. Advocate for a decent size fence for dogs of
different sizes. He thinks in the long term it will be better, and he would like an experiment.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
It’s important to have morning and evening hours so everyone isn’t trying to get in at once.
Hoover works well to use existing dog park as small dog and the new for bigger dogs.
o There should be a place for dogs in each park on the power point presentation (Greer,
Hoover, and Baylands Athletic Center). There should be a fence that comes up and down so
that people can share.
o Experience at Nealon with shared use dog park. Her son has been on a baseball team for
years. At least once per week he steps in poop. Nealon is a failure. In Palo Alto, the off leash
law isn’t enforced now, so will they start enforcing them now? Having dogs on sports fields
has huge implications. Field damage, potholes, dog waste. There are also other associated
costs-- will the city pick up the cost of repairing the fields that are damaged by dogs?
o CPA has poor enforcement. Animal services said they cannot routinely patrol the parks to
enforce the leash law. Repair costs have not been factored into the numbers shared tonight. It
is challenging to re-grow grass in dead areas of the turf.
o Seattle has large dog parks two/five acre dog parks. Parks with small and larger dog areas are
more successful. Dedicate space and have flexible hours. Have you reached out to others that
have had success with dedicated dog parks?
o To hear there will not be enforcement from Animal Services in concerning. Also concern that
such large portions of the parks are being proposed for shared use. Concerned of additional
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
traffic and how dogs are let out of vehicles off leash. His own children have been affected by
dog use and owners are not very apologetic.
o Have we considered Seale Park? Used for soccer and grass is clumpy. It would be better
since it has three sides. Is noise a real issue? Can the hours be pushed to 6am? Or extend the
hours in the evening so that afternoon users could use park lights.
o COMMISIONERS COMMENTS- Hetterley- There aren’t many parks with a lot of acreage.
In order to dedicate a park year round, it would most likely be a smaller park. Would it be
better to have a smaller dedicated dog park or limited hours in a larger site?
o Alma and El Camino slated for being a park? Why was the area taken off the table? We were
not allowed to develop it due to creek setback.
o Bags at the sites?
o Byxbee has an endangered species there, the burrowing owl and ridgeway rail.
o Sometimes dog walkers park in front of residents’ driveways at Hoover Park.
o Byxbee would be a good site if it were fenced off.
o An apartment resident adjacent to Hoover Park noted that the apartments accept dogs so its
beneficial for many of the people who live in the apartments. If there were lights at Hoover it
would allow longer use of the site.
o Neither choice of a small dedicated dog park, or limited shared use site is a good idea and a
vote isn’t right.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o Small spaces and too many dogs in small spaces is not good.
o Are we talking about the pilot program or the whole solution? Opportunities for big areas are
limited.
o Likes the idea of large spaces. Also likes the idea of large areas to build communities.
o Agrees that small areas can be good dog parks, but if its as small as .1 acres it is not worth it.
o People come up to dog owners, elderly, families and ask if they can play and pet the dogs. A
form of socialization and community.
o The City of Mountain view has made ALL of their parks shared use parks at some time
during the day.
o Mountain views off leash 6am to 10am and its not the entire park and its away from the
playground area.
o Expand the thinking outside the box of other available locations . EX. Lucie Stern can be
turned into a dog park with some fencing. Partner with companies in PA with lawn areas to
use their properties as off leash dog use.
o Loma Verde area behind Sterling Canal near utilities property where they keep their stuff.
Dogs are compatible with native plants. Some teams are not from Palo Alto and excluding
Palo Alto residents to use the parks in their city. Greer Park especially being used by out of
towners. Real unfriendly place.
Additional Comments made after the public meeting
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
-Comment re: Greer Park. It's right around the corner from PAAS (Palo Alto Animal Services)
and once they get new management in charge perhaps that person would allow the dog socializer
volunteers to bring adoptable dogs to the dog park to mingle with neighbors. That kind of
visibility is an incredible tool for getting the word out about shelter dogs.
I also like the idea of enclosing the field part of Seale Park for shared use. This park already has
3 sides enclosed and many people take their dogs there to play and socialize.
During the open comment section I mentioned there is a part of Greer Park that is essentially
unused that could be idea for a dog park. It's the section at the corner of the W Bayshore and
Colorado. It's sort of rolling hillocks with a few trees and several picnic benches. The only
activity I have ever seen on the grassy area is people playing with their dogs. I think you
mentioned it is a new area (I don't know as I have only lived here 4 years). It is called Scott
Meadow after Charles Scott. (BTW he lives down the street from me and I have even met him.)
This area could be enclosed perhaps including one of the picnic table sections and excluding the
other. It's far away from any homes, and is a friendly looking spot as opposed to the strip on the
other side of Colorado. It could even be designated as the large dog park and the small one that
already exists in Greer Park could become the small dog park. While that existing dog park gets
very little use, I believe it would become more attractive if this part of the park brought more
dogs with their people.
-Your staff were doing a good job of taking notes, so we are not going to comment on everything
brought up, but we would like to summarize our main thoughts subsequent to the meeting.
1. While there are pros and cons to any program, we still feel that it is important to have at leastone Shared Use Dog Park in Palo Alto until more permanent and dedicated, larger dog parks can
be developed. Two or three would be better than one, but we would settle for one at this time.
The one with the fewest cons appears to be Hoover Park outside the baseball field. This will
detract the least from existing recreation for children and others. The fencing cost is small
compared to the cost of acquiring any land in Palo Alto. Without both morning and evening hours, any shared use dog park will concentrate too many dogs into too little time and space.
2. The need for dog recreation in Palo Alto north of Oregon Expressway will not be met by any
of these proposals, so the highest priority for any future dog parks in Palo Alto should be in the
north. As we have discussed before, a relatively easy and low cost facility could be an artificial turf park within Rinconada Park. It could avoid all of the negative factors mentioned by the
concerned citizens who showed up at the meeting, both those for more/better dog parks, and
those not so sure.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
3.In spite of the concerns about birds and endangered species, we feel that a portion of Bixby
Park should be fenced and set aside for a new dog park. A fenced area would still mean a net
positive gain for wildlife in the Palo Alto bayfront at Bixby Park. This should be done in a manner to minimize adverse impact of the park on wildlife.
4. Palo Alto Dog Owners stands ready to work with you and your staff in the development of
strong rules and strategies to minimize the impact of a shared use park on other park uses and to
make our facilities a model for best practices. We are willing to hold meetings and publicize the rules to maximize compliance.
On behalf of Palo Alto Dog Owners, thank you again for putting on such a well-run meeting last
evening. There were lots of excellent comments.
-1. Tables and benches in current dog parks: I appreciate the idea of having those, but what this
means in reality is that dog parks attract people who sit at the tables or on the benches and play
cards or chat and not supervise their dogs. I see people in Hover park dog park every day reading
on the benches while their dogs are left unsupervised. It's even worse in Mitchell Park where
people play cards at the tables rather than pay attention to their dogs. We've had many
encounters with aggressive dogs left to their own devices. Because of this, we don't go to any of
the dog parks any more and instead use the shared fields off leash. The irony is that people that
have their dogs off leash "illegally" have well trained dogs that hardly ever cause problems.
2.I think we all need to be tolerant to each group of stakeholders. What nobody brought up
tonight is that baseball at Hover park is incredibly loud, much louder than the dogs. There is also
litter left behind every time and parking is a nightmare during baseball hours. Every interest
group comes with their challenges and we need to be acknowledge all of it.
3.Shared hours: I'm really torn with this one. I like the idea per se, but I'm worried that this will
mean people start calling animal control 5 min after the off-leash window runs out because they
can. People are very opinionated and I'm worried that this would create an opportunity that
would backfire on the dog community.
4. Small dog areas all over the city are a bad idea. We need large areas where big dogs can run
and be exercised plus the small areas we have right now are already overrun with little dogs and
owners that don't supervise them. Separating small from big dogs is a good idea, we have met
lots of aggressive little dogs in Palo Alto.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
5. It really comes down to this: there are very responsible dog owners in Palo Alto, who need
space to run with their dogs and exercise them (people at Hover park even pick up other dogs'
poop if they see it). But there also totally irresponsible owners who ruin it for everyone. Perhaps
a "good citizen dog pass" could help weeding out irresponsible dog owners and they would not
be allowed in shared spaces? Also, nobody needs to worry about their children if the dog owner
is responsible and the dog well trained (mind you, children should also be trained how to and
always supervised when approaching a dog!). Howard Hoffman has set up a good group of
people already if this could be used as a starting point.
6. A city in Italy has created a DNA library from all dogs in the city and whenever there is poop
left without cleaning up, they take a sample and test which dog it was. The owner then has to pay
for the DNA test and a clean up fee. This is extreme and probably unnecessary in Palo Alto, but
could perhaps ease everyone's fear about people not cleaning up after their dog. I'd sign up for
this voluntarily as a gesture of good will.
-I owned a Vizsla for 14.5 years. He passed away last year due to cancer. Vizslas, German
ShortHairs, Weimeraners are all hunting dogs. They are most happy being off-leash and looking
for birds. Vizslas were bred to hunt, point and flush quail and pheasant. They are extremely high energy and remain that way their entire lives. Joey was my first and only dog that I raised and trained from a puppy. I learned a lot about dogs and dog behavior by reading, training with
various trainers and being consistent with my dog.
My biggest problem was finding a big off-leash area to run my dog. The dog pens in Palo Alto are way too small. My dog was most happy investigating his environment. When he was a puppy I would bring him over to the Mitchell Park dog park and it was a nice place for him to
socialize with other dogs. However as soon as he turned into an adult dog he was no longer
interested in going, preferring to be off-leash.
So, I looked for areas to run him, finding the Woodside Horse Park (which I paid $500.00/year just to walk him around the perimeter of the park) and a dog walker that would drive him over to
the beach for a 3 hour run. That was $35.00/time. Overnights with the dog walker was $60.00
per night. I invested a lot of time getting him to be a socialized dog. However, he still turned
out to be an anxious, reactive dog and I soon found I could not trust him in certain circumstances. One such instance was at Gunn High School when Joey decided to chase a person in an electric wheelchair who was on the walking path by the school. I knew then I could
not take him there off-leash unless there were barriers. Joey became very protective of me which
I could do nothing to stop.
I think the exercising of dogs in Palo Alto need to be comprehensive. I think that the more places you have to exercise dogs then less dogs in each location. So, there should be morning/evening
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
times at most neighborhood parks, and there should be a dedicated dog park that is so big you
can walk for an hour in it. There is no place for people to walk their dogs off-leash in a secured
area without bikes and horses interfering. When you get a group of people in a park or a dog
park they have a tendency to ignore their dogs behavior because they are too busy talking to each other. When you are in a secured dog area, you can be walking and training your dog at the
same time. I used this approach to train Joey in recall. I used a whistle and he was very good at
coming to me.
The old dump at the Baylands is a perfect place for an off=leash site. It is rustic (dogs don’t care that there no lawn), it is fenced and close to bathrooms. It is also relatively close to people in
Palo Alto. I don’t think there are any birds nesting in it as well. You don’t have to worry about
dogs digging it up or the smell or the noise. A sign at the entrance telling people that it is a dog
exclusive park and that young children probably shouldn’t be in there.
Athletic fields and very small and busy parks probably should not have any off-leash activity as
it seems to be too stressful for the neighbors and dogs have a tendency to dig and leave poop on
the field. People are not particularly consistent in cleaning up after their dog.
The biggest problem with dogs are their owners. People just don’t understand dogs and their behavior. They will ignore them when they are annoying people or other dogs or when they are
wanting to fight other dogs. These problems can crop up anywhere because people don’t have a
good understanding of dogs. I have seen kids chased by dogs because they started running and
they were small (dogs have a strong prey drive) and I have seen fights between owners because
of bad dog behavior. I have seen people ignore the responsibility of cleaning up after their dog (a lot!). So at all the parks you should have bags available and a place to dispose of the dog
poop. It would be nice to offer classes in owning a dog. In fact that would be a good thing to
teach children in school (how to approach dogs or dog etiquette).
The one last thing that there should be in Palo Alto is consistent availability of police officers in case you need someone. I have heard of fights at the dog park where a man picked up a black
and tan coonhound and threw it to the ground. Police were called but they got there too late.
The man had fled. So, having a protocol on when to call someone would be good.
Well, I hope that this information helps. Not every dog is a ball dog that just runs after balls. Dogs don’t need a nice lawn to run on. They don’t care where they are. Dogs that are untrained
need an enclosed area to keep them from getting into trouble. They also need an area just
dedicated to dogs — only.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Attachment E
Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks
Colorado Utilities Substation -landscaped area This grass area is approximately 1 acre and is fenced on one side. It is located across the street
from Greer Park.
Size: Approximately 1 acre
Cost: Approximately $15,000.
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Mitchell Park Expanded Dog Park
The area outlined in red is the existing dog park
The area outlined in green is the proposed expanded dog park area.
Size: Increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21 acres.
Cost: Approximately $9,575.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
El Camino Park- Southern Undeveloped Area
The area outlined in red is the potential dog park location.
Size: Approximately .77 acres
Cost: Approximately $15,000
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Another photo of the potential El Camino Park Dog Park
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Taken from the Approved Minutes of October 27, 2015
3.Discussion on the Shared Use Dog Park Pilot Program.
Daren Anderson: Just one second. Let me pull the materials.
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. We have some speaker cards. If anyone has not filled out
a speaker card for this, please do so now.
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf.
I'm here tonight to seek your guidance regarding the shared-use dog parks,
basically your feedback on how we're going to meet the community's dog park needs. At the last Commission meeting, I had provided an update on this topic where we covered the vast majority of the background in this staff report. I'll
gloss over that and move on to the discussion section. As I mentioned in my
previous update, Staff had hosted a community meeting July 30, 2015 to collect
feedback specifically on the shared-use concept. The vast majority of the
participants were dog owners advocating for dog parks and generally expressed
dissatisfaction with the limited hours. Our proposal had Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at these sites, Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center and
Hoover Park. The feedback was that morning hours just aren't enough. That's not
going to be adequate. To be successful, (a), you've got to make them morning and
evening at least, and it's got to be more than one site. One site's inadequate to be
successful. There were a small number of participants who attended, who were
park neighbors, who said "We don't want a dog park near our house. There's
parking issues. There's dog waste issues. There's unwanted confrontations with
children and dogs off-leash." There were also some participants who voiced
concerns about potential impacts to the fields themselves. These are athletic users
saying, "There's incompatibility between having dogs off-leash and a contained
athletic facility." One of the meeting participants mentioned that City of Mountain
View had recently made a number of their parks off-leash areas. After this public meeting, the ad hoc committee did some additional research. One was to verify
what our current recreational use is brokered at those three sites, Greer, Hoover
and the Baylands Athletic Center, and determine if we'd have conflict between
evening use dog off-leash and athletic use. Unsurprisingly, there was conflicts at
all three sites with the exception or at least the least amount of impact for the
yellow area in Hoover Park. That outfield area was the least impacted if we had
evening and morning off-leash hours, if we did a pilot there. The other kind of
follow-up research that staff had done was to reach out to Mountain View, talk to
their staff, and see what lessons they learned from their entire experience with
these off-leash areas that they recently instituted. My interview of staff brought
out some interesting facts. One was that they started this pilot program in June
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
2014, made it permanent in May 2015. Only one of their nine off-leash areas is a
dedicated dog park; that's Shoreline Park. The other eight are off-leash areas that
is unfenced. Only one of those eight is on an athletic field. The rest are kind of
passive sections of a park. The majority of the complaints that they received were
about non-observance with their hours and days, that people were bringing their
dogs when they weren't really allowed to or outside of the areas that they were
allowed to. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs
approach their children. Mountain View's got a contract with a security firm that
performs enforcement on two of their sites. Their staff explained that the success
of the program really depended on that enforcement component. They also
explained a little bit of the process they went through, that their parks and
recreation commission had not advocated for doing a pilot program, but rather
said, "You should research and look for dedicated sites." Their Council directed staff to move ahead with the one-year pilot. After the pilot which had some mixed
results, some very positive, some against the program, the commission said, "We
should extend this pilot for a year with additional enforcement." Their Council
disagreed and said please proceed in making it permanent. Staff recently learned
some additional news about Menlo Park's experience with shared-use dog parks.
Since 2005, the softball field at Nealon Park has been a shared-use site. That is
from Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Recently the Menlo Park
Recreation Commission identified some concerns about the field conditions at the
site. Their City Council concurred and basically said that the joint use was not
optimal for either user group and approved a CIP to find a dedicated spot. This
November, they're having a public meeting to see if they can relocate what they
had as that shared-use site for a dedicated spot somewhere either in that park or
another. Some of these challenges that we've encountered, both in our public
meeting and some of our outreach to other agencies, led the ad hoc committee to
explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be implemented
quickly without investing too much money nor waiting necessarily for the Master
Plan to be completed. Give me just one second to pull up the ... This was in your
staff report. This first site is across from Greer Park; it's called Colorado Avenue
Utility Substation. This is the landscaped area just outside it. It's about an acre, .96 acres to be precise. It would require about 600 feet of fencing which would
cost about $15,000. There's parking available on the street side, and it's close
proximity to neighborhoods. There are a few challenges with this site. The
Utilities Department has informed us that they may need this site for future
expansion, that is, they're constrained on the land they have and there's a
possibility they might need to use this and they're reluctant to give it up. They
also had some concerns about security. This is an area where the City gets a
tremendous amount of its power. Having people very close to the fence line was
potentially an issue for them. Lastly, the Utilities Department pays a significant
amount of money to lease that land. There'd be an impact to the General Fund; if
we were to take it over for a dog park. They'd no longer be contributing that
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
money. However, we are going to remain diligent in looking to see if this is still
an option. CSD will continue to pursue it. This next site is Mitchell Park. The
idea is can we expand Mitchell Park. The red polygon is our existing dog park. It
is about .56 acres. We, with very minimal costs, could extend the fence line to
that green polygon, which takes you from .56 to 1.21 acres. This would only cost
about $9,500. The last site we're looking at—these three sites are not exhaustive.
These are three that the ad hoc committee and staff could find that seemed to fit
the paradigm of not very expensive, could be implemented potentially quickly if
we clear some hurdles. This last site is El Camino Park. This is undeveloped area
of parkland just outside. Of course, the photo here is not that helpful. Just to the
left of that red polygon that you see is the softball field. There's a fence line that
separates it. That's kind of the park proper to the left. This undeveloped area is
just largely mulch, and there's utilities on site. If we fenced off this little area, you would gain about .77 acres of a dog park at about $15,000 cost. We did reach out
to Utilities and found out they didn't have a conflict. We could work around their
access needs. However, Planning advised staff that there are plans for a future
transit improvement that may incorporate changes to this area. CSD staff is in
communication with Planning to see if we can work around that. That concludes
my presentation. I defer to the ad hoc committee to see if they have anything
they'd like to add.
Commissioner Hetterly: Sure. I would just add, what we're really looking for
today is feedback from you all on what should be our next step. Should we be
continuing to think about a shared-use option, in which case Hoover seems the
only place that's really workable in terms of the hours and for trying to set it up for
success. As you can see looking at the picture, that does take up a big chunk of
the park for some hours of the days. We'd like your thoughts on that. Also, these
three sites, as Daren said, we're not looking to preempt the Master Plan process in
any way, but we're really trying to find something that we can do in the near term
to expand our off-leash dog opportunities. These seem some places where, short
of a CIP since they're a much smaller investment, we may be able to open
something at least for the interim until we're able to find something more permanent or maybe one of these possibilities could become a permanent option in
the future. On this one at El Camino Park in particular, like I said, all of them
we're not proposing any improvements aside from fencing and a gate and a poop
bag station, maybe a bench. Who knows. They could be interim projects that
could be easily removed later for future use. This one, this Planning project,
they're talking about extending Quarry Road through to the transit center, which of
course will have all sorts of its own issues since that's parkland. It doesn't seem
like something that they're going to break ground on in the next six months, so
why wouldn't we go ahead and use that space? I'd like any reaction from you all
(crosstalk).
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Who owns the transit center itself?
Commissioner Crommie: Do we need community input?
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, we will. I wanted to get one clarification. The transit
center there, just to the right of the red line, who controls that?
Mr. Anderson: I'll have to look into that and get back to you.
Chair Reckdahl: Is that City land do you know?
Mr. Anderson: I don't.
Chair Reckdahl: We have some speakers here. First, we have Howard Hoffman.
Howard, you have two minutes.
Howard Hoffman: Pardon me?
Chair Reckdahl: You have two minutes.
Mr. Hoffman: Thank you very much to the staff and to the Commission for at
least recognizing that if we're not going to go ahead with a shared-use facility, that
we really need at least some sort of interim dog park improvements until the
Master Plan. We're optimistic that that's going to identify multiple locations. Palo
Alto dog owners would be happy to see all of these. The people that have dogs
running off-leash right now all over Palo Alto are not an asset to the community.
It would be an asset to have one or more of these sites enclosed whether it's the
shared-use facility at Hoover Park or any of these. We do appreciate that you're
working on this and recognize that it's long overdue. We just hope that—we're not
going to endorse any one particular option. The one other option that I would like
to hold out there, which I didn't see in here, there's the part of Rinconada Park. Of
course, the dog use facilities are especially in north Palo Alto. Rinconada Park back by the power substation there, there's an area I think in the Master Plan for
that park that was identified for bocce ball perhaps. I think we've got bocce ball
somewhere else. It's a small area, but it could be with artificial turf. We don't
have any artificial turf parks being discussed here. That does give you another
option over dirt or decomposed granite or over grass. Grass needs to be fairly
large. I think that some of you are familiar with the Mountain View artificial turf
park for dogs, and that's worked out really well. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Howard. Next we have Amarad Acharia.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Amarad Acharia: Hi. I'm Amarad Acharia. I'd like to appreciate and thank the
staff for taking the effort to put this together. The two things I would like to point.
Centralized parks, wonderful to have them when there's nothing else available, but
they take up the opportunity of intercommunity socialization. I mean, largely I
meet my neighbors when I have kids and I take them to the park or if I have a dog
and I go with the dog for walking. Those are largely the only times I get to meet
my neighbors. Otherwise, I'm just living isolated and have relationships
elsewhere. Having parks that are within communities provide that opportunities.
It comes with all the other constraints; I understand that. We do have parks,
Rinconada for example, for people living on the northern side of town. That does
have some room that could be taken advantage of to provide such an opportunity.
Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus, you are next.
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I'm going to speak as a resident who owns three
dogs right now. One of them is probably not going to last much longer, and then
I'll say something about environmental issues wearing my environmental hat.
First, I find that dog parks provide a huge service to the community, especially
when there is no fence around them. I have to say that it brings the community to
the park. It brings people together, and it creates an opportunity for people whose
children are already not at home. They don't socialize with their kids; they
socialize with their dogs. That is very evident in our neighborhood. There is a
need for more dog parks, for sure. I do want to say a few things about the one
park at the Baylands that was proposed here. I have concerns about that. I've had
other people from the environmental group have concerns about bringing dogs
there. One reason is that you'd have to drive there, and it's not really a wonderful
idea to drive anywhere these days if we don't have to. If you can provide the
service in the City, it's better. The other thing is that unless there is somebody to
actually monitor what happens and how people behave and whether they take the
dogs then for a walk along the creek, then that could be a huge impact to that
creek, especially as now the San Francisquito Creek is supposed to go through a flood control and habitat restoration project. Hopefully it will go through sooner
or later. When it does, I don't want to have to look at an existing condition of dogs
already there because this project moved forward before the creek was in place.
When it goes to any kind of additional analysis, the dogs will already be there. I
know it's already been through CEQA, but still I think that that's not a very good
selection for a dog park unless there is huge monitoring of how people behave and
that they don't go on the levee with dogs off-leash, which they already do anyway,
but that just brings more people to do that. I think that the less risk of inviting
unauthorized use to a remote location may not be a good analysis unless you have
data to support that. That is of concern.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Your time's up.
Ms. Kleinhaus: Also artificial turf, I don't know. You may like that park over
there. I find it kind of yech.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Mot Huri, you're up next.
Mot Huri: Hi, good evening. We've only moved to Palo Alto about 2 1/2 years
ago with a dog. Since he can't come to the meeting, this leash is him representing
himself and his friends here. One of the lovely things about Palo Alto is almost
everybody has a dog. I would like to thank you all for these wonderful proposals.
There's only one potential problem here. I live in Crescent Park. Most of these
are concentrated south of Oregon, Hoover, Greer, Mitchell. The one exception is Baylands, and she very articulately mentioned why it wouldn't be the best option.
These proposals leave seven communities which would be Crescent Park,
Community Center, Saint Francis, Professorville, University South, Leland Manor
and Old Palo Alto, with no options to walk to a dog park. The reason we would
like to walk is many. One is you get to meet people. I know more people from all
over Crescent Park just by running into them and their dogs and our dogs
interacting than I would normally had I moved to any other community. The
second things is—this also reference to her concern—when you're around people
you know, you behave better. I don't know why, but we do that. When we are in
a park and there are neighbors and we're all there with our dogs, we are going to
pick up and they are going to pick up, because we are being watched. The third
thing is the Baylands, besides everything else, all of these communities would
have to negotiate Embarcadero during commute hours to get there. We all know
Embarcadero is a traffic nightmare with unenforceable speed limits and many
other problems, very congested. I would like for you all to think about the
possibility, given how many dogs exist here and given the benefits of allowing for
areas where dogs and people can meet, I would like you all to think about putting
in off-leash, fenced dog areas in all the major parks in the north side. Certainly
Rinconada has the space for it, as does Pardee. If you can go ahead and find some space for it in either Johnson and Heritage as well, that would be great. More are
better for many reasons. I don't know how close I am to running out on time, but
Mitchell is the one good off-leash in Palo Alto, which means it gets lots of people
and lots of dogs. There have been dog confrontations. All of that can be eased up
if there are multiple alternatives. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Herb Borock is next. Irene Keene follows him.
Herb Borock: The first answer, Chair Reckdahl, is a question about El Camino
Park. The land is owned by Stanford University and leased to Palo Alto. I believe
the current lease runs to June 30, 2033. We have off-leash dog areas already,
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
except they're not legal. Because they're not legal, they don't get the intensive use
you would have with an official, sanctioned dog park. I've been familiar with the
area in Hoover Park, the turf area outside of the ball field that's used off-leash
illegally. That park also has an official dog park, and there people with dogs use
both of those and some use one or use the other. When the most people
congregate is the hours when animal control is not working. It limits the number
of people, the number of dogs that come there. If you're going to be having more
dog parks, they should be in the north area of town, north of Oregon Expressway.
They should be on neighborhood parks. El Camino Park and Rinconada Park are
district parks. When you tried to have a dog park or a bathroom even in Eleanor
Pardee Park, you saw the resistance. The woman from Crescent Park who thinks
everyone's got a dog and her neighbors want to go to a neighborhood park and do
that, she'll find very quickly that in north Palo Alto there'll be a lot of resistance to having more dog parks. If you want to do something for the community as a
whole, then you're going to have to make that kind of decision. You should expect
that it'll be more than just people who are in walking distance. People will drive to
any of these parks. If you did, for example, try Hoover Park with that area
delineated in yellow, you should put a very firm time limit because you'll very
quickly find not only the intensive use but also all the damage and concerns that
people have mentioned will then happen that are not happening now. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Our last speaker is Irene Keene.
Irene Keene: Hello. I also live in Crescent Park, but I'm on the edge of
Community Center, so I'm in north Palo Alto. There are no dog parks anywhere
near me. I have to get in my car and drive. We only have three dog parks in Palo
Alto. It's crazy, only three. There's only one that's halfway decent which is the
one at the big park, Mitchell. The one at Hoover is small; it's dirty; your dog gets
filthy there in the summertime; in the wintertime the dog gets muddy because it
turns into a mud puddle when there's rain. The other one is at Greer; that's a run.
It's really narrow; it's kind of long, but it's also a mud pit. I love the dog park in
Mountain View, the one that's got the fake grass. I mean, it's a little over the top, but I'll tell you what. It keeps your dog really clean. When it's wet out, grass gets
wet. Your dog is going to be filthy because it gets a little wet on the feet, then he
walks in dirt and it's a mess. I will get in my car and drive to Mountain View to
keep my dog clean. Then I'm going to shop over there, because there's the nice
Safeway there. Sometimes I go to Menlo Park, then I go to the Safeway in Menlo
Park. You want people to stay in Palo Alto and spend their money in Palo Alto,
get some dog parks in north Palo Alto please. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. That was the last comment, so now we'll move on to
Commissioners.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Lauing: Chair Reckdahl?
Chair Reckdahl: Yes.
Commissioner Lauing: Just a process question. Would it make sense to just go
quickly around for questions before we came to conclusions just to make sure
everything was answered?
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Do you have any questions?
Commissioner Lauing: I do.
Chari Reckdahl: Fire away.
Commissioner Lauing: I'd actually like to ask questions about the permanent ones
first, the permanent options that have been identified. For example, Mitchell Park,
there's no cons listed here. By the way, I thought this whole ad hoc report was
terrific, very detailed, very thorough. Good job by the ad hoc and staff. It's just
really, really helpful. Mitchell, there's no cons listed, and the cost is $9,500. I
always think of cost as a con.
Commissioner Crommie: Con is location.
Mr. Anderson: I should clarify. The pros and cons list were conducted for our
shared-use ones. When we put together our list of potential dedicated parks, we
hadn't done the pro and con analysis. It was just preliminary. We haven't quite
resolved a lot of the other potential challenges like the substation (crosstalk) we
didn't get to the pros and cons for this one.
Commissioner Lauing: This one seems to get to wow, we can get a real-size park
here in a way that your analysis, the ad hoc's analysis, it'd be nice to have an acre
and to be able to add that much—if there really are any cons and there's $9,500 as the cost, that seems like a way to get some—like we created in the Baylands.
What did Council say? We created land out there by doing that. You might be
able to create a big dog park here.
Rob de Geus: Can I just comment on that?
Commissioner Lauing: Sure.
Mr. de Geus: There's always going to be tradeoffs and some pros and cons. I
haven't been out there recently. That area, people do sit on that grassy area. It's
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
sort of a hilly area. It's a nice place to just lie down on the grass and relax. I see
people do that all the time, so that's one tradeoff that we have to consider.
Commissioner Lauing: Your point is an important point for all of this discussion.
The public, some of whom spoke tonight, always need to know that there's a
tradeoff. If you've got a dog there, you're not kicking a ball, you're not lying in the
grass, and so on. That's part of our challenge with this whole issue Citywide.
With respect to both Colorado Avenue and El Camino, the issue of there may be a
future need, in and of itself doesn't seem too compelling to me as a con, because
we can use it now. I guess my question back is how long do you think it would
take to resolve that situation for either one of those? Yes, you might need it later,
but as we know it takes time and it could be a couple of years before they need it,
Let's be active with it, would be one approach.
Mr. Anderson: That's certainly the position that staff is taking. The conversations
for both of those sites are ongoing right now.
Commissioner Lauing: I mean, I know this is a little bit unfair. Do you think this
is going to be resolved in a month or 12 months or ...
Mr. de Geus: I don't think we have an answer. We're trying to get the answer to
that. We have the same question, Commissioner Lauing. One of the things we've
heard for this location here from Utilities staff is the concern that once you provide
that service, say this is a dog park even if it's temporary, it's very hard to take it
away once you've provided it. They've expressed that concern.
Commissioner Lauing: The other side of it is if we don't do it all for two years ...
Mr. de Geus: I know. That's what we ...
Commissioner Lauing: We have some blank space there that looks compelling.
Just to be sure about the security concern issue there. Was it just getting too close to the electrical facilities? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Anderson: That's what they voiced, yes. That was the Utilities staff. Security
in terms of protecting the asset of the City's power.
Mr. de Geus: That's a particularly important power plant, not that I know much
about it. What I've heard from the Utilities staff is—I asked them about this. How
serious are these constraints that they're suggesting? This site is where all the
electricity for Palo Alto comes through, into that particular location. They're
especially sensitive to ...
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Lauing: Is it a two-way security concern? They're concerned that
somehow the public is going to get in there and disrupt that or is it a concern that
we don't want the public to be hurt? I just didn't (crosstalk).
Mr. de Geus: I think it's both. I do think it's both. It wasn't a complete shutdown;
it can't happen. The Utilities staff were willing to in fact even meet with the ad
hoc committee if they'd be interested in doing so. I think we'll pursue that.
Commissioner Lauing: I didn't quite get the concern about the amount of money.
Again, it's just sitting there vacant, and there wouldn't be any change for that if
they needed it back in five years. I didn't understand why that was a potential
constraint.
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if this is it. Daren, I don't want to jump in. Utilities is
an Enterprise Fund, so they pay rent for the land that they use. They're paying rent
to the City's General Fund for the use of that land including that. Once it's used
for a different purpose, not a utility purpose, then they no longer pay rent back to
the City. There's a financial (crosstalk).
Commissioner Lauing: Legally or conveniently?
Mr. de Geus: It's just there. They ...
Commissioner Lauing: I don't want to take too much time. Another question I
had is that in the summary many, many dog owners at that last large meeting,
which I attended, said that the hours just don't work. Again, it's a debate with if
that's all you could get, would you take a shared-use dog park with a couple of
hours. I share that concern, because what we're trying to do with any pilot is
basically do a test market of will this work in a lot of different ways. If you only
test two hours or three hours on five days a week, we're just not testing anything
that's very comprehensive relative to, as you would say with a product, to be able
to roll it out. I wasn't on the ad hoc, so I don't have the level of detail. I was surprised that at Baylands, for example, there weren't Sunday nights between 4:00
and 8:00 in the summers that might be open. I don't think, from my recollection of
Babe Ruth which I was involved with, that they play at that time. My question is,
if we really strive, could we find some other segments of time to test different time
segments besides 10:00 to 12:00 in the morning. Has the ad hoc already
exhausted that?
Mr. Anderson: I'll defer to the Commissioners on that one.
Commissioner Hetterly: I would just answer on when the Baylands Athletic
Center is used, they're telling us from 3:00 until 10:00 p.m., Monday through
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Friday, it's booked. Weekends from 8:00 a.m. 'til 10:00 p.m. it's booked. That
seemed to us to preclude joint use during those evening hours.
Commissioner Lauing: I'm surprised at the evening hours. I haven't worked on
those schedules in a few years. Also in terms of the Babe Ruth, which is a big
user of that, it's not 12 months out of the year.
Chair Reckdahl: They close down the field for how many months? Three months
during the winter?
Mr. Anderson: Mm-hmm.
Chair Reckdahl: So no one can access the field just because of damage to the field. The field gets wet.
Commissioner Lauing: That makes sense.
Chair Reckdahl: During the non-closed, it's between Babe Ruth and other people
that rent the field, it's brokered down there. It's pretty busy.
Commissioner Lauing: That was just one example. The question is do you feel
like you've exhausted any options for evening walks. Basically, anybody who has
a job, has an 8-5 job, is not going to be able to use this shared-use dog park.
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's pretty clear to the ad hoc. Anyway, we
concluded that Hoover was the only viable option of the three for a shared-use
pilot that could handle those evening hours ...
Commissioner Knopper: The yellow.
Commissioner Hetterly: ... at the yellow part, outside that fence.
Commissioner Knopper: The stakeholders that use that said they would not use
that part of the field. Now, part of the field they use sort of for practice, but if it
was shared use with dogs, they wouldn't even put children on it at that point,
because they'd be scared dogs would dig a hole and the kids ...
Commissioner Lauing: This is Hoover?
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, outside the yellow portion. The baseball
stakeholders said they just wouldn't use the yellow if we did ...
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Hetterly: They occasionally use it now, but it's not booked through
our—I don't know (crosstalk).
Commissioner Knopper: For official practices.
Mr. Anderson: That's right.
Commissioner Hetterly: It's just informal use.
Commissioner Knopper: It's not official, but you use it to take kids out there to
teach them technique or whatever. If we were to implement a pilot of shared-use,
they wouldn't put kids out there.
Commissioner Lauing: Okay. Was the small field at Baylands the same way in
terms of its usage?
Mr. Anderson: Yes.
Commissioner Knopper: Mm-hmm.
Commissioner Lauing: No further questions.
Chair Reckdahl: Deirdre.
Commissioner Crommie: How come Sterling Canal didn't end up on your list of
extra opportunities?
Mr. Anderson: It just wasn't a comprehensive list. As I mentioned, these three
jumped out at us. Both because there was partial fencing there on all three of
those that limited the cost to something that we could afford without waiting for a
CIP. As soon as you need a new CIP, you're looking at a much longer timeframe.
Once you're within the 20,000 and less category, it's something we could probably fund with our existing funds.
Commissioner Crommie: I have a problem with that actually, for generating a list
that way. First of all, if you end up at Mitchell, there's already a dog park there. It
seems like you're not even in line with the mandate to look for areas that are not
served currently. If that's what you've come up with, it means you didn't look
enough, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if this is our comment section. I
would just say that you're not being expansive enough right now.
Commissioner Hetterly: Should I respond? Would you like a response to that?
As far as what we were limited—our mandate was really to look at shared-use
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
sites. The whole purpose behind that was to find large sites. Shared-use was
appealing because it offered the opportunity to have a big chunk of land that dogs
could really run in. We had agreed as a Commission to defer the bigger question
of how we can distribute dog parks Citywide within our parks better through the
Master Plan, because we know there's a big public outreach process for every
single park, as you know. Who wants a park, who doesn't want a park, dogs,
bathroom, whatever. We thought that was more appropriate through the Master
Plan process. We were really just looking at what can we do in the short term to
test something out for shared use, which limited our options to begin with to the
three we talked about because of the cost and the size, where we had athletic fields
that were available. Then when we looked at non-shared-use options, again we
were looking for big sites with few improvements that could happen quickly.
That's how we ended up with those three that we ended up with. I think Sterling Canal has a number of issues, as you probably know because you were on the
Sterling Canal ad hoc committee. There was limited options there. It's completely
fenced off at this point, and there's no public access at all.
Commissioner Crommie: We never got to the bottom of that. Let me just ask this
question then, based on what you just said. Is the current Mitchell Park dog park
bigger than a baseball field diamond shared-use would achieve or smaller? The
current size.
Commissioner Hetterly: Small, small.
Commissioner Knopper: Smaller.
Commissioner Crommie: Can you just give me the two square footages?
Commissioner Hetterly: They're on your handout.
Mr. Anderson: Mitchell's .56 acres. For example, Hoover which is up on the
display, you can see the yellow area is 1.17 acres. Inside the red area is .96 acre. They're all a little different. As I toggle back to the Baylands, you can see it's
much larger, for example. That large red area has 3.27.
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you have any questions?
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. In the Hoover Park option, it's listed as a con that
there's frequent use of the field by the Keys School. Why is that a con? Because
the field is occupied?
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Knopper: There's a lot of children using it during the day, so that
leads to the issue of use, because they use it for their PE activities during the
course of the school day. A lot of the comment with regard to public comment is
that you have dog waste that isn't necessarily cleaned up and the occasional dog
digging the hole and tearing up the grass. That is an opportunity for kids to ...
Commissioner Ashlund: That applies at any park, right?
Commissioner Knopper: For shared-use, yeah.
Commissioner Ashlund: For shared use. Do you only want questions at this point
or we're making other comments as well? Is this the first pass through?
Chair Reckdahl: The first pass through. (inaudible) two.
Commissioner Ashlund: That's it for now.
Chair Reckdahl: That's it, okay. Any other questions? Okay. Now, comments,
conversations. Ed, do you have anything?
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. Why don't you start at that end? I'm happy to go if
you want.
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you want to start?
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay.
Chair Reckdahl: Go for it.
Commissioner Ashlund: I really like the recommendations. I mean, it's been so
consistent all along from the community and Council and everybody that the need
is in the north of Palo Alto. I really like the potential triangle we'd have if we kept Mitchell the size it is, use the Colorado substation area and the El Camino Park
area. I think that would be really, really good coverage. The Colorado substation,
today's the first day I've heard that brought up. I don't know if we've discussed
that before on the Commission, but I may have missed that one in the past. If we
are looking at shared-use, I don't see that use of a public park by a private school
for PE is a con. It's public land, so I don't think that applies here as a con. It's
public land. I mean, there's schools adjacent to all of our parks. It's public land;
it's not private PE land.
Chair Reckdahl: Do they pay rent?
ATTACHM
E
N
T
A
January 2
6
,
2
0
1
6
Mr. de Geus: I have to look into that. I'm not sure if they get a permit; I don't
believe they do. I have to check.
Commissioner Ashlund: If they were renting the field, that would be one thing.
Commissioner Knopper: I think you have to look—just pardon me for
interrupting. Point taken with regard to it's a private school. I think some of the
other cons are there's a nearby playground and it's a heavily used park on any
given day, all hours of the day.
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, I understand that. I don't think location-wise that
Hoover is really jumping out. I mean, it's been so consistent that the need is in the
north. The other possibility—I don't know if we have already approached the neighborhood associations. Since we do frequently hear from speakers in the
north saying, "We want them in the neighborhood parks in the north," have you
approached the neighborhood associations at all and said, "Talk to your neighbors
and let's see what your consensus is. Do you guys want it or do you not want it in
your neighborhood park?" Once it comes back to the Commission, then we have
to go back and do the outreach. If the neighborhoods are asking for it and can start
to say there really is more demand than there is resistance in a certain
neighborhood park, that could help with community feedback.
Commissioner Hetterly: We have not done that primarily because the
Commission had asked us not to do that and to leave that to the Master Plan
process.
Commissioner Ashlund: Leave that to the Master Plan process, right.
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to reiterate, the idea of trying to get more dedicated
dog parks in neighborhood parks across the City is, as we understood it, really part
of the Master Plan process. This is an additional process that we're trying to move
something forward quickly. That's a big (inaudible).
Commissioner Ashlund: I would avoid expanding at Mitchell. Mitchell is really,
really crowded by a number of schools, a number of tennis players, bicyclists,
pedestrians. I would really avoid it. The need just isn't there. Nobody is coming
to our meetings saying, "We wish we had—if Mitchell were bigger on the south
end of Palo Alto." We're hearing north, north, north. That's my feedback, is
really, really keep the focus there.
Chair Reckdahl: Other questions? Deirdre.
Commissioner Crommie: Are we just doing comments now?
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Comments, questions (crosstalk).
Commissioner Crommie: I knew the shared-use was dead on arrival when it was
just morning hours. I mean, I wasn't surprised one bit because everyone I know
that hangs out with their dogs in public places are doing it in the evenings. It just
seems obvious. Just look around our City. Look around our neighborhoods.
Look around our parks. Everyone comes out after they get home from work.
They like to come during that twilight hour. All across the City, that's happening,
and it's not happening in the morning. I'm not surprised that we got all that
feedback. I brought it up at the time that the ad hoc was formulating their idea,
but I was told, "We just have to do that as a pilot." These things are all connected.
I mean, it's not independent. It's like you have to satisfy the need even when you do a pilot. I think we should take the Baylands park off the table. There's not a
single person who's coming here saying they want to go over there and use that as
a dog park. We need to look at what the constituency is saying. No one is saying
that. Plus, it can harm the wildlife as people move from that park to the levee
which they absolutely will do if they're over there. I just think that should be a
non-starter. I know it was sort of put on the table because it was cheap, but I just
don't see any reason to keep it there. Mitchell Park is in my neighborhood,
relatively close. I guess it's a 20-minute walk or 5-minute car ride. None of my
neighbors with dogs go over there. They just don't want to do it. They hang out at
the tiny, little Monroe Park. I wish I could get them to go to Robles which is a 7-
minute walk. People just don't seem to want to go very far from their homes with
their dogs. Mitchell Park, I don't even like being there with my dog. It's all dirt. I
haven't heard good things about the experience at Mitchell Park for a dog park. If
we don't have a good experience with a half-acre dog park over there, I'm not sure
it's going to improve to go into that nice sitting area nearby. We can't keep the
grass nice at Mitchell Park. Now, if you double the size, maybe there's a lower
impact, somehow you can keep it nice. I've just not seen that happen. I'm a big
user of the artificial turf dog park; I go there multiple times a week with my dog.
It's in the shopping center at San Antonio and Fayette. I was never into artificial turf; it seems gross to me. I will say it works, it really does work. It's hugely
used, a massively dense dog park, and the dogs are all different sizes. It'd be
really nice to know the acreage on that dog park. It seems tiny to me. I've talked
to a lot of people there. Kind of the word at that park is, it's tiny but we all can see
our dogs so the dogs are not misbehaving. That's why the small dogs work with
the big dogs, because they're highly monitored. Some people in dog parks say
where you really get into trouble is when it gets too big, the dogs run off. People
want to stay and congregate with each other, and then the dogs start misbehaving
or not getting picked up after and stuff like that. I guess of all these proposals, I
would say put them where the people want them which is in the north. That's
where we have the deficit. We should do whatever it takes to get something over
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
there. Then we have to look at just neighborhood by neighborhood and make sure
every neighborhood park is assessed for a dog area, because that's where people
want to go. They want an easy walking distance. Some parks are a lot better
suited for it. It's an absolute tragedy at Eleanor Pardee. The reason you don't have
a dog park there is because people rebelled in that neighborhood. We need to have
a stronger policy mandate to really counteract the NIMBY-ism. I've been on the
Commission now for seven years. Ever since I sat here, we have looked at dog
parks. I just hope the next wave we get more going with it. You really do need to
look at where the users are, where people want it, independent of cost at this point.
I think we're being misled to look for a cheap solution. Look where we ended up;
we ended up in areas where we already have dog parks, looking at that. That's not
what people are telling us they want. That's what I feel.
Female: Can I ask a question?
Commissioner Lauing: Not really.
Chair Reckdahl: No.
Female: Come back next month on this.
Chair Reckdahl: Ed.
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thanks. As we address this whole issue, we need to
go back over the last year and half when we got started and over the last six years.
Why are we looking at shared-use dog parks? Because there aren't enough dog
parks. Why aren't there enough dog parks? Because there's not enough parks and
there's not enough park space. To have a comment that we should just survey the
public and put them where they want them is not practical in any way, shape or
form. We have to do what we can with the limitation of park space until we can
get more park space, if we can, and do the best we can to identify existing spaces
that can be turned into dog parks. We've been working on this for a long time. The need is there. We know that it's going to come out as a very, very high need
in the Master Plan. The top three, maybe the top issue in all of parks, maybe in
the top three of all City issues, but certainly as park specific. There are other
options that are being uncovered, which I agree is above and beyond the scope of
what the ad hoc was supposed to look at. I thank them for also looking at those.
There are still a lot of cards to overturn there. We don't know if that's going to be
the case. I would be very happy to see action at our next meeting in favor of going
ahead with these pilots to get some data. That's what you do, as I said earlier, in a
test market. You try to get some data on what works and what doesn't. For
example, I think it would be a very valid test to have Hoover and Baylands
because, amongst other things, it's comparing the usage that we get from someone
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
who's walking to the park and the usage we would get with someone who is
driving to the park. If I lived in north Palo Alto, which I do, and I had a dog,
which I don't, I would love to go to Baylands a couple of hours and run my dog in
that big space as opposed to never go there because it takes me five minutes to
drive there. I think it could get extraordinary use. We don't know that if we just
restrict it to one pilot or say, "Forget about it. Let's just wait another couple of
years until we can get some permanent dog parks." To be able to test Hoover
versus Baylands, number one, you really do need an A-B split test to have a valid
study. You're testing north and south; you're testing drive to and walk to. I think
you would get some pretty interesting feedback there. I'm very aware of the
challenges involved, but I don't think the cons are so overwhelming that we say we
shouldn't do it. In the meantime and in parallel if those, call them ready options,
can be looked at, certainly the El Camino would be a tremendous alternative. We worked really, really hard on the El Camino Park to get a dog park in there. We
were shot down on that a couple of years ago by the environmental; otherwise,
there'd be one right there today because I see the park is almost ready to open. I'd
like to see us move to action on the ad hoc at the next meeting. I'm sorry, on the
shared-use at the next meeting that the ad hoc has studied. If we ended up saying
contingent on if a permanent one opens up in 60 days, we can kind of reel it back
in. The footnotes that I would have is that I still would like to see if there will be a
way to extend the hours. In contrast to my colleague, I don't agree that nobody's
going to come between 8:00 and 10:00, because a lot of people walk their dogs in
the morning. A lot of people. I've gone on morning walks, and I run into a lot of
dogs and make a lot of dog friends. Let's see. The second thing is in the pilot I
would like to see—this may be a detail—during the pilot I would like to see
outreach and support from the dog owners in terms of the clean-up aspect of it just
to make it a very successful pilot. We can sort out later what to do around that.
Chair Reckdahl: Anyone else? Pat.
Vice Chair Markevitch: It seems to me there's one park that has not been
mentioned, and it's in north Palo Alto. That's Heritage Park where the old clinic used to be on Homer. They specifically planted trees there so soccer clubs
couldn't play. I think it's a good shared-use option to look at.
Chair Reckdahl: We went over there after the May Fete Parade. I brought that up,
that I thought there is room there to have a dog park whether it be a shared-use or
a dedicated dog park. I understand the ad hoc was not addressing the whole dog
park issue. They were very focused on the shared-use. Once the Master Plan
comes in, I think we'll have a little more freedom. When I look at these options, I
think the most promising one is El Camino. I think that is a very good location. If
we can do that on the cheap, I think we should do it now and not wait for the
Master Plan. I do think that, in my anecdotal experience talking to people who
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
have dogs, most people want something that they can walk to. I hear that over and
over again. We don't have big parks in Palo Alto. We can't have big dog parks in
every park, but we can have small dog parks in a lot. Down the road, if I look in
my crystal ball, I think that's the solution that's going to percolate up, having some
small—it'll probably have to be artificial turf since you have high use on it—in
neighborhood parks. That's a decision down the road, but now I think we should
just move ahead and do something, either the shared-use at Hoover or the El
Camino Park. Those are the two most feasible. Hoover Park, you could have
evening hours. There is not the constraint that you would have if you had it inside
the diamond where you would have competition from kids. You could do Hoover
and have morning and evening hours, and that would be an option. You could
have a dedicated park over at El Camino. I think those are the two best options. I
don't see any reason to wait for the Master Plan for either of those. A couple of points I would bring up. A lot of people complain, "I'm a neighbor to a park. I
don't want to have a dog park nearby." When I go over to San Antonio, I'll sit
there and listen. One thing is if you look up there, people have their windows
open looking out over that dog park. If it was really that noisy, they would have
their windows shut. I don't think a dog park is any more noisy than any other park
use. When I sit there and try and listen and pretend if I was in my living room,
would I find this objectionable, I don't. I think that neighbors' objections are not
based on fact. It's based on concerns that are not real. The second thing is off-
leash without fences. I think that's a really bad idea. My son was knocked down
in a park once by an off-leash dog, and it was very traumatic. He had a dog
phobia for years after that. I think if we want to off-leash dogs, they really should
be inside some type of fence. I think that's the best option. I think we do have
options here. I agree with Ed that we should move on, and we should in the near
future try something. If it doesn't work, we always can back it out. Failing any
other comments, we'll move on to the Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: 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 futuretransit 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
- Draft
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
ATTACHMENT A
a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that current off-
leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto are inadequate, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces, especially in North Palo Alto, dedicated for small dogs, and larger
spaces that allow large dogs to run, especially in North Palo Alto.
b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impacts to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They saidthis would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am). Approximately 75 people attended. The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports teams practice and compete. The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations. Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful. Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas. After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research. 1.Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, HooverPark, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see ifthere are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and eveninghours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of thefield at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the leastconflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experiencewith shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
2
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it
was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative
impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused
some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View
Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent. Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks
At the October 27, 2015 Commission meeting (Attachment A), staff discussed potential near-
term dedicated dog parks. Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc
Committee decided to explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be
implemented quickly and simply, with existing funds, while waiting for the Parks Master Plan to
be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee investigated a few options for locations for additional or
expanded dog parks that could be implemented in the near term.
1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. Itwould require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue the
possibility of using this site as a dog park.
3
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,570.3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff raised security concerns that no longer make this site viable as a dog park.
DISCUSSION
The Ad Hoc Committee working on dog parks recommends expanding the Mitchell Park Dog
Park, and continuing investigating the possibility of creating a new dog park at El Camino Park.
The unfenced, shared-use model, currently being used by the City of Mountain View, and
proposed by MIG as a possible recommendation in the Parks Master Plan, is outside the scope of
the Ad Hoc’s work. The Ad Hoc recommends further investigation and policy discussion around that option. The February Commission retreat may represent an opportunity for the Commission
to figure out the appropriate process for considering the unfenced, shared-use dog park concept,
including the role, if any, of an ad hoc committee.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: October 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission Staff Report and Approved
Minutes of discussion on item 3
4
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2015
SUBJECT: SHARED USE DOG PARK PILOT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss this issue of dog parks, and provide guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee on how to proceed in meeting the community’s dog park needs.
BACKGROUND In the summer of 2009, staff hosted a community meeting about recreational opportunities for dog owners. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting. The dog owners expressed a strong desire for off-leash dog recreation in all areas of Palo Alto to improve walkability and connections among neighbors; for more grass surfacing in off-leash areas; and for consideration of designated, non-peak hours for fenced athletic fields use by dog owners for off-leash recreation. The Commission’s 2010 policy directive to consider dog recreation opportunities as part of any park renovation project has not resulted in any new dog parks. As a result, the Commission concluded that rather than piecemeal decision-making as park renovations arise, a comprehensive analysis should be made of where dog parks should be placed in Palo Alto’s park system. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan will identify and evaluate where future dedicated dog parks should be located in new areas of the City. In the meantime, however, the Commission Ad Hoc Committee working on this topic researched whether a six-month, shared-use dog park pilot (to serve interim needs, test usage and behavior, and evaluate impacts on neighbors and other field users) would be appropriate. After analyzing the parks with the size and amenities to support a temporary, shared-use pilot, threes sites stood out as viable options: Baylands Athletic Center, Greer Park, and Hoover Park (Attachment A). On September 23, 2014, the Commission discussed the issues and options identified by the Ad Hoc Committee and considered necessary next steps to move forward with a proposal, including outreach to neighbors and user groups, and a strategy for evaluating metrics of success. The Ad Hoc Committee identified key considerations to be addressed in a shared-use pilot proposal, the pros, cons, and the range of costs for implementation at potential sites.
1
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
The Ad Hoc Committee met with a small group of stakeholders from the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group, which represents 300 dog owners. The Committee also met separately with athletic field users to learn more about their interests and concerns.
a.The representatives of the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group explained that there are not
enough off-leash dog exercise areas in Palo Alto, and that there is an interest in
finding spaces dedicated to small dogs, and larger spaces that allow large dogs to run.
b.The athletic user group explained that they are concerned that off-leash activity could
make a baseball and soccer unsafe for play. They explained small holes from dogs
digging could have safety impact to the kids. Baseballs would be more prone to
taking bad hops, and soccer players turning ankles from stepping in holes. They saidthis would be an issue for all three proposed locations. They also had concerns about
the possibility of turf being worn out and dog feces not being picked up.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SHARED-USE DOG PARK The Ad Hoc Committee researched what other communities have learned regarding shared-use dog parks. The Committee reviewed a summary of the 2009 Palo Alto community meeting, and the dog policies and rules for San Francisco and for dog parks throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The Committee consulted with the Palo Alto and Menlo Park dog owners groups and city staff operating shared-use, off-leash dog parks in Menlo Park, San Carlos, and Cambridge, MA. The following are some important considerations for any shared-use dog park pilot learned from other communities: 1.SafetySafety of both people and dogs is an important consideration for all dog parks. While other communities have successfully allowed shared-use facilities without fencing, the Ad Hoc Committee believes a self-contained field will provide better control of the dogs and increase the comfort of nearby park users. Use rules must require appropriate supervision of dogs and children during shared-use hours and prohibit aggressive dog behavior. In addition, a waste cleanup plan should be in place before opening the pilot in order to protect other field users from abandoned dog waste. Rules should be prominently posted, and cleanup bags and trash cans should be provided. In addition, a double door entry will provide security as dogs enter and exit the facility. 2.SizeThe primary benefit of a shared-use facility for dog recreation is the potential for a grass-surfaced space of significant size. A shared field would provide dog owners legal access, during limited, underused hours, to a recreation space large enough to play fetch or just let their dogs run, while also distributing the impacts of dog wear over sufficient acreage to preserve the quality of the surfacing.
2
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Palo Alto’s existing dedicated dog parks are all small: Greer - .12 acres, Hoover - .14 acres and Mitchell - .5 acres. Both San Francisco and Menlo Park Recreation and Park Departments cited 10,000 square feet (approximately .25 acres) as the minimum acceptable size for a dedicated dog park, with San Francisco preferring a minimum of 30,000 sf (approximately .75 acres) and Menlo Park rating 1.5 acres or more as best. At Mitchell, the City’s largest dog park, a little less than half the surface is grass and the remainder is decomposed granite. Staff perennially reports problems maintaining the grass, due to overuse for its small coverage area. Users regularly complain of disruptions due to grass maintenance issues, but also strongly oppose eliminating this lone grass-surfaced area for off leash dogs.
3.LocationIdeally, a dog park should be located within a neighborhood to allow users to walk to the facility and build community around their shared interests, but sufficiently distant from residences so that noise and activity levels are no more disruptive to neighbors than typical park uses. It should not cause significant displacement of established recreational activities, including passive recreation, and it should not cause a detriment to the facility or surrounding environment such as digging and trampling. In addition, it naturally would be preferred to open a new dog park in an area of town that is currently underserved. If the goal is to test a large, temporary, shared-use area, options are limited to City-owned parks with adequate space to minimize the impacts of wear and with minimal new fencing requirements as fencing represents the primary start-up cost. Unfortunately, the only sites that currently fit that bill are the three proposed sites (Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover Park), all of which fall in the midtown, east-west corridor, already served by two small dog parks. The proposed pilot locations would accommodate fenced, shared-use areas sized as follows:
Baylands Athletic Center: Large field: --- 3.27 acres Small field: ---1.30 acres
Greer Park: --- 2.09 acres
Hoover Park: Inside baseball field: --- .96 acres Turf area outside baseball field: ---1.17 acres.
4.Costs
3
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
The primary expense of a new off-leash dog area is the purchase and installation of fencing to fully enclose the area. All three sites proposed have significant existing fencing that will help keep the cost of a temporary pilot to a minimum. All three would require a new double-gated entry. Hoover and the Baylands Athletic Center would need a negligible amount of new fence length. Greer would need more, but less than half the linear footage required to enclose the entire field area. Staff estimates new fencing costs, including double gated entries, as below. Staff is investigating temporary fencing as an alternative, but do not anticipate significant savings from that option. Baylands Athletic Center: $ 1,000. Greer Park: $ 21,350. Hoover Park (inside baseball field: $ 4,000. Hoover Park (turf outside baseball field: $ 18,775 Additional start-up costs include the installation of waste stations, signage and optional benches that will be the same regardless of location: Signs: approx. $ 250.00 each Waste stations: approx. $ 800.00 for two Benches: approx. $ 1,500.00 each There would be additional costs for water spigots for drinking water or additional cleanup alternatives, and those costs will vary by location. Beyond start-up costs, there would be marginal increases in ongoing maintenance costs in the form of increased staff time. 5.EnforceabilitySuccessful enforcement of rules and hours of use will be vital to justifying the compromises made by neighbors and other users. In other cities, dog owner groups have successfully minimized violations through spot monitoring and peer pressure. San Carlos, however, reported that its dog owners group dissolved quickly, leaving the City to fund all expenses. Where engaged and organized, dog groups have managed waste cleanup and ensured that owners addressed aggressive and loud dogs immediately through community oversight during use hours and volunteer sector-by-sector cleanup in advance of non-dog uses. In recent years, the Menlo Park dog owners’ group has switched over to a professional cleanup service hired and funded by the dog group through user donations at an approximate cost of $6,000 per year. In addition to behavior and clean-up, it will be important to communicate and enforce rain closures for this new user group. Current enforcement of leash laws in Palo Alto operates on a complaint-only basis. Enforcement officers are stretched thin, and according to Animal Services, cannot guarantee stepped up enforcement for a pilot. The Ad Hoc Committee have looked at targeted oversight using contracted staff for a pilot program, but in the long term, an expanded leash law enforcement, City-wide, will be vital to securing and maintaining 4
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
community buy-in for a permanent shared-use site and additional dedicated dog parks. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the City develop and budget for a plan of increased enforcement of the leash law City-wide. As for waste clean-up, the City could request that the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group coordinate, manage, and fund a professional clean-up service similar to Menlo Park’s practice. It has been suggested, however, that the City maintains recreation facilities at no cost to other users (un-reserved picnic sites, Skate Park, playgrounds, etc.) and that dog owners should similarly be entitled to services within our city. Others contend that organized field users contribute to maintenance through field rental fees that give them exclusive use at reserved times. Given public sanitation concerns regarding shared use, a professional clean-up strategy may be advantageous.
It would cost approximately $21,000 to hire a contract security firm to enforce the rules and
clean up the dog waste at one shared-use Dog Park for a 6-month pilot program. This is based on 12 hours per week for a period of 26 weeks.
6.Long-term UseThe Parks Master Plan consultants, MIG, and other cities reported that in many cases, once a pilot is opened, it is very difficult to discontinue that use. Furthermore, once regular use is established, there is often an increase in off-hour use of the site when not otherwise occupied. In Menlo Park, the dog owners’ group was helpful in spot checking for off-hour use and talking with violators about the risk of permanent closure. The concern about the ability to curtail off-leash use at the end of the pilot, and the close proximity of the affordable sites suitable for the pilot, are reasons for caution about opening multiple pilot sites. Nonetheless, dual pilots at both the Baylands Athletic Center and a neighborhood park, could provide useful data about usage and the desirability of quite different models – one very large, mostly single use, facility with high fencing at the outskirts of town versus a smaller, walkable site within a popular neighborhood park that currently serves many diverse uses. 7.Metrics and RulesBefore initiating a six-month pilot program it is important to develop criteria that will allow the City to collect and monitor incoming data associated with the pilot program. Based on our discussions with other cities and review of their pilot programs, the Ad Hoc Committee drafted a list of criteria to help measure the success and/or failure of a six-month off leash dog pilot (Attachment B) and proposed rules for use of the facility (Attachment C).
5
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
8.Pros and Cons of Potential Sites
Location Pros Cons
Baylands
Athletic Center Proposed Size: Large Field: 3.27 acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $ 1,000.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt.
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required
Size: Significantly larger than other options – better capacity and reduced maintenance impacts.
Location: High fencing – so even “jumpers” can safely use. Little noise impact – no adjacent residences. No nearby playground. Less risk of inviting unauthorized use due to remote location.
Location: Not in neighborhood:
•Users will more likely drivethan walk, possiblyexacerbating morningcongestion atEmbarcadero/101 intersection;
•Harder for dog owners group tospot check compliance;
•Less community buildingamong neighbors;
•May invite more non-residentusers.Adjacent to delicate Baylands ecosystem – errant dogs could pose threat. If pilot extends beyond 6 months, potential construction of the Flood Control project and the Golf Course renovation could impede access to the site.
6
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Location Pros Cons
Hoover Park Inside the baseball field Proposed Size: .96 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $4,000. Turf Area outside the baseball field Proposed size: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Fencing/Cost: Minimal required for inside the baseball field area High costs for outside the baseball field area.
Location: Walkable to neighborhood. Lots of current dog use in and outside of existing dog park:
•Shared use pilot would allowcurrent users to become “legal” during open hours;
•Increased attention to enforcement, maintenance andcleanup could improve conditions for other users.
Location: Frequent use of field by Key School. Nearby playground. Highest potential impact on others:
•Heavily used community park;
•Close proximity to multi-unithousing.
Fencing: Existing fencing is less than 4 feet high in outfield - may have high risk of “escapees.”
Size: Smallest option, yet high current unauthorized dog use:
•May be difficult to get dogowners to stay in fenced area;
•Heavy dog usage would have agreater impact on this smallfield.
7
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Location Pros Cons
Greer Park Proposed Size: 2.09 Acres Estimated New Fencing Cost: $21,350.
Surfacing: Grass and packed dirt
Location: Little noise impact. Walkable to neighborhood. Few adjacent residences. Existing dedicated dog park is smallest in the city – currently attracts mostly one-off users (and professional dog walkers) rather than gathering of dog folks. Larger space could allow better community building opportunities.
Size: Midsized option
Fencing/Cost: Biggest fencing need of all the options. Permanent fencing could change the character of the adjacent picnic area.
Location: Current off-leash use is low – pilot may attract more usage during unauthorized times. Nearby playground.
DISCUSSION Staff hosted a community meeting on July 30, 2015 to collect feedback on the concept of shared-use dog parks, and the specific locations (Greer, Baylands Athletic Center, and Hoover) and the hours which were proposed (Monday through Friday from 8am to 10am). Approximately 75 people attended. See Attachment D for notes from the community meeting. The vast majority of participants seemed to be dog owners advocating for dog parks. A small number of participants were park neighbors who didn’t want a dog park next to their house due to parking issues, dog waste, and unwanted confrontations with children and dogs off leash. Some participants voiced concern about the potential for negative impacts on the athletic field conditions, and conflicts of having dogs off-leash in areas where sports teams practice and compete. The dog owners generally expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed hours and locations. Several people said that if the pilot is limited to just the morning hours we would exclude a lot people who aren’t available at that time. Several people indicated that a shared-use dog park would need morning and evening hours to be successful. Others commented that we 8
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
need dog parks all over the City, and that just one pilot location wouldn’t be successful. Some comments mentioned that Baylands was too far to drive. One meeting participant mentioned that City of Mountain View had recently added several dog off leash areas.
After the community meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee did some additional research. 1.Staff verified the amount of scheduled recreational use of the Greer Park, HooverPark, and Baylands Athletic Center fields throughout the day and night, to see ifthere are conflicts with the shared use concept being both morning and eveninghours. There would be conflict with athletic use at Greer and Baylands. Part of thefield at Hoover (the area outside of the baseball field) seemed to have the leastconflicts with field users.
2.Staff interviewed the City of Mountain View staff to learn about their experiencewith shared-use dog parks.
City of Mountain View’s Experience
The City of Mountain View started a pilot program for shared-use dog parks in June 2014, and it was made permanent on May 26, 2015. Mountain View started their dog off leash area pilot
program because of a lack of open space to fence and dedicate solely for dog use. Only one of
their nine dog parks is a fenced, dedicated dog park (Shoreline Dog Park). The other eight dog
parks are shared-use off leash areas that are not fenced. Only one of the shared-use off leash
areas is on an athletic field. Mountain View staff advised that there appear to be some negative impacts to the field, but it is too soon to determine all the impacts.
Responses regarding the success of their shared-use program vary greatly. Most dog owners
seem to love it. Some residents are unhappy with the program. The lack of fencing has caused some issues when dog owners stray outside the off-leash area or treat the entire park like an off-
leash area. There were a number of complaints during the pilot program. The majority of the
complaints were about non-observance of off-leash hours and days by dog owners. There were
also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs approach their children.
Mountain View has a contract security firm to enforce rules at Cuesta and Bubb Parks. The
security firm works Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. from April through October.
Mountain View also partners with the animal control officers from Silicon Valley Animal
Control Authority for additional enforcement. The success of the program depends on having an
enforcement component.
The City of Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission recommended not doing any off-
leash shared-use pilots. They suggested that Mountain View should pursue permanent, dedicated
dog parks. But the Mountain View City Council directed staff to try a one-year pilot program.
Public feedback on the pilot was a mix of positive and negative. The Mountain View Commission recommended continuing the pilot for another year, but with more enforcement.
However, Mountain View Council decided to make the shared-use off-leash areas permanent.
9
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Palo Alto Consider Permanent Dog Parks
Because of the challenges with the shared-use concept, the Ad Hoc Committee decided to
explore opportunities for permanent dog parks that could be implemented quickly without investing too much money, nor waiting for the Parks Master Plan to be completed.
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee are investigating few options for locations for permanent or
expanded dog parks (See Attachment E).
1.Southern undeveloped area at El Camino Park. It would be approximately .77 acres. It
would require about 600’ of fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Planning staff advises that the area is included in future transit improvement plans, which
may prohibit using the area for a dog park. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park.
2.Expanding the Mitchell Park Dog Run. It would increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21
acres. It would require approximately 383’ of new fence to expand the area. New fencing
would cost approximately $9,575.3.Colorado Ave Utilities Substation landscaped area. It would be approximately .96 acres.It would require about 600’ of new fencing, which would cost approximately $15,000.
Utilities staff advises that they may need to use this landscaped area for future expansion
and that they have some security concerns because this is the site where the City gets its
power. Another complication is that Utilities pays a significant amount of money to theCity’s general fund for the lease of this site. CSD staff will continue to pursue thepossibility of using this site as a dog park.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed shared-use pilot locations Attachment B: Metrics for evaluation of a pilot dog park
Attachment C: Proposed rules for pilot dog park facility Attachment D: Notes from July 30, 2015 community meeting on dog parks Attachment E: Proposed permanent or expanded dog parks
10
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
1
Greer Park
Proposed size: 2.09 acres. Estimate fencing costs: $21,350
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT AJanuary 26, 2016
2
Baylands Athletic Center
Red Area: proposed size: 3.27 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000
Yellow Area: Proposed size: 1.3 acres. Fencing costs: $1,000
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
3
Hoover Park
Red area: .96 acres; Fencing costs: $4,000
Yellow area: 1.17 acres. Fencing costs: $18,775
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT B
METRICS FOR EVALUATION
Listed below is how we will be monitoring activity and ways with which we will gather the
pertinent information:
1.Place comment box on site with pen and cards for information gathering and/or post an
email address to send in comments.
2.Spot monitor on site during designated off leash hours to track compliance.
3.Poll participating dog owners on site about off leash opportunity:
a.How did participants get to off leash location? Walk, drive, other?
b.How often are participants using the off leash opportunity (daily, once a week,
etc.).
c.Is the location desirable? How far from their residence?
4.How compliant are dog owners on dog waste clean up?
5.What is the condition of the field/grass after the off leash pilot (take “before” photos to
establish baseline and track with additional photos monthly.)
6.What type and amount of additional maintenance and costs are required to keep
field/grass in proper condition? Weekly, monthly?
7.How many off leash dog owners are participating weekly. (How will this data be
obtained? Staff can do a monthly count when they take photos. Perhaps Dog Owners
Group could keep sign-ins or provide spot counts. Maybe Commissioners?)
8.What is the nature of the complaints, if any? How many complaints per week, per
month, during the six- month pilot? (Daren will track via an excel spreadsheet). How
will the Commission decide how many complaints is too many?
9.What additional city staff and outside vendors (waste clean up service) are required
with regard to hours, costs associated with keeping off leash dog hours?
10.How cooperative is the Palo Alto Dog Owners Group in self -policing violators of off
leash dog rules?
11.How do we handle enforcement of non-compliance?
12.How do we provide notice of field closures? Add field closure hotline to signage?
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT C
RULES OF USE
1.Dogs are permitted off leash ONLY Monday thru Friday, 8:00am-10:00am in this
designated location ONLY.
2.Dogs must be licensed, vaccinated, and wearing a collar with ID.
3.Dogs must be leashed when entering and leaving the off leash area.
4.Dogs in heat or under 4 months of age are not permitted in off-leash area.
5.Dog owner must be in control of dog(s) at all times. Aggressive dogs must leave the off
leash area immediately.
6.Dog waste must be picked up. Please dispose of dog waste in the containers provided.
7.Do not leave dogs unattended at any time.
8.All dog bites must be reported to the City of Palo Alto Animal Services.
9.Supervise small children during off leash hours.
10.No more than three dogs per owner allowed during off leash hours.
11.No food or alcohol is allowed during designated off leash dog hours.
12.If there is a field closure there will be no off lease dog usage until City of Palo Alto
notifies the field is re-opened.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no liability for the users of this area. Use these facilities at your
own risk.
1
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Attachment D
Notes from Public Meeting
Topic: Pilot Shared Use Dog Park
Date: July 30, 2015 6:30pm to 7:30pm
Location: Lucy Stern Ballroom
•75 people in attendance – 4 commissioners & 4 staff
o Why 8-10 Monday-Friday? Teacher is excluded from use. Include early evening after
recreation activities.
o Big need for after work crowd.
o What about using the former landfill for an off-leash dog park? Very large area that could be
used for a dog park.
o Anything around the Baylands will disturb the wildlife. Dogs off-leash around the former
landfill (currently Byxbee Park) will disturb the natural wildlife.
o Real opportunity at Byxbee Park. People and animals can enjoy. Another small fenced yard
in a park will get too much use and it will smell bad. 60% of households have dogs. The time
is now to plan the use of Byxbee Park to be fenced and have multi-use.
o Another resident concerned about birds.
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o There is very little life on Byxbee right now, so the time is now to establish a dog area to not
disturb the flyway.
o Resident likes the ideas. South Palo Alto has the only dog recreation. He would like
something in North Palo Alto.
o Another resident would like the after work hours, which could be after recreation times.
o Another resident likes the idea of after hours. A dog friendly neighborhood park area or
areas. Reduce people driving to locations. Every park should have a designated area.
o Greer Park is a great choice for shared use. Lots of dogs in the neighborhood. No real place
to go. The existing dog park is a joke. The current dog park is being used by people out of
town. Phase 4 area could be used that wouldn’t conflict with athletic field use.
o We need large area as well as small neighborhood off-leash areas so that dogs can socialize.
o The least offensive would be the Baylands Athletic Center. The birds aren’t near the athletic
fields. Byxbee Park could be used where people walk the trails. Doesn’t see the need to have
big and small. They should be able to socialize together in one area.
o Just having morning hours won’t satisfy the need. Fields are used by sports teams until
sunset. Children are environmentally sensitive and important, too. Shared use has a lot of
problems in respect to effective use. Other parks in the region with shared use dog parks do
not have good success. Seen lots of evidence of their shared use dog parks having harmful
effects on the condition of the fields.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o No situation is perfect. Nealon Park (shared use site) can do the professional clean up service
for $6K. At the end of the day, holes and cleanup is minimal.
o After the shared use plan is over, maybe we can try to choose a site that best for everyone
and get a stable, dedicated dog park open all hours..
o Resident doesn’t agree to use baseball fields at Baylands. Recipe for disaster for the kids.
North Palo alto needs a dog park. Mitchell and Hoover exist for south Palo
Alto. North Palo Alto needs a walking distance park. Why not Johnson park?
Hoover Park baseball field is already separated. The yellow portion on the map
(the area outside of the baseball field) could be only for dog parks.
o There are lots of kids in Palo Alto. People are able to walk in a park safely because there are
so many dogs. Hoover Park is always being used for everything. After work, people that live
nearby want to be able to interact with their kids and play sports. Unfortunately, kids and big
dogs don’t always interact well.
o Segregating large and small dogs. There are tragic examples of not doing this. Shoreline Park
has good results with separated areas for large and small dogs.
o Lots of dog owners let their dogs run up to people on bikes, don’t clean up after their dogs.
This will be an attraction for people to come out and let their dogs run out. Parents have to be
concerned with off leash dogs when visiting a park. Small dog parks smell bad.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o Supports the idea of people being able to walk their dogs to their local park. Space for dogs
in several parks would be a good idea. One park is not appropriate. Dogs need an open space
to run. Comparable to humans on 101 during rush hour. Times of usage are important in
order to have a shared use space with wider flexibility. Supports morning and evening times.
In order to establish the concept of sharing, not every single park has to have a sport held in
it. We have enough parks to designate a non-sports field for dog users. Equal number of dog
owner and non-dog owners. Statistics show that there is a greater risk of being hit by a ball
than bit by a dog.
o Morning hours will be very tough for parents to make it. It’s not dog owners vs. kids or
parents.
o A lot of the tension happens when there are shorter hours in the day and when its dark.
o Dogs, children and dog owners should share. Parks should have an area for just kids, and an
area just for kids and dogs.
o We have to find a balance where kids can recreate safely.
o A lot of people can’t get there from 8am-10am, but it doesn’t mean that every place should
be open all day long. Not every park should serve every need. Some in the morning, some in
the evening.
o Dog group founder appreciates the meeting. Advocate for a decent size fence for dogs of
different sizes. He thinks in the long term it will be better, and he would like an experiment.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
It’s important to have morning and evening hours so everyone isn’t trying to get in at once.
Hoover works well to use existing dog park as small dog and the new for bigger dogs.
o There should be a place for dogs in each park on the power point presentation (Greer,
Hoover, and Baylands Athletic Center). There should be a fence that comes up and down so
that people can share.
o Experience at Nealon with shared use dog park. Her son has been on a baseball team for
years. At least once per week he steps in poop. Nealon is a failure. In Palo Alto, the off leash
law isn’t enforced now, so will they start enforcing them now? Having dogs on sports fields
has huge implications. Field damage, potholes, dog waste. There are also other associated
costs-- will the city pick up the cost of repairing the fields that are damaged by dogs?
o CPA has poor enforcement. Animal services said they cannot routinely patrol the parks to
enforce the leash law. Repair costs have not been factored into the numbers shared tonight. It
is challenging to re-grow grass in dead areas of the turf.
o Seattle has large dog parks two/five acre dog parks. Parks with small and larger dog areas are
more successful. Dedicate space and have flexible hours. Have you reached out to others that
have had success with dedicated dog parks?
o To hear there will not be enforcement from Animal Services in concerning. Also concern that
such large portions of the parks are being proposed for shared use. Concerned of additional
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
traffic and how dogs are let out of vehicles off leash. His own children have been affected by
dog use and owners are not very apologetic.
o Have we considered Seale Park? Used for soccer and grass is clumpy. It would be better
since it has three sides. Is noise a real issue? Can the hours be pushed to 6am? Or extend the
hours in the evening so that afternoon users could use park lights.
o COMMISIONERS COMMENTS- Hetterley- There aren’t many parks with a lot of acreage.
In order to dedicate a park year round, it would most likely be a smaller park. Would it be
better to have a smaller dedicated dog park or limited hours in a larger site?
o Alma and El Camino slated for being a park? Why was the area taken off the table? We were
not allowed to develop it due to creek setback.
o Bags at the sites?
o Byxbee has an endangered species there, the burrowing owl and ridgeway rail.
o Sometimes dog walkers park in front of residents’ driveways at Hoover Park.
o Byxbee would be a good site if it were fenced off.
o An apartment resident adjacent to Hoover Park noted that the apartments accept dogs so its
beneficial for many of the people who live in the apartments. If there were lights at Hoover it
would allow longer use of the site.
o Neither choice of a small dedicated dog park, or limited shared use site is a good idea and a
vote isn’t right.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
o Small spaces and too many dogs in small spaces is not good.
o Are we talking about the pilot program or the whole solution? Opportunities for big areas are
limited.
o Likes the idea of large spaces. Also likes the idea of large areas to build communities.
o Agrees that small areas can be good dog parks, but if its as small as .1 acres it is not worth it.
o People come up to dog owners, elderly, families and ask if they can play and pet the dogs. A
form of socialization and community.
o The City of Mountain view has made ALL of their parks shared use parks at some time
during the day.
o Mountain views off leash 6am to 10am and its not the entire park and its away from the
playground area.
o Expand the thinking outside the box of other available locations . EX. Lucie Stern can be
turned into a dog park with some fencing. Partner with companies in PA with lawn areas to
use their properties as off leash dog use.
o Loma Verde area behind Sterling Canal near utilities property where they keep their stuff.
Dogs are compatible with native plants. Some teams are not from Palo Alto and excluding
Palo Alto residents to use the parks in their city. Greer Park especially being used by out of
towners. Real unfriendly place.
Additional Comments made after the public meeting
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
-Comment re: Greer Park. It's right around the corner from PAAS (Palo Alto Animal Services)
and once they get new management in charge perhaps that person would allow the dog socializer
volunteers to bring adoptable dogs to the dog park to mingle with neighbors. That kind of
visibility is an incredible tool for getting the word out about shelter dogs.
I also like the idea of enclosing the field part of Seale Park for shared use. This park already has
3 sides enclosed and many people take their dogs there to play and socialize.
During the open comment section I mentioned there is a part of Greer Park that is essentially
unused that could be idea for a dog park. It's the section at the corner of the W Bayshore and
Colorado. It's sort of rolling hillocks with a few trees and several picnic benches. The only
activity I have ever seen on the grassy area is people playing with their dogs. I think you
mentioned it is a new area (I don't know as I have only lived here 4 years). It is called Scott
Meadow after Charles Scott. (BTW he lives down the street from me and I have even met him.)
This area could be enclosed perhaps including one of the picnic table sections and excluding the
other. It's far away from any homes, and is a friendly looking spot as opposed to the strip on the
other side of Colorado. It could even be designated as the large dog park and the small one that
already exists in Greer Park could become the small dog park. While that existing dog park gets
very little use, I believe it would become more attractive if this part of the park brought more
dogs with their people.
-Your staff were doing a good job of taking notes, so we are not going to comment on everything
brought up, but we would like to summarize our main thoughts subsequent to the meeting.
1. While there are pros and cons to any program, we still feel that it is important to have at leastone Shared Use Dog Park in Palo Alto until more permanent and dedicated, larger dog parks can
be developed. Two or three would be better than one, but we would settle for one at this time.
The one with the fewest cons appears to be Hoover Park outside the baseball field. This will
detract the least from existing recreation for children and others. The fencing cost is small
compared to the cost of acquiring any land in Palo Alto. Without both morning and evening hours, any shared use dog park will concentrate too many dogs into too little time and space.
2. The need for dog recreation in Palo Alto north of Oregon Expressway will not be met by any
of these proposals, so the highest priority for any future dog parks in Palo Alto should be in the
north. As we have discussed before, a relatively easy and low cost facility could be an artificial turf park within Rinconada Park. It could avoid all of the negative factors mentioned by the
concerned citizens who showed up at the meeting, both those for more/better dog parks, and
those not so sure.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
3.In spite of the concerns about birds and endangered species, we feel that a portion of Bixby
Park should be fenced and set aside for a new dog park. A fenced area would still mean a net
positive gain for wildlife in the Palo Alto bayfront at Bixby Park. This should be done in a manner to minimize adverse impact of the park on wildlife.
4. Palo Alto Dog Owners stands ready to work with you and your staff in the development of
strong rules and strategies to minimize the impact of a shared use park on other park uses and to
make our facilities a model for best practices. We are willing to hold meetings and publicize the rules to maximize compliance.
On behalf of Palo Alto Dog Owners, thank you again for putting on such a well-run meeting last
evening. There were lots of excellent comments.
-1. Tables and benches in current dog parks: I appreciate the idea of having those, but what this
means in reality is that dog parks attract people who sit at the tables or on the benches and play
cards or chat and not supervise their dogs. I see people in Hover park dog park every day reading
on the benches while their dogs are left unsupervised. It's even worse in Mitchell Park where
people play cards at the tables rather than pay attention to their dogs. We've had many
encounters with aggressive dogs left to their own devices. Because of this, we don't go to any of
the dog parks any more and instead use the shared fields off leash. The irony is that people that
have their dogs off leash "illegally" have well trained dogs that hardly ever cause problems.
2.I think we all need to be tolerant to each group of stakeholders. What nobody brought up
tonight is that baseball at Hover park is incredibly loud, much louder than the dogs. There is also
litter left behind every time and parking is a nightmare during baseball hours. Every interest
group comes with their challenges and we need to be acknowledge all of it.
3.Shared hours: I'm really torn with this one. I like the idea per se, but I'm worried that this will
mean people start calling animal control 5 min after the off-leash window runs out because they
can. People are very opinionated and I'm worried that this would create an opportunity that
would backfire on the dog community.
4. Small dog areas all over the city are a bad idea. We need large areas where big dogs can run
and be exercised plus the small areas we have right now are already overrun with little dogs and
owners that don't supervise them. Separating small from big dogs is a good idea, we have met
lots of aggressive little dogs in Palo Alto.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
5. It really comes down to this: there are very responsible dog owners in Palo Alto, who need
space to run with their dogs and exercise them (people at Hover park even pick up other dogs'
poop if they see it). But there also totally irresponsible owners who ruin it for everyone. Perhaps
a "good citizen dog pass" could help weeding out irresponsible dog owners and they would not
be allowed in shared spaces? Also, nobody needs to worry about their children if the dog owner
is responsible and the dog well trained (mind you, children should also be trained how to and
always supervised when approaching a dog!). Howard Hoffman has set up a good group of
people already if this could be used as a starting point.
6. A city in Italy has created a DNA library from all dogs in the city and whenever there is poop
left without cleaning up, they take a sample and test which dog it was. The owner then has to pay
for the DNA test and a clean up fee. This is extreme and probably unnecessary in Palo Alto, but
could perhaps ease everyone's fear about people not cleaning up after their dog. I'd sign up for
this voluntarily as a gesture of good will.
-I owned a Vizsla for 14.5 years. He passed away last year due to cancer. Vizslas, German
ShortHairs, Weimeraners are all hunting dogs. They are most happy being off-leash and looking
for birds. Vizslas were bred to hunt, point and flush quail and pheasant. They are extremely high energy and remain that way their entire lives. Joey was my first and only dog that I raised and trained from a puppy. I learned a lot about dogs and dog behavior by reading, training with
various trainers and being consistent with my dog.
My biggest problem was finding a big off-leash area to run my dog. The dog pens in Palo Alto are way too small. My dog was most happy investigating his environment. When he was a puppy I would bring him over to the Mitchell Park dog park and it was a nice place for him to
socialize with other dogs. However as soon as he turned into an adult dog he was no longer
interested in going, preferring to be off-leash.
So, I looked for areas to run him, finding the Woodside Horse Park (which I paid $500.00/year just to walk him around the perimeter of the park) and a dog walker that would drive him over to
the beach for a 3 hour run. That was $35.00/time. Overnights with the dog walker was $60.00
per night. I invested a lot of time getting him to be a socialized dog. However, he still turned
out to be an anxious, reactive dog and I soon found I could not trust him in certain circumstances. One such instance was at Gunn High School when Joey decided to chase a person in an electric wheelchair who was on the walking path by the school. I knew then I could
not take him there off-leash unless there were barriers. Joey became very protective of me which
I could do nothing to stop.
I think the exercising of dogs in Palo Alto need to be comprehensive. I think that the more places you have to exercise dogs then less dogs in each location. So, there should be morning/evening
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
times at most neighborhood parks, and there should be a dedicated dog park that is so big you
can walk for an hour in it. There is no place for people to walk their dogs off-leash in a secured
area without bikes and horses interfering. When you get a group of people in a park or a dog
park they have a tendency to ignore their dogs behavior because they are too busy talking to each other. When you are in a secured dog area, you can be walking and training your dog at the
same time. I used this approach to train Joey in recall. I used a whistle and he was very good at
coming to me.
The old dump at the Baylands is a perfect place for an off=leash site. It is rustic (dogs don’t care that there no lawn), it is fenced and close to bathrooms. It is also relatively close to people in
Palo Alto. I don’t think there are any birds nesting in it as well. You don’t have to worry about
dogs digging it up or the smell or the noise. A sign at the entrance telling people that it is a dog
exclusive park and that young children probably shouldn’t be in there.
Athletic fields and very small and busy parks probably should not have any off-leash activity as
it seems to be too stressful for the neighbors and dogs have a tendency to dig and leave poop on
the field. People are not particularly consistent in cleaning up after their dog.
The biggest problem with dogs are their owners. People just don’t understand dogs and their behavior. They will ignore them when they are annoying people or other dogs or when they are
wanting to fight other dogs. These problems can crop up anywhere because people don’t have a
good understanding of dogs. I have seen kids chased by dogs because they started running and
they were small (dogs have a strong prey drive) and I have seen fights between owners because
of bad dog behavior. I have seen people ignore the responsibility of cleaning up after their dog (a lot!). So at all the parks you should have bags available and a place to dispose of the dog
poop. It would be nice to offer classes in owning a dog. In fact that would be a good thing to
teach children in school (how to approach dogs or dog etiquette).
The one last thing that there should be in Palo Alto is consistent availability of police officers in case you need someone. I have heard of fights at the dog park where a man picked up a black
and tan coonhound and threw it to the ground. Police were called but they got there too late.
The man had fled. So, having a protocol on when to call someone would be good.
Well, I hope that this information helps. Not every dog is a ball dog that just runs after balls. Dogs don’t need a nice lawn to run on. They don’t care where they are. Dogs that are untrained
need an enclosed area to keep them from getting into trouble. They also need an area just
dedicated to dogs — only.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Attachment E
Potential Near-term Dedicated Dog Parks
Colorado Utilities Substation -landscaped area This grass area is approximately 1 acre and is fenced on one side. It is located across the street
from Greer Park.
Size: Approximately 1 acre
Cost: Approximately $15,000.
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Mitchell Park Expanded Dog Park
The area outlined in red is the existing dog park
The area outlined in green is the proposed expanded dog park area.
Size: Increase the size from .56 acres to 1.21 acres.
Cost: Approximately $9,575.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
El Camino Park- Southern Undeveloped Area
The area outlined in red is the potential dog park location.
Size: Approximately .77 acres
Cost: Approximately $15,000
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Another photo of the potential El Camino Park Dog Park
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Taken from the Approved Minutes of October 27, 2015
3.Discussion on the Shared Use Dog Park Pilot Program.
Daren Anderson: Just one second. Let me pull the materials.
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. We have some speaker cards. If anyone has not filled out
a speaker card for this, please do so now.
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Open Space, Parks and Golf.
I'm here tonight to seek your guidance regarding the shared-use dog parks,
basically your feedback on how we're going to meet the community's dog park needs. At the last Commission meeting, I had provided an update on this topic where we covered the vast majority of the background in this staff report. I'll
gloss over that and move on to the discussion section. As I mentioned in my
previous update, Staff had hosted a community meeting July 30, 2015 to collect
feedback specifically on the shared-use concept. The vast majority of the
participants were dog owners advocating for dog parks and generally expressed
dissatisfaction with the limited hours. Our proposal had Monday through Friday
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at these sites, Greer Park, Baylands Athletic Center and
Hoover Park. The feedback was that morning hours just aren't enough. That's not
going to be adequate. To be successful, (a), you've got to make them morning and
evening at least, and it's got to be more than one site. One site's inadequate to be
successful. There were a small number of participants who attended, who were
park neighbors, who said "We don't want a dog park near our house. There's
parking issues. There's dog waste issues. There's unwanted confrontations with
children and dogs off-leash." There were also some participants who voiced
concerns about potential impacts to the fields themselves. These are athletic users
saying, "There's incompatibility between having dogs off-leash and a contained
athletic facility." One of the meeting participants mentioned that City of Mountain
View had recently made a number of their parks off-leash areas. After this public meeting, the ad hoc committee did some additional research. One was to verify
what our current recreational use is brokered at those three sites, Greer, Hoover
and the Baylands Athletic Center, and determine if we'd have conflict between
evening use dog off-leash and athletic use. Unsurprisingly, there was conflicts at
all three sites with the exception or at least the least amount of impact for the
yellow area in Hoover Park. That outfield area was the least impacted if we had
evening and morning off-leash hours, if we did a pilot there. The other kind of
follow-up research that staff had done was to reach out to Mountain View, talk to
their staff, and see what lessons they learned from their entire experience with
these off-leash areas that they recently instituted. My interview of staff brought
out some interesting facts. One was that they started this pilot program in June
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
2014, made it permanent in May 2015. Only one of their nine off-leash areas is a
dedicated dog park; that's Shoreline Park. The other eight are off-leash areas that
is unfenced. Only one of those eight is on an athletic field. The rest are kind of
passive sections of a park. The majority of the complaints that they received were
about non-observance with their hours and days, that people were bringing their
dogs when they weren't really allowed to or outside of the areas that they were
allowed to. There were also concerns from parents who had off-leash dogs
approach their children. Mountain View's got a contract with a security firm that
performs enforcement on two of their sites. Their staff explained that the success
of the program really depended on that enforcement component. They also
explained a little bit of the process they went through, that their parks and
recreation commission had not advocated for doing a pilot program, but rather
said, "You should research and look for dedicated sites." Their Council directed staff to move ahead with the one-year pilot. After the pilot which had some mixed
results, some very positive, some against the program, the commission said, "We
should extend this pilot for a year with additional enforcement." Their Council
disagreed and said please proceed in making it permanent. Staff recently learned
some additional news about Menlo Park's experience with shared-use dog parks.
Since 2005, the softball field at Nealon Park has been a shared-use site. That is
from Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Recently the Menlo Park
Recreation Commission identified some concerns about the field conditions at the
site. Their City Council concurred and basically said that the joint use was not
optimal for either user group and approved a CIP to find a dedicated spot. This
November, they're having a public meeting to see if they can relocate what they
had as that shared-use site for a dedicated spot somewhere either in that park or
another. Some of these challenges that we've encountered, both in our public
meeting and some of our outreach to other agencies, led the ad hoc committee to
explore opportunities for new or expanded dog parks that could be implemented
quickly without investing too much money nor waiting necessarily for the Master
Plan to be completed. Give me just one second to pull up the ... This was in your
staff report. This first site is across from Greer Park; it's called Colorado Avenue
Utility Substation. This is the landscaped area just outside it. It's about an acre, .96 acres to be precise. It would require about 600 feet of fencing which would
cost about $15,000. There's parking available on the street side, and it's close
proximity to neighborhoods. There are a few challenges with this site. The
Utilities Department has informed us that they may need this site for future
expansion, that is, they're constrained on the land they have and there's a
possibility they might need to use this and they're reluctant to give it up. They
also had some concerns about security. This is an area where the City gets a
tremendous amount of its power. Having people very close to the fence line was
potentially an issue for them. Lastly, the Utilities Department pays a significant
amount of money to lease that land. There'd be an impact to the General Fund; if
we were to take it over for a dog park. They'd no longer be contributing that
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
money. However, we are going to remain diligent in looking to see if this is still
an option. CSD will continue to pursue it. This next site is Mitchell Park. The
idea is can we expand Mitchell Park. The red polygon is our existing dog park. It
is about .56 acres. We, with very minimal costs, could extend the fence line to
that green polygon, which takes you from .56 to 1.21 acres. This would only cost
about $9,500. The last site we're looking at—these three sites are not exhaustive.
These are three that the ad hoc committee and staff could find that seemed to fit
the paradigm of not very expensive, could be implemented potentially quickly if
we clear some hurdles. This last site is El Camino Park. This is undeveloped area
of parkland just outside. Of course, the photo here is not that helpful. Just to the
left of that red polygon that you see is the softball field. There's a fence line that
separates it. That's kind of the park proper to the left. This undeveloped area is
just largely mulch, and there's utilities on site. If we fenced off this little area, you would gain about .77 acres of a dog park at about $15,000 cost. We did reach out
to Utilities and found out they didn't have a conflict. We could work around their
access needs. However, Planning advised staff that there are plans for a future
transit improvement that may incorporate changes to this area. CSD staff is in
communication with Planning to see if we can work around that. That concludes
my presentation. I defer to the ad hoc committee to see if they have anything
they'd like to add.
Commissioner Hetterly: Sure. I would just add, what we're really looking for
today is feedback from you all on what should be our next step. Should we be
continuing to think about a shared-use option, in which case Hoover seems the
only place that's really workable in terms of the hours and for trying to set it up for
success. As you can see looking at the picture, that does take up a big chunk of
the park for some hours of the days. We'd like your thoughts on that. Also, these
three sites, as Daren said, we're not looking to preempt the Master Plan process in
any way, but we're really trying to find something that we can do in the near term
to expand our off-leash dog opportunities. These seem some places where, short
of a CIP since they're a much smaller investment, we may be able to open
something at least for the interim until we're able to find something more permanent or maybe one of these possibilities could become a permanent option in
the future. On this one at El Camino Park in particular, like I said, all of them
we're not proposing any improvements aside from fencing and a gate and a poop
bag station, maybe a bench. Who knows. They could be interim projects that
could be easily removed later for future use. This one, this Planning project,
they're talking about extending Quarry Road through to the transit center, which of
course will have all sorts of its own issues since that's parkland. It doesn't seem
like something that they're going to break ground on in the next six months, so
why wouldn't we go ahead and use that space? I'd like any reaction from you all
(crosstalk).
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Who owns the transit center itself?
Commissioner Crommie: Do we need community input?
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, we will. I wanted to get one clarification. The transit
center there, just to the right of the red line, who controls that?
Mr. Anderson: I'll have to look into that and get back to you.
Chair Reckdahl: Is that City land do you know?
Mr. Anderson: I don't.
Chair Reckdahl: We have some speakers here. First, we have Howard Hoffman.
Howard, you have two minutes.
Howard Hoffman: Pardon me?
Chair Reckdahl: You have two minutes.
Mr. Hoffman: Thank you very much to the staff and to the Commission for at
least recognizing that if we're not going to go ahead with a shared-use facility, that
we really need at least some sort of interim dog park improvements until the
Master Plan. We're optimistic that that's going to identify multiple locations. Palo
Alto dog owners would be happy to see all of these. The people that have dogs
running off-leash right now all over Palo Alto are not an asset to the community.
It would be an asset to have one or more of these sites enclosed whether it's the
shared-use facility at Hoover Park or any of these. We do appreciate that you're
working on this and recognize that it's long overdue. We just hope that—we're not
going to endorse any one particular option. The one other option that I would like
to hold out there, which I didn't see in here, there's the part of Rinconada Park. Of
course, the dog use facilities are especially in north Palo Alto. Rinconada Park back by the power substation there, there's an area I think in the Master Plan for
that park that was identified for bocce ball perhaps. I think we've got bocce ball
somewhere else. It's a small area, but it could be with artificial turf. We don't
have any artificial turf parks being discussed here. That does give you another
option over dirt or decomposed granite or over grass. Grass needs to be fairly
large. I think that some of you are familiar with the Mountain View artificial turf
park for dogs, and that's worked out really well. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you, Howard. Next we have Amarad Acharia.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Amarad Acharia: Hi. I'm Amarad Acharia. I'd like to appreciate and thank the
staff for taking the effort to put this together. The two things I would like to point.
Centralized parks, wonderful to have them when there's nothing else available, but
they take up the opportunity of intercommunity socialization. I mean, largely I
meet my neighbors when I have kids and I take them to the park or if I have a dog
and I go with the dog for walking. Those are largely the only times I get to meet
my neighbors. Otherwise, I'm just living isolated and have relationships
elsewhere. Having parks that are within communities provide that opportunities.
It comes with all the other constraints; I understand that. We do have parks,
Rinconada for example, for people living on the northern side of town. That does
have some room that could be taken advantage of to provide such an opportunity.
Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus, you are next.
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. I'm going to speak as a resident who owns three
dogs right now. One of them is probably not going to last much longer, and then
I'll say something about environmental issues wearing my environmental hat.
First, I find that dog parks provide a huge service to the community, especially
when there is no fence around them. I have to say that it brings the community to
the park. It brings people together, and it creates an opportunity for people whose
children are already not at home. They don't socialize with their kids; they
socialize with their dogs. That is very evident in our neighborhood. There is a
need for more dog parks, for sure. I do want to say a few things about the one
park at the Baylands that was proposed here. I have concerns about that. I've had
other people from the environmental group have concerns about bringing dogs
there. One reason is that you'd have to drive there, and it's not really a wonderful
idea to drive anywhere these days if we don't have to. If you can provide the
service in the City, it's better. The other thing is that unless there is somebody to
actually monitor what happens and how people behave and whether they take the
dogs then for a walk along the creek, then that could be a huge impact to that
creek, especially as now the San Francisquito Creek is supposed to go through a flood control and habitat restoration project. Hopefully it will go through sooner
or later. When it does, I don't want to have to look at an existing condition of dogs
already there because this project moved forward before the creek was in place.
When it goes to any kind of additional analysis, the dogs will already be there. I
know it's already been through CEQA, but still I think that that's not a very good
selection for a dog park unless there is huge monitoring of how people behave and
that they don't go on the levee with dogs off-leash, which they already do anyway,
but that just brings more people to do that. I think that the less risk of inviting
unauthorized use to a remote location may not be a good analysis unless you have
data to support that. That is of concern.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Your time's up.
Ms. Kleinhaus: Also artificial turf, I don't know. You may like that park over
there. I find it kind of yech.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Mot Huri, you're up next.
Mot Huri: Hi, good evening. We've only moved to Palo Alto about 2 1/2 years
ago with a dog. Since he can't come to the meeting, this leash is him representing
himself and his friends here. One of the lovely things about Palo Alto is almost
everybody has a dog. I would like to thank you all for these wonderful proposals.
There's only one potential problem here. I live in Crescent Park. Most of these
are concentrated south of Oregon, Hoover, Greer, Mitchell. The one exception is Baylands, and she very articulately mentioned why it wouldn't be the best option.
These proposals leave seven communities which would be Crescent Park,
Community Center, Saint Francis, Professorville, University South, Leland Manor
and Old Palo Alto, with no options to walk to a dog park. The reason we would
like to walk is many. One is you get to meet people. I know more people from all
over Crescent Park just by running into them and their dogs and our dogs
interacting than I would normally had I moved to any other community. The
second things is—this also reference to her concern—when you're around people
you know, you behave better. I don't know why, but we do that. When we are in
a park and there are neighbors and we're all there with our dogs, we are going to
pick up and they are going to pick up, because we are being watched. The third
thing is the Baylands, besides everything else, all of these communities would
have to negotiate Embarcadero during commute hours to get there. We all know
Embarcadero is a traffic nightmare with unenforceable speed limits and many
other problems, very congested. I would like for you all to think about the
possibility, given how many dogs exist here and given the benefits of allowing for
areas where dogs and people can meet, I would like you all to think about putting
in off-leash, fenced dog areas in all the major parks in the north side. Certainly
Rinconada has the space for it, as does Pardee. If you can go ahead and find some space for it in either Johnson and Heritage as well, that would be great. More are
better for many reasons. I don't know how close I am to running out on time, but
Mitchell is the one good off-leash in Palo Alto, which means it gets lots of people
and lots of dogs. There have been dog confrontations. All of that can be eased up
if there are multiple alternatives. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Herb Borock is next. Irene Keene follows him.
Herb Borock: The first answer, Chair Reckdahl, is a question about El Camino
Park. The land is owned by Stanford University and leased to Palo Alto. I believe
the current lease runs to June 30, 2033. We have off-leash dog areas already,
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
except they're not legal. Because they're not legal, they don't get the intensive use
you would have with an official, sanctioned dog park. I've been familiar with the
area in Hoover Park, the turf area outside of the ball field that's used off-leash
illegally. That park also has an official dog park, and there people with dogs use
both of those and some use one or use the other. When the most people
congregate is the hours when animal control is not working. It limits the number
of people, the number of dogs that come there. If you're going to be having more
dog parks, they should be in the north area of town, north of Oregon Expressway.
They should be on neighborhood parks. El Camino Park and Rinconada Park are
district parks. When you tried to have a dog park or a bathroom even in Eleanor
Pardee Park, you saw the resistance. The woman from Crescent Park who thinks
everyone's got a dog and her neighbors want to go to a neighborhood park and do
that, she'll find very quickly that in north Palo Alto there'll be a lot of resistance to having more dog parks. If you want to do something for the community as a
whole, then you're going to have to make that kind of decision. You should expect
that it'll be more than just people who are in walking distance. People will drive to
any of these parks. If you did, for example, try Hoover Park with that area
delineated in yellow, you should put a very firm time limit because you'll very
quickly find not only the intensive use but also all the damage and concerns that
people have mentioned will then happen that are not happening now. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Our last speaker is Irene Keene.
Irene Keene: Hello. I also live in Crescent Park, but I'm on the edge of
Community Center, so I'm in north Palo Alto. There are no dog parks anywhere
near me. I have to get in my car and drive. We only have three dog parks in Palo
Alto. It's crazy, only three. There's only one that's halfway decent which is the
one at the big park, Mitchell. The one at Hoover is small; it's dirty; your dog gets
filthy there in the summertime; in the wintertime the dog gets muddy because it
turns into a mud puddle when there's rain. The other one is at Greer; that's a run.
It's really narrow; it's kind of long, but it's also a mud pit. I love the dog park in
Mountain View, the one that's got the fake grass. I mean, it's a little over the top, but I'll tell you what. It keeps your dog really clean. When it's wet out, grass gets
wet. Your dog is going to be filthy because it gets a little wet on the feet, then he
walks in dirt and it's a mess. I will get in my car and drive to Mountain View to
keep my dog clean. Then I'm going to shop over there, because there's the nice
Safeway there. Sometimes I go to Menlo Park, then I go to the Safeway in Menlo
Park. You want people to stay in Palo Alto and spend their money in Palo Alto,
get some dog parks in north Palo Alto please. Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. That was the last comment, so now we'll move on to
Commissioners.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Lauing: Chair Reckdahl?
Chair Reckdahl: Yes.
Commissioner Lauing: Just a process question. Would it make sense to just go
quickly around for questions before we came to conclusions just to make sure
everything was answered?
Chair Reckdahl: Okay. Do you have any questions?
Commissioner Lauing: I do.
Chari Reckdahl: Fire away.
Commissioner Lauing: I'd actually like to ask questions about the permanent ones
first, the permanent options that have been identified. For example, Mitchell Park,
there's no cons listed here. By the way, I thought this whole ad hoc report was
terrific, very detailed, very thorough. Good job by the ad hoc and staff. It's just
really, really helpful. Mitchell, there's no cons listed, and the cost is $9,500. I
always think of cost as a con.
Commissioner Crommie: Con is location.
Mr. Anderson: I should clarify. The pros and cons list were conducted for our
shared-use ones. When we put together our list of potential dedicated parks, we
hadn't done the pro and con analysis. It was just preliminary. We haven't quite
resolved a lot of the other potential challenges like the substation (crosstalk) we
didn't get to the pros and cons for this one.
Commissioner Lauing: This one seems to get to wow, we can get a real-size park
here in a way that your analysis, the ad hoc's analysis, it'd be nice to have an acre
and to be able to add that much—if there really are any cons and there's $9,500 as the cost, that seems like a way to get some—like we created in the Baylands.
What did Council say? We created land out there by doing that. You might be
able to create a big dog park here.
Rob de Geus: Can I just comment on that?
Commissioner Lauing: Sure.
Mr. de Geus: There's always going to be tradeoffs and some pros and cons. I
haven't been out there recently. That area, people do sit on that grassy area. It's
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
sort of a hilly area. It's a nice place to just lie down on the grass and relax. I see
people do that all the time, so that's one tradeoff that we have to consider.
Commissioner Lauing: Your point is an important point for all of this discussion.
The public, some of whom spoke tonight, always need to know that there's a
tradeoff. If you've got a dog there, you're not kicking a ball, you're not lying in the
grass, and so on. That's part of our challenge with this whole issue Citywide.
With respect to both Colorado Avenue and El Camino, the issue of there may be a
future need, in and of itself doesn't seem too compelling to me as a con, because
we can use it now. I guess my question back is how long do you think it would
take to resolve that situation for either one of those? Yes, you might need it later,
but as we know it takes time and it could be a couple of years before they need it,
Let's be active with it, would be one approach.
Mr. Anderson: That's certainly the position that staff is taking. The conversations
for both of those sites are ongoing right now.
Commissioner Lauing: I mean, I know this is a little bit unfair. Do you think this
is going to be resolved in a month or 12 months or ...
Mr. de Geus: I don't think we have an answer. We're trying to get the answer to
that. We have the same question, Commissioner Lauing. One of the things we've
heard for this location here from Utilities staff is the concern that once you provide
that service, say this is a dog park even if it's temporary, it's very hard to take it
away once you've provided it. They've expressed that concern.
Commissioner Lauing: The other side of it is if we don't do it all for two years ...
Mr. de Geus: I know. That's what we ...
Commissioner Lauing: We have some blank space there that looks compelling.
Just to be sure about the security concern issue there. Was it just getting too close to the electrical facilities? Is that what you mean?
Mr. Anderson: That's what they voiced, yes. That was the Utilities staff. Security
in terms of protecting the asset of the City's power.
Mr. de Geus: That's a particularly important power plant, not that I know much
about it. What I've heard from the Utilities staff is—I asked them about this. How
serious are these constraints that they're suggesting? This site is where all the
electricity for Palo Alto comes through, into that particular location. They're
especially sensitive to ...
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Lauing: Is it a two-way security concern? They're concerned that
somehow the public is going to get in there and disrupt that or is it a concern that
we don't want the public to be hurt? I just didn't (crosstalk).
Mr. de Geus: I think it's both. I do think it's both. It wasn't a complete shutdown;
it can't happen. The Utilities staff were willing to in fact even meet with the ad
hoc committee if they'd be interested in doing so. I think we'll pursue that.
Commissioner Lauing: I didn't quite get the concern about the amount of money.
Again, it's just sitting there vacant, and there wouldn't be any change for that if
they needed it back in five years. I didn't understand why that was a potential
constraint.
Mr. de Geus: I don't know if this is it. Daren, I don't want to jump in. Utilities is
an Enterprise Fund, so they pay rent for the land that they use. They're paying rent
to the City's General Fund for the use of that land including that. Once it's used
for a different purpose, not a utility purpose, then they no longer pay rent back to
the City. There's a financial (crosstalk).
Commissioner Lauing: Legally or conveniently?
Mr. de Geus: It's just there. They ...
Commissioner Lauing: I don't want to take too much time. Another question I
had is that in the summary many, many dog owners at that last large meeting,
which I attended, said that the hours just don't work. Again, it's a debate with if
that's all you could get, would you take a shared-use dog park with a couple of
hours. I share that concern, because what we're trying to do with any pilot is
basically do a test market of will this work in a lot of different ways. If you only
test two hours or three hours on five days a week, we're just not testing anything
that's very comprehensive relative to, as you would say with a product, to be able
to roll it out. I wasn't on the ad hoc, so I don't have the level of detail. I was surprised that at Baylands, for example, there weren't Sunday nights between 4:00
and 8:00 in the summers that might be open. I don't think, from my recollection of
Babe Ruth which I was involved with, that they play at that time. My question is,
if we really strive, could we find some other segments of time to test different time
segments besides 10:00 to 12:00 in the morning. Has the ad hoc already
exhausted that?
Mr. Anderson: I'll defer to the Commissioners on that one.
Commissioner Hetterly: I would just answer on when the Baylands Athletic
Center is used, they're telling us from 3:00 until 10:00 p.m., Monday through
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Friday, it's booked. Weekends from 8:00 a.m. 'til 10:00 p.m. it's booked. That
seemed to us to preclude joint use during those evening hours.
Commissioner Lauing: I'm surprised at the evening hours. I haven't worked on
those schedules in a few years. Also in terms of the Babe Ruth, which is a big
user of that, it's not 12 months out of the year.
Chair Reckdahl: They close down the field for how many months? Three months
during the winter?
Mr. Anderson: Mm-hmm.
Chair Reckdahl: So no one can access the field just because of damage to the field. The field gets wet.
Commissioner Lauing: That makes sense.
Chair Reckdahl: During the non-closed, it's between Babe Ruth and other people
that rent the field, it's brokered down there. It's pretty busy.
Commissioner Lauing: That was just one example. The question is do you feel
like you've exhausted any options for evening walks. Basically, anybody who has
a job, has an 8-5 job, is not going to be able to use this shared-use dog park.
Commissioner Hetterly: I think it's pretty clear to the ad hoc. Anyway, we
concluded that Hoover was the only viable option of the three for a shared-use
pilot that could handle those evening hours ...
Commissioner Knopper: The yellow.
Commissioner Hetterly: ... at the yellow part, outside that fence.
Commissioner Knopper: The stakeholders that use that said they would not use
that part of the field. Now, part of the field they use sort of for practice, but if it
was shared use with dogs, they wouldn't even put children on it at that point,
because they'd be scared dogs would dig a hole and the kids ...
Commissioner Lauing: This is Hoover?
Commissioner Knopper: Yeah, outside the yellow portion. The baseball
stakeholders said they just wouldn't use the yellow if we did ...
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Hetterly: They occasionally use it now, but it's not booked through
our—I don't know (crosstalk).
Commissioner Knopper: For official practices.
Mr. Anderson: That's right.
Commissioner Hetterly: It's just informal use.
Commissioner Knopper: It's not official, but you use it to take kids out there to
teach them technique or whatever. If we were to implement a pilot of shared-use,
they wouldn't put kids out there.
Commissioner Lauing: Okay. Was the small field at Baylands the same way in
terms of its usage?
Mr. Anderson: Yes.
Commissioner Knopper: Mm-hmm.
Commissioner Lauing: No further questions.
Chair Reckdahl: Deirdre.
Commissioner Crommie: How come Sterling Canal didn't end up on your list of
extra opportunities?
Mr. Anderson: It just wasn't a comprehensive list. As I mentioned, these three
jumped out at us. Both because there was partial fencing there on all three of
those that limited the cost to something that we could afford without waiting for a
CIP. As soon as you need a new CIP, you're looking at a much longer timeframe.
Once you're within the 20,000 and less category, it's something we could probably fund with our existing funds.
Commissioner Crommie: I have a problem with that actually, for generating a list
that way. First of all, if you end up at Mitchell, there's already a dog park there. It
seems like you're not even in line with the mandate to look for areas that are not
served currently. If that's what you've come up with, it means you didn't look
enough, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if this is our comment section. I
would just say that you're not being expansive enough right now.
Commissioner Hetterly: Should I respond? Would you like a response to that?
As far as what we were limited—our mandate was really to look at shared-use
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
sites. The whole purpose behind that was to find large sites. Shared-use was
appealing because it offered the opportunity to have a big chunk of land that dogs
could really run in. We had agreed as a Commission to defer the bigger question
of how we can distribute dog parks Citywide within our parks better through the
Master Plan, because we know there's a big public outreach process for every
single park, as you know. Who wants a park, who doesn't want a park, dogs,
bathroom, whatever. We thought that was more appropriate through the Master
Plan process. We were really just looking at what can we do in the short term to
test something out for shared use, which limited our options to begin with to the
three we talked about because of the cost and the size, where we had athletic fields
that were available. Then when we looked at non-shared-use options, again we
were looking for big sites with few improvements that could happen quickly.
That's how we ended up with those three that we ended up with. I think Sterling Canal has a number of issues, as you probably know because you were on the
Sterling Canal ad hoc committee. There was limited options there. It's completely
fenced off at this point, and there's no public access at all.
Commissioner Crommie: We never got to the bottom of that. Let me just ask this
question then, based on what you just said. Is the current Mitchell Park dog park
bigger than a baseball field diamond shared-use would achieve or smaller? The
current size.
Commissioner Hetterly: Small, small.
Commissioner Knopper: Smaller.
Commissioner Crommie: Can you just give me the two square footages?
Commissioner Hetterly: They're on your handout.
Mr. Anderson: Mitchell's .56 acres. For example, Hoover which is up on the
display, you can see the yellow area is 1.17 acres. Inside the red area is .96 acre. They're all a little different. As I toggle back to the Baylands, you can see it's
much larger, for example. That large red area has 3.27.
Commissioner Crommie: Thank you.
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you have any questions?
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah. In the Hoover Park option, it's listed as a con that
there's frequent use of the field by the Keys School. Why is that a con? Because
the field is occupied?
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Commissioner Knopper: There's a lot of children using it during the day, so that
leads to the issue of use, because they use it for their PE activities during the
course of the school day. A lot of the comment with regard to public comment is
that you have dog waste that isn't necessarily cleaned up and the occasional dog
digging the hole and tearing up the grass. That is an opportunity for kids to ...
Commissioner Ashlund: That applies at any park, right?
Commissioner Knopper: For shared-use, yeah.
Commissioner Ashlund: For shared use. Do you only want questions at this point
or we're making other comments as well? Is this the first pass through?
Chair Reckdahl: The first pass through. (inaudible) two.
Commissioner Ashlund: That's it for now.
Chair Reckdahl: That's it, okay. Any other questions? Okay. Now, comments,
conversations. Ed, do you have anything?
Commissioner Lauing: Yeah. Why don't you start at that end? I'm happy to go if
you want.
Chair Reckdahl: Stacey, do you want to start?
Commissioner Ashlund: Okay.
Chair Reckdahl: Go for it.
Commissioner Ashlund: I really like the recommendations. I mean, it's been so
consistent all along from the community and Council and everybody that the need
is in the north of Palo Alto. I really like the potential triangle we'd have if we kept Mitchell the size it is, use the Colorado substation area and the El Camino Park
area. I think that would be really, really good coverage. The Colorado substation,
today's the first day I've heard that brought up. I don't know if we've discussed
that before on the Commission, but I may have missed that one in the past. If we
are looking at shared-use, I don't see that use of a public park by a private school
for PE is a con. It's public land, so I don't think that applies here as a con. It's
public land. I mean, there's schools adjacent to all of our parks. It's public land;
it's not private PE land.
Chair Reckdahl: Do they pay rent?
ATTACHM
E
N
T
A
January 2
6
,
2
0
1
6
Mr. de Geus: I have to look into that. I'm not sure if they get a permit; I don't
believe they do. I have to check.
Commissioner Ashlund: If they were renting the field, that would be one thing.
Commissioner Knopper: I think you have to look—just pardon me for
interrupting. Point taken with regard to it's a private school. I think some of the
other cons are there's a nearby playground and it's a heavily used park on any
given day, all hours of the day.
Commissioner Ashlund: Yeah, I understand that. I don't think location-wise that
Hoover is really jumping out. I mean, it's been so consistent that the need is in the
north. The other possibility—I don't know if we have already approached the neighborhood associations. Since we do frequently hear from speakers in the
north saying, "We want them in the neighborhood parks in the north," have you
approached the neighborhood associations at all and said, "Talk to your neighbors
and let's see what your consensus is. Do you guys want it or do you not want it in
your neighborhood park?" Once it comes back to the Commission, then we have
to go back and do the outreach. If the neighborhoods are asking for it and can start
to say there really is more demand than there is resistance in a certain
neighborhood park, that could help with community feedback.
Commissioner Hetterly: We have not done that primarily because the
Commission had asked us not to do that and to leave that to the Master Plan
process.
Commissioner Ashlund: Leave that to the Master Plan process, right.
Commissioner Hetterly: Just to reiterate, the idea of trying to get more dedicated
dog parks in neighborhood parks across the City is, as we understood it, really part
of the Master Plan process. This is an additional process that we're trying to move
something forward quickly. That's a big (inaudible).
Commissioner Ashlund: I would avoid expanding at Mitchell. Mitchell is really,
really crowded by a number of schools, a number of tennis players, bicyclists,
pedestrians. I would really avoid it. The need just isn't there. Nobody is coming
to our meetings saying, "We wish we had—if Mitchell were bigger on the south
end of Palo Alto." We're hearing north, north, north. That's my feedback, is
really, really keep the focus there.
Chair Reckdahl: Other questions? Deirdre.
Commissioner Crommie: Are we just doing comments now?
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
Chair Reckdahl: Comments, questions (crosstalk).
Commissioner Crommie: I knew the shared-use was dead on arrival when it was
just morning hours. I mean, I wasn't surprised one bit because everyone I know
that hangs out with their dogs in public places are doing it in the evenings. It just
seems obvious. Just look around our City. Look around our neighborhoods.
Look around our parks. Everyone comes out after they get home from work.
They like to come during that twilight hour. All across the City, that's happening,
and it's not happening in the morning. I'm not surprised that we got all that
feedback. I brought it up at the time that the ad hoc was formulating their idea,
but I was told, "We just have to do that as a pilot." These things are all connected.
I mean, it's not independent. It's like you have to satisfy the need even when you do a pilot. I think we should take the Baylands park off the table. There's not a
single person who's coming here saying they want to go over there and use that as
a dog park. We need to look at what the constituency is saying. No one is saying
that. Plus, it can harm the wildlife as people move from that park to the levee
which they absolutely will do if they're over there. I just think that should be a
non-starter. I know it was sort of put on the table because it was cheap, but I just
don't see any reason to keep it there. Mitchell Park is in my neighborhood,
relatively close. I guess it's a 20-minute walk or 5-minute car ride. None of my
neighbors with dogs go over there. They just don't want to do it. They hang out at
the tiny, little Monroe Park. I wish I could get them to go to Robles which is a 7-
minute walk. People just don't seem to want to go very far from their homes with
their dogs. Mitchell Park, I don't even like being there with my dog. It's all dirt. I
haven't heard good things about the experience at Mitchell Park for a dog park. If
we don't have a good experience with a half-acre dog park over there, I'm not sure
it's going to improve to go into that nice sitting area nearby. We can't keep the
grass nice at Mitchell Park. Now, if you double the size, maybe there's a lower
impact, somehow you can keep it nice. I've just not seen that happen. I'm a big
user of the artificial turf dog park; I go there multiple times a week with my dog.
It's in the shopping center at San Antonio and Fayette. I was never into artificial turf; it seems gross to me. I will say it works, it really does work. It's hugely
used, a massively dense dog park, and the dogs are all different sizes. It'd be
really nice to know the acreage on that dog park. It seems tiny to me. I've talked
to a lot of people there. Kind of the word at that park is, it's tiny but we all can see
our dogs so the dogs are not misbehaving. That's why the small dogs work with
the big dogs, because they're highly monitored. Some people in dog parks say
where you really get into trouble is when it gets too big, the dogs run off. People
want to stay and congregate with each other, and then the dogs start misbehaving
or not getting picked up after and stuff like that. I guess of all these proposals, I
would say put them where the people want them which is in the north. That's
where we have the deficit. We should do whatever it takes to get something over
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
there. Then we have to look at just neighborhood by neighborhood and make sure
every neighborhood park is assessed for a dog area, because that's where people
want to go. They want an easy walking distance. Some parks are a lot better
suited for it. It's an absolute tragedy at Eleanor Pardee. The reason you don't have
a dog park there is because people rebelled in that neighborhood. We need to have
a stronger policy mandate to really counteract the NIMBY-ism. I've been on the
Commission now for seven years. Ever since I sat here, we have looked at dog
parks. I just hope the next wave we get more going with it. You really do need to
look at where the users are, where people want it, independent of cost at this point.
I think we're being misled to look for a cheap solution. Look where we ended up;
we ended up in areas where we already have dog parks, looking at that. That's not
what people are telling us they want. That's what I feel.
Female: Can I ask a question?
Commissioner Lauing: Not really.
Chair Reckdahl: No.
Female: Come back next month on this.
Chair Reckdahl: Ed.
Commissioner Lauing: Yes, thanks. As we address this whole issue, we need to
go back over the last year and half when we got started and over the last six years.
Why are we looking at shared-use dog parks? Because there aren't enough dog
parks. Why aren't there enough dog parks? Because there's not enough parks and
there's not enough park space. To have a comment that we should just survey the
public and put them where they want them is not practical in any way, shape or
form. We have to do what we can with the limitation of park space until we can
get more park space, if we can, and do the best we can to identify existing spaces
that can be turned into dog parks. We've been working on this for a long time. The need is there. We know that it's going to come out as a very, very high need
in the Master Plan. The top three, maybe the top issue in all of parks, maybe in
the top three of all City issues, but certainly as park specific. There are other
options that are being uncovered, which I agree is above and beyond the scope of
what the ad hoc was supposed to look at. I thank them for also looking at those.
There are still a lot of cards to overturn there. We don't know if that's going to be
the case. I would be very happy to see action at our next meeting in favor of going
ahead with these pilots to get some data. That's what you do, as I said earlier, in a
test market. You try to get some data on what works and what doesn't. For
example, I think it would be a very valid test to have Hoover and Baylands
because, amongst other things, it's comparing the usage that we get from someone
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
who's walking to the park and the usage we would get with someone who is
driving to the park. If I lived in north Palo Alto, which I do, and I had a dog,
which I don't, I would love to go to Baylands a couple of hours and run my dog in
that big space as opposed to never go there because it takes me five minutes to
drive there. I think it could get extraordinary use. We don't know that if we just
restrict it to one pilot or say, "Forget about it. Let's just wait another couple of
years until we can get some permanent dog parks." To be able to test Hoover
versus Baylands, number one, you really do need an A-B split test to have a valid
study. You're testing north and south; you're testing drive to and walk to. I think
you would get some pretty interesting feedback there. I'm very aware of the
challenges involved, but I don't think the cons are so overwhelming that we say we
shouldn't do it. In the meantime and in parallel if those, call them ready options,
can be looked at, certainly the El Camino would be a tremendous alternative. We worked really, really hard on the El Camino Park to get a dog park in there. We
were shot down on that a couple of years ago by the environmental; otherwise,
there'd be one right there today because I see the park is almost ready to open. I'd
like to see us move to action on the ad hoc at the next meeting. I'm sorry, on the
shared-use at the next meeting that the ad hoc has studied. If we ended up saying
contingent on if a permanent one opens up in 60 days, we can kind of reel it back
in. The footnotes that I would have is that I still would like to see if there will be a
way to extend the hours. In contrast to my colleague, I don't agree that nobody's
going to come between 8:00 and 10:00, because a lot of people walk their dogs in
the morning. A lot of people. I've gone on morning walks, and I run into a lot of
dogs and make a lot of dog friends. Let's see. The second thing is in the pilot I
would like to see—this may be a detail—during the pilot I would like to see
outreach and support from the dog owners in terms of the clean-up aspect of it just
to make it a very successful pilot. We can sort out later what to do around that.
Chair Reckdahl: Anyone else? Pat.
Vice Chair Markevitch: It seems to me there's one park that has not been
mentioned, and it's in north Palo Alto. That's Heritage Park where the old clinic used to be on Homer. They specifically planted trees there so soccer clubs
couldn't play. I think it's a good shared-use option to look at.
Chair Reckdahl: We went over there after the May Fete Parade. I brought that up,
that I thought there is room there to have a dog park whether it be a shared-use or
a dedicated dog park. I understand the ad hoc was not addressing the whole dog
park issue. They were very focused on the shared-use. Once the Master Plan
comes in, I think we'll have a little more freedom. When I look at these options, I
think the most promising one is El Camino. I think that is a very good location. If
we can do that on the cheap, I think we should do it now and not wait for the
Master Plan. I do think that, in my anecdotal experience talking to people who
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
have dogs, most people want something that they can walk to. I hear that over and
over again. We don't have big parks in Palo Alto. We can't have big dog parks in
every park, but we can have small dog parks in a lot. Down the road, if I look in
my crystal ball, I think that's the solution that's going to percolate up, having some
small—it'll probably have to be artificial turf since you have high use on it—in
neighborhood parks. That's a decision down the road, but now I think we should
just move ahead and do something, either the shared-use at Hoover or the El
Camino Park. Those are the two most feasible. Hoover Park, you could have
evening hours. There is not the constraint that you would have if you had it inside
the diamond where you would have competition from kids. You could do Hoover
and have morning and evening hours, and that would be an option. You could
have a dedicated park over at El Camino. I think those are the two best options. I
don't see any reason to wait for the Master Plan for either of those. A couple of points I would bring up. A lot of people complain, "I'm a neighbor to a park. I
don't want to have a dog park nearby." When I go over to San Antonio, I'll sit
there and listen. One thing is if you look up there, people have their windows
open looking out over that dog park. If it was really that noisy, they would have
their windows shut. I don't think a dog park is any more noisy than any other park
use. When I sit there and try and listen and pretend if I was in my living room,
would I find this objectionable, I don't. I think that neighbors' objections are not
based on fact. It's based on concerns that are not real. The second thing is off-
leash without fences. I think that's a really bad idea. My son was knocked down
in a park once by an off-leash dog, and it was very traumatic. He had a dog
phobia for years after that. I think if we want to off-leash dogs, they really should
be inside some type of fence. I think that's the best option. I think we do have
options here. I agree with Ed that we should move on, and we should in the near
future try something. If it doesn't work, we always can back it out. Failing any
other comments, we'll move on to the Master Plan.
ATTACHMENT A
January 26, 2016
ATTACHMENT B
ELEANOR PARDEE PARK
.41 acres; 750 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
BOWDEN PARK-
.40 acres; 780 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
GREER PARK NORTH SIDE
.87 acres; 595 linear feet (300 extra if park/resident fence not used)
ATTACHMENT B
PEERS PARK
.73 acres; 770 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
HOOVER PARK
1 acre; 800 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
ROBLES PARK
.47 acres; 750 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
MITCHELL PARK
1.2 acres; linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
KINGSLEY ISLAND
.27 acres; 520 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
WERRY PARK
.30 acres; 450 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
JUANA BRIONES PARK
.47 acres; 675 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
HERITAGE PARK
.27 acres; 630 linear feet of fencing required
ATTACHMENT B
EL CAMINO PARK SOUTH SIDE
.67 acres ;480 linear feet of fencing required (use of existing park fence required)
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
PEERS PARK