HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-24 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 October 24, 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. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to
limit oral communications period to 3 minutes.
IV.DEPARTMENT REPORT
V.BUSINESS
1.Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 26, 2017 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting – PRC Chair Keith Reckdahl – Action – (5 min) ATTACHMENT2.Update on the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Funding Plan – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion – (45 min) ATTACHMENT
3.Audit Status Report: Community Services Department Fee Schedule Audit – Jazmin LeBlanc
–Discussion – (15 min) ATTACHMENT
4.Rinconada Park Long Range Plan – Peter Jensen – Action – (60 min) ATTACHMENT
•Recommend Adoption of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
•Recommend Adoption of the CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Document
5.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion – (15 min)
VI.COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VII.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 28, 2017 MEETING
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
September 26, 2017 8
CITY HALL 9
250 Hamilton Avenue 10
Palo Alto, California 11
12
Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley (arrived 13
late), Don McDougall (arrived late), David Moss, and Keith 14
Reckdahl 15
Commissioners Absent: 16
Others Present: 17
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane, Tanya Schornack 18
I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Tanya Schornack 19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20
Chair Reckdahl: Any changes? We'll move on. I should note all the handouts are in the 21
back. If the public wants to get copies of what we see, they're all in the back. We also 22
have speaker cards. If you want to speak on any item whether it's on the agenda or not, 23
please fill one out and give it to Tanya. 24
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 25
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move onto Oral Communications. We do have one speaker card 26
here, Prachi Agarwal [phonetic]. Have a seat tonight. Our standing mic is not working, 27
so you can sit at the front table. You have 3 minutes. Thank you. 28
Prachi Agarwal: Hi. I'm a resident of Crescent Park here in Palo Alto. I have an 8-year-29
old son. I was wanting to propose—I sent an email about this, about proposing a play 30
streets program for Palo Alto. An interested block would be able to block off a street so 31
that kids could come out and play and enable some unstructured, free playtime. Many in 32
our generation have memories of roaming around in our neighborhoods unfettered and 33
unstructured. Unfortunately, given the current status quo, an entire generation of kids 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
will not have that opportunity of roaming around on the streets, playing with their 1
buddies, and having free playtime. This is something that would enable them to do that. 2
I was going through the Master Plan proposal, and it jives really well with what the 3
Master Plan says. It has a lot of reference to community building, unstructured, free 4
playtime. It's also very easily implemented program. All you need is to block off a 5
street. There are various examples throughout the country where it's been done. Seattle 6
has a lovely program, and they have it on their website, on the city website. Seattle, New 7
York, San Francisco has these programs. This is an opportunity for Palo Alto to be a 8
pioneer in the Bay Area. Why restrict it to Silicon Valley? Even the City government 9
can bring some good programs to its residents. This is what I wanted to propose. I'm 10
happy to work as a volunteer if you decide to go ahead with the plan. I just wanted to 11
bring that forward. 12
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Talk to your neighbors. If you can get a critical mass of 13
neighbors, we will, I would think, look highly on it. We currently do have the capability 14
of doing block parties. There's a permit process for that. I don't know exactly the permit 15
process. Do you happen to know that, Kristen? 16
Ms. Agarwal: Yes, I'm aware that it's once or twice a year. That's through the Police 17
Department. This will be more like if a block is interested in, let's say, once a month on a 18
Sunday, 3:00-6:00, being able to block off on a recurring basis if the block is interested in 19
doing so, having some kind of mechanism in place for that kind of recurring or non-20
recurring request as opposed to block parties, which is through the Police Department. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. I encourage you to talk to your neighbors and see if you 22
can get consensus. 23
Ms. Agarwal: Thanks. 24
Chair Reckdahl: That's the only speaker card, so we'll move on to Department report. 25
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 26
Kristen O'Kane: Good evening, Commissioners. Kristen O'Kane, Community Services 27
Department. I only have some special events to announce and remind the Commissioners 28
of. The first I wanted to mention was starting today actually, the Great Glass Pumpkin 29
Patch outside the Art Center. The exhibition for that started today and goes through the 30
29th. Sales for the glass pumpkins are September 30th and October 1st. You can go 31
online and get more detail at greatglasspumpkinpatch.com. I also wanted to mention that 32
this Sunday is the Midtown Neighborhood Ice Cream Social. We have a few 33
Commissioners who are planning on attending. I will be there as well. We'll have a table 34
set up just to talk to the community about what's happening in our parks and recreation, 35
and also we can talk about the Master Plan as well and how that was recently adopted. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
This Friday, October 6th, is the 33rd Annual Palo Alto Moonlight Run and Walk at the 1
Baylands. I believe it's a slightly different course this year, again, because of the 2
construction going on, on the creek and in the Baylands. We're happy that we're still able 3
to do the event with the Palo Alto Weekly. Sunday, October 15th, we're hosting a new 4
event at Lucie Stern Community Center, and it's called a Harvest Festival. This is the 5
first year we're doing it. We're just seeing how much community interest we get in an 6
event like this, a fall family event for kids to come and do crafts, decorate pumpkins, 7
things like that, and also to showcase the Lucie Stern Community Center a little bit as 8
well. 9
Chair Reckdahl: That's being run by the City or is that … 10
Ms. O'Kane: This is a City event, correct. That's all I have for Department Report. A lot 11
of the other things that I wanted to update you on will come out of the ad hoc report later 12
in the agenda. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Very good. 14
Commissioner Greenfield: While we're talking about events coming up, I just wanted to 15
add a plug for Bike Palo Alto, which is also Sunday, October 1st. It's at the same time as 16
the Midtown Ice Cream Social that I'll be attending. It's from 1:00-3:00 throughout the 17
City. It may be based at El Carmelo School. 18
Chair Reckdahl: Very good. That is a good event. We are done with Department 19
Report. 20
V. BUSINESS: 21
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the August 22, 2017 Parks and Recreation 22
Commission Meeting 23
Approval of the draft August 22, 2017 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Cribbs and 24
seconded by Commissioner Greenfield. Passed 5-0 McCauley and McDougall absent 25
2. Junior Museum and Zoo Redesign Park Improvement Ordinance 26
Chair Reckdahl: Now the fun stuff, the Junior Museum and Zoo. Rhyena, are you going 27
to be starting? 28
Rhyena Halpern: Yes, I am. 29
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Ms. Halpern: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director 1
for Community Services, overseeing the arts and sciences division, of which the JMZ is a 2
part. It gives me pleasure to come here before you again. This is our sixth visit to you. 3
Before I start with opening comments, I just wanted to welcome the Friends of the Junior 4
Museum and Zoo Board President, Aletha Coleman, who is in the audience and I'm sure 5
would be happy to talk tonight if you had any questions for her. As you know, the Junior 6
Museum's mission is to engage a child's curiosity for science and nature through hands-7
on inquiry-based activities and inspiring encounters with live animals. We certainly love 8
what we do at the JMZ. We have about 184,000 visitors a year, and this is a treasured 9
community asset. As you know, the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo under Aletha 10
Coleman's leadership have raised $25 million for the construction of a new building. We 11
have been working actively with Friends of the JMZ and their architects sitting next to 12
me, that I will introduce to you momentarily, on the design for the new JMZ. We've been 13
working for about 4 years now on the design. We came to the PRC first in February 14
2015, again in July 2015, again in April 2016, and we most recently gave you a design 15
update in June of this year. In August, Peter Jensen presented the Rinconada Park Long 16
Range Plan. I gave an update to that and gave you an update on our CEQA Initial Study. 17
Tonight, we're coming to you to give you a little better view of the design as it stands 18
now and to ask your approval on the Park Improvement Ordinance. As you know, the 19
actual site where we're building the new JMZ is the existing site and has some very 20
interesting constraints on the site from the utility corridor to the park boundary line to 21
special specimen trees. Based on your input and changes in the designs, we have 22
decreased the footprint of the Zoo into the park. When we first came to you in 2015, we 23
had asked for an 11,000-square-foot expansion into the park. Now as the design is today, 24
5,217 is the total expansion. Brent and Sarah will go into that a little bit more. At your 25
request from 2015, there are also no buildings in the expanded space. It's all Zoo space. 26
In April of '16, we received a vote of support for the project, and in June of '17 we 27
received positive feedback from you. Tonight, we're hoping to receive your approval for 28
the Park Improvement Ordinance. I want to point out to you the at-places memo. We 29
had a small error in one item. In Section D in the Park Improvement Ordinance, we 30
corrected the square footage numbers. That's in your at-places memo. Now, I would like 31
to introduce to you Brent McClure and Sarah Vaccaro from CAW Architects, who have 32
just been doing a stellar job on the design and redesign and are real pleasures to work 33
with. They will walk you through the PowerPoint. 34
Brent McClure: Thank you, Rhy. Commissioners, thank you very much for having us 35
here tonight. We've put together a short PowerPoint just to walk you through the design 36
and its impacts and how it touches the park. My understanding is much of this you've 37
already seen. This first slide is showing the existing site as we know it today. The 38
Museum building is this rectangular shape here. The green is the park boundary, and the 39
existing Zoo is this gray-shaded area with the dashed line around it. This is the footprint 40
of the Zoo as we know it today. I wanted to go back to this image here. This is a slide 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
showing the photographs, if you're in the parking lot with the Zoo right here on the right, 1
behind this fence, entrance into the park. If you're standing in the park, this is the fence 2
looking out at the existing Zoo with the play structure on this side here. This is the 3
design as we have it currently today. As Rhy mentioned, we've been before you several 4
times. We've done a lot of work to, like we say, sharpen the pencil, go back and scratch 5
our heads, go back to the drawing board with a lot of input from you all at previous 6
sessions, the ARB as well, as well as the client balancing the many constraints that these 7
projects face. We were successful at getting all of the building program out of the park 8
boundary. As you can see, it is a green dashed-line that wraps around. We conform to 9
this edge here. The utility easement runs right through here, so that all that is in question 10
is really the footprint of the proposed Zoo and what we call the Zoo support space that's 11
also open air and enclosed with a fence line back through this zone here. One of the 12
other aspects of the design, working with the ARB—this is outside the park boundary; 13
however, we really focused on creating these pathways and circulation for pedestrians, 14
bike path that's going to come in through here, to link the Lucie Stern complex, Girl 15
Scout building, the park, and the Museum and Zoo in a much stronger civic, contextual 16
experience, so that the parking lot is renovated. However, all of the pathways are cleaned 17
up and organized. How this affects this design into the park. Here's an existing footprint 18
of the Zoo in the parkland of 8,800 square feet. The new design will expand to 14,017 19
square feet. That is this line edge right along here. The net increase is this 5,217 square 20
feet, which is the red zones here. There's a little bit of flare that's in this area, and then 21
this is the expansion along the edge, tucking up real nice and tight to the Walter Hays 22
School and the multipurpose building where there's a lawn space behind some existing 23
chestnut trees. If we blow up on this area here, just to highlight the footprints of the areas 24
of work, our focus and project boundary is really in this red zone with the Friends having 25
their emphasis with the 25 million that's been raised on the Museum and Zoo, and then 26
the City and the Friends working on sitework over here together. Outside the walled 27
edge of the project would then be park improvements that are part of the Master Plan and 28
spearheaded by Peter Jensen. We wanted to note to you all that all of the mature trees—29
there was one point we were looking at losing some of the chestnuts. We preserved all of 30
the chestnuts and the redwood and the oaks that are all within the park boundary. All of 31
those trees will be preserved. Here's an image within the netted enclosure, what the Zoo 32
itself is going to look like. The Zoo design is over into here with the pathways and 33
exhibits. These lower areas are the back of house, where they can take animals out of 34
exhibit to rest and whatnot. We've done a rendering of a view of what it would look like 35
primarily focusing on the wall and the edged perimeter. A lot of what we're trying to do 36
with this project is to, getting back to what Rhy said, engage children in science and 37
nature and expand their curiosity and how much can we utilize the building and the 38
surroundings to do some of those things. To break down the scale of this enclosed 39
perimeter and maintain the height that we need, we've established the fenced perimeter 40
around the Zoo with two primary materials. One is a wood fence, and then also an 41
interval-colored stucco/plaster wall as well so that there'd be these layers of the wood 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
fencing and then the plaster fencing. These are consistent materials and colors that echo 1
within the building itself. The columns and the netting would then sit inboard of that to 2
enclose the Zoo because they have Loose in the Zoo. They're going to let animals 3
actually loose within the space to have a hands-on experience and whatnot. The redwood 4
and the chestnuts are preserved to help shield some of that. The landscaping work that's 5
in front was developed in its early stages with Peter Jensen. I think he brought forth a 6
sketch at a prior meeting. One of the other things that we're looking to do is interject 7
some scale and some patterning on the fencing primarily around the corner so the kids 8
can see how big is a blue whale or how tall are certain aspects of things. The last thing I 9
wanted to touch on really is to also highlight other aspects of the design you might not 10
have seen. It's outside the park boundary, and I'll go through this quickly. We're really 11
excited about how to extend the arrival and this experience that we believe is very park-12
like in a lot of ways and then also very science-like as to how the journey, if you will, 13
starting with Middlefield Road through public outdoor space along this promenade is 14
envisioned. We've established this play zone, if you will, to again engage children's 15
curiosity in watershed, in lights, in scale and science and kinetics and all sorts of things. 16
Along Middlefield, we're going to have this entry tunnel that you'll go through this 17
rainbow tunnel to transform the experiences. You then pull through, across a bridge 18
where there's going to be a bioswale and a bridge that will then cross it. On the other 19
side, we're going to have a dinosaur sculpture and this Jurassic garden, which will be the 20
center focus around the dawn redwood tree that we're celebrating within the project itself. 21
Here are some of the plants and some of the experience as to how that might look. As 22
you come across—this is a view across the parking lot—we're going to have a wind 23
sculpture as part of the Arts Commission that will be … I'm sorry. You shook your 24
head. 25
Ms. Halpern: It's a concept. 26
Mr. McClure: Yeah, it's a concept that's in development as a possibility. As the 27
experience goes along with the pecan tree and the outdoor stump maze and what not. 28
Then, this bends around and then pulls you into the park. The idea is that, although this 29
is outside the park boundary, it's getting this park-like experience and this sense of arrival 30
and linking all these spaces together. Just to highlight our key points. The renovation, 31
we feel, is consistent with the existing park use. We've gotten no new buildings in the 32
parkland. I think one of the last times that we came before you, we had a lot of 33
conversations about buildings in the park and can we get those buildings out. We're 34
maintaining all of the existing trees. We're preserving the existing amount of parking as 35
well, which is not a bullet point up here. We talked about it at one point. It's consistent 36
with the Long Range Master Plan, and restrooms are not incorporated in our specific 37
project, but that's something that's very much on Peter Jensen's radar and is part of the 38
park plan. Thank you very much. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Cribbs, do you want to start? 1
Commissioner Cribbs: First of all, thank you very, very much for the presentation and 2
for all the great work that you and staff and everybody has done on this. I know it feels 3
like we've been doing this for a really long time, but it's very exciting to see the results. I 4
so appreciate the work that the Friends of the Junior Museum have done. I had one 5
question about the City's piece. You showed the red building of the Junior Museum that 6
the Friends would concentrate on. There's a lot of other work to be done in the parking 7
lot and that kind of thing. Is there a way to put a price tag on what the City's doing or 8
probably too early? 9
Ms. Halpern: We have some rough estimates, and we will be going to Council later this 10
year with more detail on that. Right now, the park improvements are, we estimate, about 11
$8-$9 million. 12
Commissioner Cribbs: Will the Junior Museum Friends have to raise any more money in 13
the future or do you anticipate that? 14
Ms. Halpern: In terms of the operating model for the future, we've been talking a great 15
deal with Friends. Right now in the basic agreement that will also be going to Council, 16
Friends will be increasing their fundraising capacity as part of the new building. 17
(crosstalk) 18
Commissioner Cribbs: We're certainly lucky to have the Friends. Thank you very much 19
for the work that they've all done. I think it's really exciting. I'm just interested to know 20
how soon we're going to get started. 21
Ms. Halpern: The plan is to break ground in June of '18. ARB did approve the project 22
last Thursday. We have completed CEQA, so it's moving along. 23
Commissioner Cribbs: That's exciting. Thank you so much. 24
Ms. Halpern: It's getting real. 25
Chair Reckdahl: How long will construction be? 26
Ms. Halpern: About 2 years. 27
Chair Reckdahl: So 2020. 28
Commissioner Cribbs: 2020. 29
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner Greenfield. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. I echo the praise that the design looks very 1
impressive and well thought-out. The community funding is awesome. I have just a 2
clarifying question regarding the CEQA study. My understanding is it's not yet complete. 3
It's been done, or it's not approved. I'm just trying to get an understanding of our place to 4
recommend a PIO without the CEQA being complete. 5
Ms. Halpern: The CEQA was completed. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: The CEQA was completed, okay. 7
Ms. Halpern: We came to you after CEQA was completed for the PIO. 8
Commissioner Greenfield: There were notes that said the CEQA would be completed in 9
September. It wasn't clear that that (crosstalk). 10
Ms. Halpern: September 5th it was. Just as a wonderful postscript on it, what I've heard 11
from Planning is that it's the best CEQA process the City's seen with the least amount of 12
controversy, the most support. 13
Commissioner Greenfield: That's great. I just have a couple of general questions. Is the 14
Jurassic garden accessible when the Museum is closed? 15
Sarah Vaccaro: That's a great question. Parts of it are open to the public throughout the 16
day, and then parts are part of the Junior Museum visitor experience. Partway through 17
that courtyard, there's a low fence that will divide the visitor versus public experience. 18
Commissioner Greenfield: Where is the fence on the diagram? That's the basis of my 19
question, what I'm trying to understand. 20
Ms. Vaccaro: It's right where that hand is moving across the screen. The dinosaur 21
sculpture is part of the Junior Museum visitor experience. On the public side, there's the 22
bridge that goes over the bioswale as well as opportunities for kids to jump off the bridge, 23
climb down onto boulders through the bioswale area. 24
Commissioner Greenfield: The dinosaur is behind a fence. 25
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. 26
Commissioner Greenfield: That's not easy to pick up right now. The Middlefield tunnel 27
is always open? 28
Ms. Vaccaro: Correct. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Commissioner Greenfield: Just one last question. For the outdoor classroom, is there 1
ingress and egress—where is the ingress/egress? Is it just to the Museum or is there 2
access to the outside of the Museum as well? 3
Ms. Vaccaro: There's both. There's a connection into the Zoo enclosure, and then there's 4
also a door. You can't see it here, but there's a gate that leads out to the pecan tree plaza, 5
which is all part of the public experience as well. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 7
Vice Chair Moss: This is really great. The one question I had is the brown wall that 8
faces the park. Is there some way that we can break that up a little bit, put bushes in front 9
of it, or maybe some glass porthole windows at 1-foot, 3-foot, 4-foot levels that people 10
could peek in and get a desire to go inside? 11
Ms. Vaccaro: That's a great question. It's one we've toyed around with a lot on this 12
project. The location that's shown as red or brown on this rendering is a retaining wall 13
for an exhibit that's built against it on the Zoo side. There are not too many opportunities 14
for windows there. Further down on the wood fence, we are looking at some porthole 15
opportunities to get some transparency between the Zoo and park experience. However, 16
we will take note of your comments about trying to de-mass that red portion as well. We 17
can work with Peter on what the landscaping looks like in front of that. 18
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I had. It's really great. 19
Commissioner LaMere: I echo the sentiments of my fellow Commissioners and also just 20
a really amazing job by the Friends to raise the money for a project of this scope. I like 21
the thought put towards the path and the journey. Those are great things, even the paths 22
outside of the Zoo in terms of how people are getting to it and thoughts towards bikes and 23
pedestrians. Anything we can do in future projects, as we think of ways to get out of the 24
car especially with how traffic is in our area, is extremely important. My other comment 25
would be toward the actual construction of this project, the impact that it'll have on 26
Middlefield Road, which is an incredibly impacted road especially during school hours. 27
If there's heavy equipment coming in or if there's big deliveries coming in, and all of a 28
sudden that delivery is planned for 8:00 in the morning, that road at 8:00 a.m. is crazy of 29
people trying to get to school. I would just hope that there's, in the planning of how this 30
is going to be constructed, going to be some mindfulness given to the fact that 31
Middlefield is one of the main thoroughfares but also how impacted it already is. As far 32
as this plan goes, I am excited to see it get going and excited to see it constructed. 33
Congratulations. 34
Ms. Halpern: Thank you. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Commissioner McDougall: Bad position to be at the end and have to say, "I echo all they 1
said about it." Thank you to the staff and the consultants and particularly the Friends. I 2
do have a couple of quick questions. On your page 6 on the slides, where you have the 3
pathways, it's again on page 16 you can see the same thing maybe more effectively. 4
There's a path across the parking lot. That path dead ends at the other end away from the 5
Zoo. It dead ends right where there's a cluster of redwoods. Previously, when you 6
presented it at another time, we said, "Why not see if we can't make that path connect to 7
the redwoods and make the redwoods part of the nature part of the experience," even if 8
that just means putting up signs that talk about redwoods and maybe encouraging that the 9
same kind of—not necessarily the same, but something like what's at Rinconada Library. 10
Those lighted sculptures would just make that whole environment more connected. Right 11
now, it looks like it dead ends, and that doesn't make any sense. On page 14 where you 12
show the side of that with the walls and stuff, I really like the idea that you've got the 13
patterns and scale there. A question that I frequently ask in these presentations is could 14
we think about the signage that you might have there now rather than after we put the 15
painting up and say, "Maybe we should put some signs saying what kind of dinosaur that 16
is" or "What kind of whale that is," and what the difference in height and weight and age 17
and how long they live and what they eat or whatever. It would seem to me you could 18
make that into a complete educational or interpretive experience, not just be some 19
interesting art. That might also inform what animals you put up there in that. On page 20
20, not that it matters what page it is, you've got the dinosaur. Have we given thought to 21
what kind of dinosaur that is, particularly now that the State of California has a state 22
dinosaur? Is that what we'll be using? 23
Ms. Halpern: Yes, it is. It is the exact California dinosaur. 24
Commissioner McDougall: Can anybody tell me what that is? 25
Ms. Halpern: Tina Keegan [phonetic] can tell you. 26
Commissioner McDougall: It's the osteo-whatever. 27
Female: (inaudible) 28
Commissioner McDougall: It doesn't matter. I tried to remember myself, and I didn't. If 29
that dinosaur is the state dinosaur, I also heard you say that was behind the fence. Is it so 30
fragile that it has to be behind the fence and couldn't be in front of the fence, so that it 31
was continually or half and half? 32
Ms. Halpern: It's visible from the pathway, but it is part of the visitor experience, so it's 33
an actual California dinosaur garden that's part of the visitor experience. It is visible. 34
Commissioner McDougall: Again, thank you. Great work. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Chair Reckdahl: What is the concern about not having that open? Are you worried about 1
wear and tear on the item or … 2
Ms. Halpern: It's actually a part of the JMZ experience. The visitor comes in through the 3
front of the building. They can go through the dawn redwood garden to the dinosaur 4
garden. They can go in and access the Zoo. It's part of the whole visitor experience. It 5
just happens to be outdoors. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: I did have one more question regarding the Middlefield gate. 7
Is there any concern that that is encouraging drop-off of visitors on Middlefield? Most of 8
the time it's probably a moot issue because there are cars parked there anyway. It just 9
strikes me as a bit of a concern. 10
Ms. Halpern: The actual entrance—do you have that? That's easy to see on the 11
circulation slide. The actual entrance, you can see, is fairly close to that Middlefield 12
tunnel entrance. The way the parking lot's designed, it really lends itself to drop off right 13
in front of the Junior Museum and Zoo. We're really hoping between that for vehicles 14
and the pedestrian and bike pathway to discourage the drop off on Middlefield. 15
Eventually, I believe, there is a plan or there has been talk of a plan of a bus stop, a 16
shuttle stop right there, which would also mark it off from cars stopping there. 17
Commissioner Greenfield: You know that the entrance is around the corner, and I know 18
the entrance is around the corner. I'm just concerned that you drive by, you see this 19
round portal, and you say, "Let me drop you off here. Here's where you go in." Thank 20
you. 21
Vice Chair Moss: I was wondering if you turned right into the parking lot, could you 22
drop somebody off and go right back out? This looks like you have to go all the way 23
through the parking lot to get out. Is that right? That's daunting. I wouldn't go in there if 24
I had to just drop somebody off. I'd drop them off on Middlefield. Is there some way to 25
make a hole in those first four or five rows so that they could go in, drop them off, and 26
come right back out? 27
Ms. Halpern: We talked about that. It has gone through a lot of iterations, and the 28
parking lot is still going to go through some more iterations because we have so many 29
concerns about drainage and circulation. We'll definitely take that in advisement. 30
Appreciate the comment. 31
Chair Reckdahl: My guess is that they're worried about losing the spots. If you had a 32
little U-turn area, you'd lose a couple of spots. That is a good point. If you have to go all 33
the way through that parking lot, you're going to be much more likely just to drop them 34
off right in front there. I guess the question is do you want—I guess we have trees there. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
We can't have a little turn-in. They know that's an issue. What is on the parking lot side 1
of the first floor right there by the tunnel? 2
Ms. Halpern: Can you say that again please? 3
Chair Reckdahl: The tunnel that goes through from Middlefield, what is on the first floor 4
of the Museum between the tunnel and the parking lot? 5
Mr. McClure: This little building, the portion that's over here on the end? 6
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah. 7
Ms. Halpern: That is the tunnel. 8
Ms. Vaccaro: The program inside that little sliver of building is a lot of building support. 9
We have our electrical room, our data room, and long-term bike storage for the Staff. 10
Chair Reckdahl: It's just going to be storage. We're not going to have windows in there, 11
have any displays? 12
Ms. Vaccaro: No. It's going to be a utilitarian box that will look nice. 13
Chair Reckdahl: My comments are the JMZ is just an institution. Everyone loves it in 14
Palo Alto. It is showing its age at times. This really will update it and improve it. I'm 15
very excited to get this moving. I think you've done a really nice job compared to the 16
first proposal. The first proposal had some nice features that we have downscaled. 17
Overall, we're really balancing the park use versus the Museum. I'm quite happy with it. 18
Speaking of park use, the initial design did have an amphitheater looking out into the 19
park. As a Zoo user, I thought that was really good to get the Zoo exhibits out there and 20
show the animals outside for larger crowds. As a Park Commissioner, I wasn't real wild 21
about it because it looked like a museum. I really encourage JMZ to work with Peter 22
Jensen and design the park of Rinconada, right next to it, so it can be used both as a park 23
and also for JMZ. There are a lot of potentials for getting programs out in the park. It's a 24
nice—getting outside sometimes, people are more receptive than being stuck inside. I 25
encourage that, but I also want it to be a park. I don't want it to be a dedicated display. A 26
bathroom, I really wanted a bathroom in here. Peter is comfortable with moving it 27
further away. I guess that's what we have to do. That's it. Schedule, 2 years from now or 28
2 years from June. Any other follow-up questions? 29
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes. What's happening with the current sign on the entrance, the 30
really cool Junior Museum sign? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Ms. Vaccaro: We are relocating it to a very prominent location just on the north side of 1
the bridge that leads into the tunnel. There's a box just a little down from that. Right 2
there. 3
Commissioner Cribbs: I like the word "relocating." That's good. 4
Ms. Vaccaro: It'll be front and center. 5
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you. 6
Chair Reckdahl: This is an action item, so we have … 7
Commissioner McDougall: Just one quick question. Just looking at that picture that's got 8
the extra 5,000 square feet, that's now in the park, right? That has a building in it, but 9
you're—there's no building in it? What's in it? 10
Female: It's a zoo. 11
Commissioner McDougall: There's no enclosed building, but it's now enclosed. It's now 12
walled, but not roofed. Your statement that's in your bullets about no buildings is not 13
particularly useful. I'm not sure why you made it. 14
Ms. Halpern: One of the requests the PRC made was to move the animal care building 15
out of the park. That was moved out of the park. That's the major change, so it's all—16
there's no structures built in the park on the increased parkland. 17
Mr. McClure: There were three components to the … 18
Commissioner McDougall: I understand that. It's still a walled structure. I'm being 19
picky and warn you that somebody else might be when you present it. 20
Chair Reckdahl: The reason we didn't want those buildings in the park wasn't so much 21
the fact that they were buildings, but they extended way into the park. It was their 22
location; it wasn't the fact that they're buildings. From the PRC, we really don't care 23
whether it's a wall or a building. We do have that utility access, so we can't put a roofed 24
building on it. I think this is a pretty good use considering the constraints that were on it. 25
We can get a building without it really being a building. This is an action item. Do I 26
have a motion to approve the action item? 27
MOTION: 28
Recommendation to Council to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for the Junior 29
Museum and Zoo Redesign Project was moved by Commissioner McDougall and 30
seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. 6-0 McCauley absent 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Chair Reckdahl: We're on the way. 1
Ms. Halpern: Thank you so very much. 2
Chair Reckdahl: I do appreciate the work. I appreciate all the iterations. This was not 3
easy for either side, and I do appreciate the fact that we were able to work together and 4
get it done. 5
3. Baylands Boardwalk Park Improvement Ordinance 6
Chair Reckdahl: The next is another PIO, Baylands Boardwalk Park Improvement. 7
Megha, you'll be presenting? Are you presenting or … 8
Elizabeth Ames: Good evening, Commissioners. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Welcome. 10
Ms. Ames: This is Elizabeth Ames, Senior Project Manager with Public Works. Tonight 11
we have a presentation on the Baylands Boardwalk. We have Megha Bansal, our Project 12
Engineer. We have Amy Ashton, our environmental consultant from H. T. Harvey and 13
Associates, and we also have our City Planner, Clare Hodgkins. She's back here. Thank 14
you, Clare, for attending. This is a very exciting project. We're moving along. We were 15
hoping that the Commission would consider the Park Improvement Ordinance tonight. 16
Simultaneously, we have the environmental document being circulated, the Mitigated 17
Negative Dec. We would like you to have comments on this, which is this document 18
right here. Hopefully, you've had a chance to look at that. You did see the scope of work 19
for the Boardwalk, which Megha will do an overview on. Hopefully, we can get your 20
comments. I just wanted to point out a few items that, with this project, we would like 21
your comments on the scope of the project. I guess you had some issues with the 22
schedule, and we did hear this. We talked to the environmental consultant. We are 23
trying to get the permits. We're going to submit an application soon. We got a draft of 24
the permit yesterday. Hopefully, we can submit that as soon as possible because, with 25
permits with Fish and Wildlife and the 404—there are so many agencies, which Amy can 26
elaborate on—we're hoping to start sooner than later. Right now, we're not being super 27
optimistic, but we are going to try our hardest to try to go out to bid pending permits next 28
summer. Thank you. I'll turn it over to Megha. 29
Megha Bansal: Thank you, Elizabeth. Good evening, Commissioners. Megha Bansal, 30
Project Engineer with Public Works Department. I will go over the key project elements, 31
which have not changed since we last presented to you in August. The project replaces 32
the existing Boardwalk with the new Boardwalk of same length and on the same 33
alignment. The deck height of the Boardwalk is same as the new and awaited 34
Interpretive Center along the entire length of the structure. The vert is 5 feet to meet 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
ADA requirement. Similar to existing Boardwalk, the new Boardwalk will have an 1
observation platform at the far end of the structure. Existing Boardwalk has two 2
overlooks; we are proposing four new overlooks to capture some of the marsh features 3
and to place interpretive signage on that. Based on your input from last meeting, if cost 4
becomes an issue, we may consider fewer overlooks. With regards to railing, we are 5
considering redwood railing on both sides of the structure along with slanted railings at 6
the overlooks and observation platform to place interpretive signage. Interpretive signage 7
is part of a future project. We will also have glass or wired mesh viewing panels at the 8
railings at the overlooks and observation platform. Based on the input we received from 9
regulatory agencies, we will have rollers attached on top of the railing to prevent raptors 10
from perching. Those rollers will also be placed on the slanted rails. We are considering 11
redwood decking. Based on your input, we are considering transverse planks for the 12
decking. Piles and supports will be made of Alaskan yellow cedars, which is a material 13
recommended by regulatory agencies due to its durability and suitability for marine 14
environment. We will also have benches with armrests and backrests at the overlooks 15
and observation platform. All timber or wood elements and metal components—wood 16
elements will be stained, and metal components will be painted in accordance with Palo 17
Alto Baylands Design Guidelines. With that, I turn it over to Amy to go over the Initial 18
Study and mitigation measures. 19
Amy Ashton: For both of these projects, obviously we're looking at sensitive habitat in 20
particular for the Boardwalk. We were very careful and very thoughtful with the 21
measures that we proposed. We've got different bird season issues. We've got high tidal 22
and flooding issues that we have to deal with, and different species react differently to 23
those conditions. We crafted measures—as you can see right here, we've got several. 24
They're quite similar with regard to avoiding sensitive habitat, making sure that the 25
workers are aware of what they need to be looking for and what they're doing in the field. 26
In particular for the Boardwalk, we've got a rather restrictive work only in the non-27
nesting season because we do have known nesting rails out there. That's only when work 28
will occur. We'll also have biological monitors out there full-time, keeping an eye out, 29
being that set of eyes to watch for species. For the overcrossing, we've got slightly less 30
sensitive habitat. Ruderal grassland primarily is the most sensitive habitat that you've got 31
going over there. That would be on the northeast side of the overpass, where you've got 32
the approach structure. For that, we're not proposing full-time monitoring because we 33
think we can avoid impacts with preconstruction surveys, installation of barriers and, 34
again, just a very thoughtful means of avoiding impacts at that particular site. As far as 35
permitting goes, the overcrossing will not require federal water permits. We are not 36
impacting wetlands or any sort of stream feature that would require a formal permit, for 37
example an Army Corps or a regional bird permit. However, for the Boardwalk, those 38
permit applications are being prepared right now, as Megha mentioned. We're working 39
on that, and we'll be closely coordinating with the agencies so they have buy-in on the 40
measures and will be set to go. 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Ms. Bansal: Real quick on the schedule. We have completed 35 percent design and 1
Initial Study is in circulation until October 16. We will really appreciate any comments if 2
you have. After today's meeting, we are tentatively scheduled for an ARB hearing in 3
October and CEQA approval by November. Based on discussions we had with you in 4
last meeting, we discussed with our environmental consultant. At that time, we were 5
going to submit permit application after CEQA approval. We discussed with them to 6
expedite the process, and we are going to submit our first application with Army Corps 7
404 permit hopefully this month to jump start the process. That is the longest lead time 8
permit. We are hopeful and we are trying to begin construction in September of next 9
year. However, if we do not get all our permits, we will have to unfortunately delay the 10
construction by 1 year. That concludes our presentation. Thank you. 11
Commissioner McDougall: A couple of quick questions. Thank you; nice to have you 12
back. The interpretive signage, I understand what you said. That's a future project and 13
not part of this project. I'm going to insist again that it is useful to create the signage 14
whether you put the signs up or not. It might even tell you how many outlooks you 15
need—sites you need to have based on how much have you got to say. Maybe you don't 16
want to repeat the same thing three different times at three different locations or 17
whatever. It may inform you where you want to put things or whatever. It just seems to 18
me that if the goal is to create interpretation for people that are visiting, then we might 19
just as well right from the start identify what that is. Whether we're putting up the signs 20
or not, I think we should try and identify it. On the biological monitoring, my question 21
would be what the strategy was for that. Would that be a third party that would do that or 22
what would be the … 23
Ms. Ashton: This would be with regard to the Boardwalk. That's where we've got the 24
full-time biological monitors during all construction activities. Typically, that's—not 25
typically. It's required to be a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service certified biologist. They 26
actually have to submit a resume, get approved. It typically is a third-party biologist, so 27
someone, for example, from H. T. Harvey or another biological firm that has experience 28
with the species and knows what to do in the field. 29
Commissioner McDougall: Somebody like Environmental Volunteers. Certainly they're 30
resident right there, so they would have a place to operate from. I doubt they have any 31
biologists. On the other hand, Santa Clara Valley Audubon does employ two biologists 32
that are registered biologists. In the long run, they could apply for that. Is that basically 33
the—it would be to everybody's benefit to fund a nonprofit if they have the right kind of 34
staff. 35
Ms. Ashton: I suppose that would be—yeah. 36
Commissioner McDougall: I don't know that you need to answer that question. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Ms. Ashton: I suppose that would be the City's call ultimately, who the contract with the 1
monitor was for construction and with the engineering firm that manages the project 2
overall. As long as it was a Fish and Wildlife Service approved biologist, that's what our 3
measure says. 4
Commissioner McDougall: That's what they use them for. 5
Ms. Ames: Yes, thank you. We probably would seek out somebody, like Amy is saying, 6
that has the credential that Fish and Wildlife would agree to. Certainly, if they're a 7
certified biologist, I would think the U.S. Fish and Wildlife would agree to that. We'll 8
seek out some expertise. It's not going to be through the contractor. It'll be a separate 9
proposal. 10
Commissioner McDougall: I know they use biologists for other activities that they need 11
to be certified for by Fish and Wildlife anyway. Thank you. 12
Commissioner LaMere: Just quickly, anything we can do expedite this project is great. 13
It's too bad that it's no longer accessible because it is a wonderful view, and you do feel 14
like you're in a real different place. A quick question. What is the elevation of the 15
Boardwalk? We had discussed that in a previous meeting. You said it's the same as the 16
Interpretive Center. I was just wondering what that height was. 17
Ms. Bansal: That elevation is 13.5 feet, and that's along the entire length of the structure. 18
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you. 19
Vice Chair Moss: I want to follow up on that because I do feel that is very high. What 20
they're doing shows that a wheelchair can go straight out without having to go down and 21
back up. It does take away from the ability to get down close to the marsh. Right now, 22
you're within a foot. Some of this was also 100-year flood plus global warming plus, 23
plus, plus. You've got the most conservative, conservative situation. What I would 24
suggest instead is maybe you have some things that hang off the Boardwalk, where 25
somebody, not somebody in a wheelchair but others, could go down closer to the water at 26
maybe one of those overlooks. That way, you have the main threat be up at that high 27
level. It would be a real benefit if, at some point, you could get down closer to the water. 28
The other thing is the construction in phases. We're all hoping that you'll get all your 29
permits done, and we can start next September. If you don't, if there's a possibility that 30
we could do this in phases so that next September you could start working from the 31
Interpretive Center out and do a third of it and then stop, that way we could at least get a 32
third of the benefit for all that following summer. Let's just hope we can get everything 33
done. If we can't, it would be nice to have that as an alternative. We talked about that at 34
length at the last meeting. The last thing is there are many biologists in that 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Environmental Volunteers. We will have to get the word out to them. They'll find you 1
some biologists, I promise you. 2
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. I know the community is certainly looking to get 3
this valued resource open as soon as possible. I know that sentiment is shared by 4
everyone in the room. I do have the same question that I had for the previous discussion 5
item regarding the sequencing of the CEQA approval. If I'm reading this correct, CEQA 6
approval is slated for November. Is it appropriate for us to be recommending a PIO 7
before the CEQA approval? 8
Ms. Ames: This is a recommendation to approve the PIO. The official approval is going 9
to happen at the Council level. We're asking for your comments by October 16th. I think 10
we had that scheduled. You don't have to comment on the CEQA totally, right this 11
moment. We have until October 16th. We're going to take those comments into 12
consideration. It is not anticipated that that's going to change the scope of the project. 13
We're just getting these comments to make sure we've got everyone's feedback. We're 14
going to proceed with the design with hopefully those comments included or not. It just 15
depends. What we're trying to do is expedite this process, get it to Council as soon as 16
possible. We're trying to expedite this whole schedule. Part of that is to consider the 17
California Environmental Quality Act document in conjunction with the scope and treat 18
this like a public hearing for the CEQA document as well. 19
Commissioner Greenfield: If I understand this correctly, you're recommending that the 20
Parks and Rec Commission approve the PIO prior to the CEQA adoption. You won't go 21
to Council for ultimate approval of the PIO until after the CEQA is completed. 22
Ms. Ames: Yes, that is correct. 23
Commissioner Greenfield: Also regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, I don't 24
believe that we received that information in our packet, unless we got it last month. 25
Ms. Ames: I apologize for that. It's actually buried in the environmental section of the 26
report. I thought we could just talk about the environmental components at this meeting, 27
since you had seen the Park Improvement Ordinance scope last month. It's in the—in the 28
environmental section, there's a link to the environmental document there. You have 29
until October 16th. Sorry I wasn't clear about that in the initial discussion. You have 30
time to comment. The public has time. We're hoping to get all of those comments 31
together by that date. We would take that information to the Council. 32
Chair Reckdahl: You're saying this is a public meeting to introduce the CEQA? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Ms. Ames: Yeah. It's a combination. It served to get your comments on the scope of the 1
project and also an opportunity for the public to comment on the environmental 2
document, including yourselves. 3
Chair Reckdahl: For the approval of the CEQA, we have to have a public meeting. This 4
is being considered that public meeting. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: Which meeting? 6
Chair Reckdahl: This meeting, today. 7
Ms. Ames: This is an opportunity for the public to learn about the project and comment 8
on the environmental document. They can comment on this until the 16th of October. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Part of that comment has to include a public meeting. The public 10
meeting aspect of the CEQA is considered this meeting tonight. You will collect CEQA 11
comments online or via mail, and you will do that until October 16. 12
Ms. Ames: Clare … 13
Commissioner Greenfield: We're supposed to ignore the potential consequences of that 14
and vote to move forward with the PIO. I'm struggling with that frankly. I have another 15
question. 16
Ms. Ames: Excuse me. Let's have Clare, Clare Hodgkins. She is the Planner for the 17
City, and she can explain this in better terms than I can on the environmental process. 18
Clare Hodgkins: Hi. Clare Hodgkins, Project Planner, Planning and Community 19
Environment. Just to provide some clarification. When a recommending body is making 20
a decision to make a recommendation on the project but not to adopt the CEQA and make 21
a determination on the project, under 15025 of the CEQA Guidelines that recommending 22
body needs to consider the draft environmental document, not the final environmental 23
document. Then, we consider all of the comments received during the public hearing and 24
any subsequent comments that might be received by other recommending bodies. We 25
would prepare the final document for adoption by the Council. 26
Chair Reckdahl: What's the advantage of us approving the PIO tonight as opposed to 27
waiting for CEQA? Do we slow down the—I understand we really want to push this. 28
I'm all onboard on pushing this. What would happen if we waited for CEQA and then 29
did the PIO right after CEQA? What would that delay? 30
Ms. Ames: It could approximately delay the project a month to go to Council because we 31
have to take that recommendation and then fold that into a Council report. It's not a huge 32
delay. We feel that the environmental document does talk about the main components of 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
the project that you had seen last month. There's an opportunity until the 16th to 1
comment on this. We're not anticipating a change in the scope of the project. 2
Commissioner Greenfield: In the big picture of the schedule, if going to Council were 3
delayed, would that delay the project? It sounds like you're underway with the agency 4
permit and review process now, and that's ongoing. 5
Ms. Ames: It helps to keep the schedule along so that we can get this to Council as soon 6
as possible. The agency does want to see that this project is approved at that level, the 7
Council level. That will expedite potentially the permit process. The sooner it gets 8
adopted by the community, by the Council, the sooner we will see some movement in the 9
permitting. 10
Commissioner Greenfield: Similarly with moving forward with the Army Corps 11
permitting, do I understand that you're getting in the queue for that? You don't expect 12
that permit would be granted until after CEQA was complete, but you're … 13
Ms. Ames: Yes, that is correct. We are trying to expedite the administrative piece, 14
where we're submitting it early. I don't think the agencies will really consider this 15
seriously until the Council and the community approve the project, which happens at the 16
Council level. It's hard to say which is the best approach, but we're thinking that coming 17
to you at this stage is going to expedite the schedule. We're trying whatever we can to 18
get this moving along. You could say maybe that's not going to help in the end, but it's 19
hard to foresee the future. That's what we're trying to do, expedite. 20
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. Enough on procedural questions. Just a couple 21
of quick questions on the actual meat of it and some follow-ups from last month. As 22
we've already mentioned, there was a suggestion from this body last month to consider a 23
lower access area from an overlook to get closer to the water. Is this something that you 24
have considered? I don't see any update regarding that. 25
Ms. Bansal: With that regards we are really restricted by the agencies. Agencies 26
required us to keep it the same elevation as the Interpretive Center to address future sea 27
level rise. They were pretty adamant about it. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: We should not have any expectation that the level of the 29
Boardwalk would be changing? 30
Ms. Bansal: We will discuss with our environmental consultant and see if we can make 31
some modifications at certain areas, but it may not be for the entire Boardwalk structure. 32
Commissioner Greenfield: I think there's encouragement from this body that, even if 33
there were something—I'm sorry? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Commissioner Cribbs: (inaudible) drop down. 1
Commissioner Greenfield: Even if it wasn't envisioned for a 50-year plan, the lifetime of 2
a lower area might be more limited based on the expected sea rise. That's something that 3
we'd still like to see considered. 4
Ms. Bansal: We will talk to the agencies. It's mainly BCDC's guidelines, and we have to 5
follow those. We will discuss with them and get back to you. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: There was discussions about the roll bar on the railing, the 7
deterrent for the raptors. Am I correct in assuming that—we were told that we have to 8
have that, and that is being included now. Is that a done deal or there's still discussion 9
going on, on that? 10
Ms. Ashton: I would say that is a done deal. The agencies do not at all look favorably 11
upon these intrusions into the Boardwalk, to put it mildly. They're just not in favor of 12
them. Anything we can do to show that we're trying to make it better environmentally for 13
this really sensitive habitat is just crucial to the project. Trying to remove that would 14
probably doom the project with the agencies, to be completely honest. 15
Commissioner Greenfield: Could you explain what it's like to hold onto this? For 16
someone who needs a handrail, is it functional for them? 17
Ms. Ames: I think it might be a little bit difficult. There is an example in Alviso. Here's 18
the picture of the Alviso County Park. You can put your hand on that, but it does move. 19
It's not very user-friendly, I would say, for a pedestrian. 20
Commissioner Greenfield: It's not really designed then to be used for support for 21
someone walking along the path? 22
Ms. Ames: I would think it can provide some minimal support, but I wouldn't … 23
Commissioner LaMere: Are there any liability concerns with something like that if 24
somebody were to try to use it as a handrail? It's not necessarily intended to be used, but 25
it's placed there, and then they fall. Are there liability concerns? 26
Ms. Ames: We have not heard any issues related to this railing. Of course, we will talk 27
to the—once we get into more design, we can talk to the Building Department and see if 28
there are other solutions to this. We definitely have to provide the roller apparently. 29
We'll see what we can do with the railing so that maybe we can have a place to put your 30
hand there also with a railing. There's got to be some compromise there with the 31
agencies and the design. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm wondering if we should consider an inner, lower handrail 1
inside the walkway that could be used as a handrail, that wouldn't be that attractive to 2
raptors. 3
Ms. Ames: We'll take that into consideration. Those are great ideas. Thank you. 4
Commissioner Greenfield: That's all. Thank you. 5
Commissioner Cribbs: Just a couple of questions. What do they do at Alviso? Have you 6
spoken to them about the handrail versus the rollers? 7
Ms. Ames: I spoke to somebody over there. They thought it was working fine. They 8
didn't mention that they needed handrails. That was just one person. Your comments are 9
well received, I believe. We're going to try to do some kind of handrail. There's no 10
liability that we heard of, but you never know. Something could happen, so we will try to 11
incorporate some way to hold on. We haven't heard anything. I haven't heard anything 12
from the County on this issue. 13
Commissioner Cribbs: There's a field trip in order. Going back to the procedures, you 14
mentioned that this was going to be thought of as a community meeting or a public 15
meeting as part of the CEQA. When we have a public meeting, how is it noticed 16
beforehand? How would anybody know to come to be part of this if they weren't just 17
generally coming to a Park and Recreation Commission meeting? 18
Ms. Hodgkins: Planning and Community Environment actually sends out a notice to—I 19
think we typically do it to everywhere within 600 feet of the site or a wider range for a 20
site like this. It goes by the parcel versus the actual location on the site. We actually did 21
notice this project. It was also noticed in the Palo Alto Weekly. 22
Commissioner Cribbs: I missed that. Thank you very much. The last comment I have is 23
we were all very anxious for this to move as quickly as possible. We keep thinking of 24
things that may slow it down a little bit, but all of us would like to see this in September 25
of '18 started instead of September of '19. I'm sure that you would too. Let us know if 26
there's anything that we can do besides asking questions that are going to get in your way. 27
Ms. Bansal: Thank you so much. 28
Commissioner Greenfield: Just one quick follow-up on the handrail. Maybe a good 29
compromise would be an inner handrail on just one side of the path. That may be 30
sufficient. 31
Ms. Bansal: That's a great idea. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Commissioner LaMere: I just had a quick question. As far as sea level rise goes, what's 1
the general rule they use in terms of time horizon? When they're doing a project like this, 2
is it a 50-year, 100-year? What are we forecasting out as we decide on elevation? 3
Ms. Bansal: They are using 100-year storm plus the tidal level as well as sea level rise. 4
That takes us … 5
Commissioner LaMere: Sea level rise over what horizon, I guess I'm asking. 6
Ms. Bansal: Fifty years. 7
Commissioner McDougall: I have one—two last questions. Can you remind me what 8
the cost of this is? 9
Ms. Bansal: Construction cost is estimated to be $1 million. That's what you … 10
Commissioner McDougall: Is that all in? When you say construction cost, is there 11
something more than the construction cost? 12
Ms. Bansal: No. The consultant cost is included in current CIP. That's all I wanted to 13
point out. 14
Commissioner McDougall: Basically $1 million? 15
Ms. Bansal: $1 million for construction. 16
Chair Reckdahl: The current CIP is paying for the consultant. On top of that, we have 17
construction. 18
Commissioner McDougall: How much use do we estimate? Is it 10 people a week, 19
1,000 people a week? 20
Ms. Bansal: I'm not sure about that. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Daren will give us an answer on this. 22
Daren Anderson: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf. That's probably our 23
most popular section of trail we've got in the preserve. Heavily used, obviously, by all 24
the classes that use the Nature Center, but also every passerby. That's just the place they 25
want to see. It's the boat dock, and then that one. The bang for the buck in terms of 26
investment is well worth it at that site. I've never had that number of requests for opening 27
a trail back up as I had at that site. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Like I said last month, that's the most common question I have, "When 29
are you going to open the Boardwalk?" That dovetails into a question I have about 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
schedule. We have these permitting agencies. I appreciate that you listed in the report 1
the four agencies. You said that the Corps of Engineers is the long pole. These are black 2
boxes to me. Do we just throw stuff over the fence, and then they eventually get back or 3
do we call them once a week and iterate with them? 4
Ms. Ashton: I have a spreadsheet; I call them. Typically honestly, you really have to 5
stay on these agencies, especially knowing our timeframe. We're working with H. T. 6
Harvey, helping them with the permits. We'll be calling them probably every week, 7
every other week, "Hi, how are you doing? What's going on? Do we have a status?" 8
Make sure we know what each other needs to keep it going. It is constant. You have to 9
call and be the squeaky wheel. 10
Chair Reckdahl: Pestering is very effective. We have a tight schedule, so I would 11
encourage you to be a shameless pest. You mentioned that the Army Corps of Engineers 12
is the long pole. How long does it usually take the Corps of Engineers? A range 13
obviously. 14
Ms. Ashton: I've done a lot of boardwalk permitting for PG&E projects recently. This 15
isn't the first time they're seeing these boardwalks. They're a little more used to it now. I 16
would still say 6 months would be lucky. I think it's more like 8 months. I would love to 17
do it in 6 months, but 6-8 months is a conservative estimate. I know then Public Works 18
has to do the bidding and everything else that comes along with actually building this 19
project. 20
Chair Reckdahl: The bidding can't be done until the permits are in? 21
Ms. Bansal: Yeah. 22
Chair Reckdahl: The other three agencies are shorter; how much shorter? Are they 23
months or are they weeks? 24
Ms. Ashton: It just depends. In my experience, the Regional Board Section 401 permit 25
and the Army Corps Section 404 permits are the long leads. The other one—sometimes 26
BCDC is just a shorter time. It really just depends—I hate to say and sound vague, but it 27
really just depends on staffing the project. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Is there any reason we shouldn't just file all the permits right now? 29
Ms. Ashton: We've talked quite extensively about that. Depending on what happens at 30
Council, we may end up doing it still. It just gives the agencies an excuse to say, "I'm 31
going to set this aside. We don't have a complete application. I'm not going to look at 32
it." If we give them a complete application and a nice, clean CEQA document and the 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
MND and life is good, they're much more likely to consider the project. Then, I can call 1
and do my hassling of them. 2
Chair Reckdahl: Can you call them up with this partial application and say, "What are 3
your concerns?" You, in parallel, can work off the concerns. 4
Ms. Ashton: We have been speaking with the agencies, in particular with regard to the 5
rollers and the height of the Boardwalk, working very closely with BCDC, to try and 6
make sure we're proposing something that can be approved. The discussions have been 7
ongoing continually. It's just filing that permit application. We really need a complete 8
application for them to consider it. That's our hurdle. 9
Chair Reckdahl: It seems to me if you gave them a partial and said, "Here's version 1," 10
so they can at least look at the big picture and say, "These are our big concerns," that 11
would be better than just waiting. 12
Ms. Ashton: Like I said, I know H. T. Harvey. I know the biologist has been speaking 13
with the agency folks, especially at Fish and Wildlife and at the Corps to make sure that 14
our measures are typical and appropriate, and they're going to meet muster with the 15
agencies. We already know those are okay. It's just a matter of getting the permit and 16
having to go through the process in getting it approved. 17
Chair Reckdahl: You have experience doing this, so please use your experience to twist 18
arms and whatever you can do. The second thing, I want to echo what other people said. 19
Not a big fan of the big rollers, but you've got to do what you've got to do. I can live with 20
that. David has a very good point. I would love it, if you have to keep the Boardwalk 21
high, if we could have a couple of overlooks where there is a stairway that you can go 22
down. Even if that only is open for 20 years, that's a long time. If the sea level rise 23
causes us to close it in 20 years, it's been money well spent. If we can have a couple of 24
those overlooks have ramps going down or stairs going down, that would be a really good 25
addition. That would be worth the money to put in. It's schedule, schedule, schedule. 26
This is a PIO. My personal opinion is that we should address the PIO tonight just to keep 27
it moving. Do other people have thoughts on that? 28
Commissioner Cribbs: It seems awkward to me to do it in advance of the CEQA report. 29
It just seems out of order even though I'm wanting this to go forward. I'm not sure. I'd 30
like to hear what other people think. 31
Commissioner Greenfield: I feel similarly. I absolutely want this to move forward as 32
fast as possible. It doesn't feel right. 33
Commissioner Cribbs: We lose 2 weeks, correct? The CEQA report is due back in 34
November. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
Chair Reckdahl: When we pass something, then there's a delay getting it to Council. I'd 1
be nervous about—we could lose a month. If we lose a month, then we're going to … 2
Commissioner Cribbs: Then we go into 2019. 3
Vice Chair Moss: I disagree. It's risky if we want to try to make September 2018. I 4
would rather take the risk. The CEQA is really—we have given a ton of input into that 5
CEQA already. The staff has done that, and the consultants have done that. I can't 6
believe that the CEQA would be so off the mark that we would have a problem. I'm 7
thinking that the CEQA is going to be more of a rubberstamp of what we've already 8
heard. I'd like to take that risk. 9
Commissioner McDougall: We just heard with the Junior Museum that that was the best 10
CEQA they had ever seen or whatever. I'm a little worried that the risk here, considering 11
the whole Baylands and everything you said about the height of it and the rollers and 12
everything else, is just going to have more hidden problems. I also hear your hesitation 13
of 6 months and maybe, if we're really lucky, 8 months. I'm suspicious that what you're 14
really trying to tell us is it could be a year in the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm worried 15
that we're making compromises to push this forward tonight against a date in the long 16
term that can't be met. I have to say I'm also having reservations in general. As much as 17
Daren was passionate about "it's the thing I get asked the most about" or whatever, that's 18
because it's a trap. It's there, and it's closed. If it wasn't there, nobody would be saying, 19
"Can I walk out on the Baylands?" We're saying it's not going to be at the height we 20
want it to be, and it's going to have hand rollers that might be dangerous or whatever. 21
We don't know what signage we're going to use. I'd really like a better answer, at least a 22
commitment to count how many people might be using it eventually. We should be able 23
to estimate how many people might use it. Relative to all of the things that we have our 24
on our list, the 7 acres, the 10 acres, the 30 acres, the bathrooms in the parks, the dog 25
parks, and everything that's taking up money and time, this has lost my momentum, 26
particularly because of the CEQA not being there. I worry about taking the risk of doing 27
that. I'm sorry if I'm being a pill. 28
Chair Reckdahl: If CEQA comes back with major findings and the plan has to be 29
significantly changed, then I assume you'd come back, and we would revisit this? 30
Ms. Ames: Yes, we—Clare is here. Do you want to … 31
Ms. Hodgkins: I can comment. Either way. 32
Ms. Ames: Go ahead. 33
Ms. Hodgkins: I was just going to say if something were to come back on the CEQA and 34
a different determination is made such that a significant finding is made or new 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
mitigation is required to reduce an impact, it actually would need to be recirculated. At 1
that point, we probably would be coming back to you. 2
Chair Reckdahl: At that point, we've lost the year. We're into the next. 3
Ms. Hodgkins: If I could also just say something quickly. Typically, at least from 4
Planning and Community Environment perspective, when we go to other recommending 5
bodies such as the PTC or the ARB, those are always draft documents. We never finalize 6
a document that is going to Council or is going to be approved by the Director. 7
Everything is finalized and then approved by the decision-making body. 8
Chair Reckdahl: The decision-making body being the Council? 9
Ms. Hodgkins: Meaning the Council, or sometimes the Director of Community 10
Environment is the decision-making body. 11
Chair Reckdahl: The fact that this is a draft is ... 12
Ms. Hodgkins: Is typical. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Our motion would be to approve it as is, and we would be crossing our 14
fingers that the CEQA doesn't have any major findings. They'll come back if there are 15
significant findings. 16
Ms. Ames: We can come back with the CEQA findings after the 16th. We can report 17
back. We're going to continue on with the planning review. If there are other comments 18
coming in, we consider everything. Hopefully we're not going to be recirculating the 19
document because we've included the scope components and the mitigation measures. 20
We got a lot of feedback from you ahead of this. We've also talked to the agencies ahead 21
of this document being prepared. We feel it is representative of what the community 22
wants and what you want. If there are other comments out there by the 16th, we'll 23
consider those. We can report back anyway and let you know what those comments are. 24
If you wish to do that, we can do that as well. 25
Chair Reckdahl: Commissioner McCauley, do you have any comments? 26
Commissioner McCauley: (inaudible) 27
Chair Reckdahl: Don, what are you thinking right now? 28
Commissioner McDougall: I'm still concerned about whether—again, one of the other 29
things. You said you sent out notices to people 600 feet away from the … There is 30
nobody 600 feet away from that. Have you sent out notices to organizations that might 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
care about that, like Environmental Volunteers, like the Audubon? Do we know if they 1
have the opportunity to respond? 2
Ms. Hodgkins: We can both speak a little bit to it. I'll just say again we also did send it 3
to the Palo Alto Weekly. We filed it with the County Clerk's Office. We filed it with the 4
State Clearing House, which was sent to all of the state agencies for comment. I did 5
actually specifically send it to the Audubon Society. We send all of our Initial 6
Study/MNDs per their request to them directly via email every time we circulate a 7
document. There were a few others that we specifically send to, and we post it on the 8
website. I think they have a few others as well. 9
Commissioner McDougall: Do you know which Audubon? 10
Ms. Hodgkins: It was the—what's Shani Kleinhaus'? 11
Ms. Ames: It was Santa Clara. I have a big email list. People attended community 12
meetings on this project including the Interpretive Center. We have a lot of people 13
interested in the Baylands in general over there at the Interpretive Center and the 14
Boardwalk. It was the Santa Clara Audubon. That's not the official title, but it's Santa 15
Clara. We have a lot of people on an email list including folks that are interested in the 16
Baylands. 17
Commissioner McDougall: Could I maybe in general—I'm not sure who to ask—suggest 18
that a list like that, at least myself as a Commissioner, I'd like to be added to so that I 19
would know what went out. For us to be sitting here saying, "Who'd you send it to," at 20
least, then I would know. It might fill up my mailbox, but I doubt it. I doubt we're 21
sending out that many CEQA. 22
Chair Reckdahl: I'm on the email list, but then (inaudible) work email. I think you added 23
the Commissioners because I got it also on my personal email, which I never—Elizabeth 24
never sent me messages until this month. Now, I got one at work and one at home. I 25
received two. I think at least some of the Commissioners were added. You did not 26
receive anything? 27
Commissioner McDougall: You got mine if you got two. 28
Chair Reckdahl: We should have all the Commissioners on that. We will double check 29
on that. Kristen, go ahead. 30
Commissioner Cribbs: I just think that that's what maybe we're reacting to, all of a 31
sudden we're having a public meeting and this is going to count as the CEQA. At least I 32
might have missed it. I'm really pretty good about emails, and I didn't know we were 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
going to do that, which is why I didn't know that was going to count. It would be great if 1
we could get our names added to this. 2
Commissioner McDougall: You asked what I was—I'm sorry, Kristen. Please go ahead. 3
Ms. O'Kane: I just want to clarify. Our conversation is getting a little confusing. I'm just 4
going to repeat what I understand and then maybe, Clare, you can interject. The 5
requirement is that the Parks and Rec Commission consider the CEQA document when 6
taking action on the PIO. The staff report clearly wasn't obvious that that's what we were 7
asking, that we weren't asking you to consider the CEQA document at the same time. I 8
don't believe this was intended to be the CEQA public hearing. Correct? I'm seeing a 9
nod yes and a nod no. This is not the CEQA public hearing, correct? 10
Ms. Hodgkins: It is a public hearing that is available during the CEQA circulation. You 11
actually are not required to do a public hearing under CEQA. It's just a standard practice 12
that at least one of our public hearings is available during the circulation process, but it's 13
not a requirement. 14
Ms. O'Kane: One of the concerns is that the item didn't clearly state that this was a 15
CEQA public hearing or an opportunity for people to comment on the CEQA document. 16
I think that's what the Commission is having a little bit of concern about. 17
Ms. Hodgkins: I know that the notices we sent out and the notice that went into the Palo 18
Alto Weekly were very clear that this was a CEQA hearing during the public CEQA 19
process and was available to the public, should they have comments. 20
Ms. O'Kane: Those are the pieces. It's up to the Commission if you're comfortable with 21
that. You're not required to recommend adopting the CEQA document. The ARB will 22
do that. Who will recommend to Council that we adopt the CEQA document? 23
Ms. Hodgkins: Sorry. All recommending bodies in making a determination need to 24
consider the CEQA document and make a recommendation that you are recommending 25
that it be adopted when it goes to Council in its final form. 26
Ms. O'Kane: You're saying the Parks and Rec … 27
Ms. Hodgkins: Every recommending body for any piece of the project is making a 28
recommendation. 29
Chair Reckdahl: A recommendation on the project or a recommendation on CEQA 30
approval? 31
Ms. Hodgkins: On both. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Commissioner McDougall: We're making a recommendation on the CEQA. 1
Chair Reckdahl: Which isn't done yet. 2
Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, it's not done. That's the whole point, that it's during the draft 3
circulation period that you are considering it and based on your review of the document. 4
Ms. O'Kane: Just to clarify further, are you saying the Parks and Rec Commission needs 5
to take an action on the CEQA document tonight? 6
Ms. Hodgkins: No, they don't take an action on the CEQA document. 7
Commissioner Greenfield: Are you saying that, if we vote to recommend a PIO, we are 8
making that recommendation in consideration of the CEQA document as well? 9
Ms. Hodgkins: You are making an action saying that you have considered the CEQA 10
document. That is the action, you've considered the CEQA document in making your 11
determination on recommendation of the PIO. You're not making a recommendation on 12
CEQA. 13
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm concerned … 14
Ms. Hodgkins: Is that … 15
Commissioner McDougall: Parse that if you can. 16
Ms. Hodgkins: Is that more helpful? 17
Ms. O'Kane: I don't think they can do that because our agenda item and action does not 18
specifically say that they are going to be taking action on the CEQA document tonight. 19
Ms. Hodgkins: It didn't say consider the CEQA document anywhere? 20
Ms. O'Kane: No. 21
Commissioner Greenfield: I'm also concerned that we did not receive the Mitigated 22
Negative Declaration to review as well. 23
Ms. Hodgkins: It was provided to you—my understanding was it was provided, but … 24
Commissioner Greenfield: It may have been provided via a link but not in the packets 25
that we received to review. 26
Ms. Ames: I'm just trying to clarify this. In the past, we have had Park Improvement 27
Ordinance come before the Commission during the circulation period. Unfortunately, 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
maybe some of the Commissioners didn't see the nexus here because it wasn't clear in the 1
staff report. We had prepared the CEQA document in consideration of your comments in 2
the previous discussions we've had. That's how we developed the scope. With that, we 3
developed this Mitigated Negative Declaration, which ties the project together 4
environmentally based on a scope of work. This has been done before with the 5
Commission. Maybe this is a new thing where we do the PIO after CEQA circulation. 6
With ARB, with the Planning Commission, we've actually discussed the project scope 7
with the document either circulated or it's been finished or even before it's circulated. 8
Before, during, and after, it's happened before. This process is not unusual where 9
you're—it's actually an opportunity for people to come to this meeting and comment on 10
the environmental document while they're learning about the project if they have not 11
heard it before. By law, it's not legal—it's not required to have a public hearing on the 12
CEQA document, but we're using this as a platform. 13
Commissioner Greenfield: In terms of precedent, the Parks and Rec Commission has 14
recommended PIOs in the past for projects where the CEQA was circulated but not 15
approved. Were these recommendations made in the case where there was no listing in 16
the agenda of considering the CEQA as part of that, which is the case that we're in today? 17
Ms. Ames: Yes. In the Park Improvement Ordinance, it talks about the Mitigated 18
Negative Dec. I think it's Section 3 of the PIO, if you have that. Maybe there's a 19
reference to the document. It talks about the Council would be—this is the document—20
the PIO is being recommended to Council. The way it's drafted here, the Council in 21
Section 3 would be the adopting body. It says that the Council would find that the 22
environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed through this Mitigated Negative 23
Dec. That's where the environmental document ties together with the scope, at the final 24
end, at the finish line with the Council. At this point, this is the opportunity for the public 25
to come to the meeting to provide comments to you. We encourage this through a notice 26
in the paper. We encourage it through email blasts. We did send this to the 27
Commissioners through that Commission email blast, but I'm not sure if everybody got 28
that. I'm sorry that some of you have not seen that email. The PIO does talk about the 29
environmental document as part of the project. Fortunately, you have it in circulation, 30
and you can comment on this by the 16th. 31
Chair Reckdahl: The way I read it, we are doing one action tonight, and that's approving 32
the PIO. In the PIO, it talks about the CEQA. By approving the PIO, we are saying we 33
considered the CEQA. That's correct. It's a single action. There's not any problem 34
having a bad agenda. Our agenda is accurate. The only question is are people 35
comfortable with it. Me personally, I have no problem with CEQA—approving it with 36
CEQA. I don't think there are going to be any surprises. If there are surprises, they'll 37
come back. I'm concerned that there are some features that we're not real happy with. 38
Having the Boardwalk really high makes it a lot less attractive to me. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Vice Chair Moss: That won't be in the CEQA. 1
Ms. Ames: Excuse me. On the height, it's actually a benefit. I don't know if Amy wants 2
to talk about this. There is a shade study—ironically, you wouldn't think this. The higher 3
the Boardwalk, the more opportunity for light to enter underneath the Boardwalk. It's 4
actually a benefit to lighten that up and not create that channel that's devoid of vegetation 5
underneath the Boardwalk because of the shadowing. 6
Chair Reckdahl: A benefit to the environment, but not a benefit to the users. The kids 7
are going out there. If they have to look down and it's 10 feet away, it's not going to be 8
nearly as magical as if they can get down. To me that's a very important part of the … 9
Commissioner McDougall: Did you give consideration to my comment the last time 10
about why not put in a clear plastic or glass floor? 11
Ms. Bansal: We discussed with our design team, and we may consider that at 65 percent 12
design. That's the next level. One clarification on the height. It's the elevation 13 1/2 13
feet. The actual current ground elevation is about 7.8 feet. It's not 10 feet height. 14
Chair Reckdahl: It's going to be on the order of 6 feet. 15
Ms. Bansal: Yeah, it's not 10 feet higher than the current level. 16
Chair Reckdahl: I would like it if we could have one or two of those overlooks having 17
something go down to get even closer. That would be very instructive. 18
Ms. Bansal: We will discuss with the agencies, the BCDC, and see if we can have some 19
features like that. 20
Commissioner Cribbs: Does that design have to be part of the CEQA or can that be 21
added afterwards? 22
Chair Reckdahl: (inaudible) 23
Ms. Ashton: Only if the extent of the change were to cause additional environmental 24
impacts. It would definitely be something we would talk about and look at with staff. I 25
don't know how big these might be. It's difficult to say without seeing something. The 26
agencies are very worried—this is pickleweed out here. The agencies are very worried 27
about shading impacts. You start putting structures closer to the vegetation, it shades 28
them, it kills them. The Regional Board has also taken this on as a big issue. You've got 29
to choose your battles in this one. We'd have to talk about and look at the environmental 30
impacts of what that change might be. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Chair Reckdahl: The net is we're—if we're raising the bulk of the Boardwalk, and we 1
have a couple of overlooks relatively small where you go down, the net impact is going 2
to be positive towards the environment. 3
Ms. Ashton: Exactly. We did a shading study specifically that looked at how much 4
decrease in shade we're getting by raising the Boardwalk. Perhaps by adding a small 5
lower overlook, it would still result in an overall decrease. It's just a matter of—BCDC 6
would be the one to really care about something like that. 7
Commissioner Greenfield: It seems likely that adding a change like that would trigger a 8
CEQA review. 9
Ms. Ashton: It really depends on the extent of the impacts. Without seeing and looking 10
at it and having it compared to what the existing proposed shading, it's hard to know 11
without seeing what the design might look like. Again, that would come back to you. If, 12
for example, we look at it and BCDC says, "Great idea. Put three new viewing 13
platforms. Put them 2 inches above the ground," we would have to potentially redo our 14
CEQA document. It would come back to you, and you would see it. 15
Ms. Ames: I don't think that's likely. That's the ultimate perfect solution if we could do 16
something this way. We've had a lot of consultation with the agencies, and we tried to 17
get it down lower, the way it is right now, at the same level, but they said no. We could 18
look at the PG&E boardwalk intersection as maybe a touchdown point because that's 19
existing. There's an existing level there. I don't think it would be beneficial to explore 20
the overlooks going down into the Baylands because that's more impacts. Right now, 21
they're asking us to raise it up. We do hear you that we want to have some interaction 22
with the community and get down into the Baylands as much as possible. I'm think it 23
might be safe to explore that at the PG&E catwalk, but that's as far as it probably would 24
go. 25
Chair Reckdahl: The fact that we already have this grandfathered use—if we were 26
starting from scratch, we'd have a much harder time getting this through at all. The fact 27
that we have this existing Boardwalk has kind of grandfathered our use. The existing 28
Boardwalk is at the level we want to go down to. It isn't so much that we're going down 29
at those overlooks, we're going up everywhere else. We are going to impact the 30
environment much less than the current Boardwalk. That's my spin. Do you buy it? 31
Commissioner McDougall: My view is nice try, Keith. As a Commission, we should be 32
dealing with what you see is what you get at this particular point in deciding what we do 33
about that. My thing is more if we delay this a month, you've given me no confidence 34
that we're going to make next September for a start anyway. I'm not sure I'm going to 35
make my decision based on that. I'll repeat again that I'm also nervous that we're going to 36
push this thing through. We're going to spend the money, and then people are going to 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
say, "Are you kidding me? That's way too high. I can't hold onto the rails." Do we end 1
up with something we're not going to be happy with? We keep wanting to fix it. I don't 2
think we can fix it. I'm willing to believe that staff and the consultants have done the best 3
job they can. What you've presented us is as good as it's going to get. Us trying to nibble 4
away at it—unless we want to say, "Let's add another $10 million to put hot air balloons 5
out there," or something, I don't think we're going to change it. We need to make a 6
decision based on that. 7
Vice Chair Moss: Yeah. What you see is what you get. 8
Chair Reckdahl: Do I have a motion for "what you see is what you get"? 9
MOTION: 10
Recommendation to Council to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for 11
reconstruction of the Baylands Boardwalk was moved by Commissioner LaMere and 12
seconded by Vice Chair Moss. Passed 4-3 McDougall, Greenfield, Cribbs voting no 13
Chair Reckdahl: Whenever we have people vote against it, it's very useful for the 14
Council if they make a statement. Don, why don't you start and explain why you voted 15
no on the PIO. 16
Commissioner McDougall: I'll repeat again. I think we're rushing to judgment on 17
something that needs more time for the public to really comment and for me to really 18
hear that they're going to end up with something they want. I think we're going to end up 19
with something that's environmentally correct. I'm not worried about that. We're going 20
to end up with something that eventually will get past the various agencies. I think 21
you've been very conscientious about that. I'm not convinced you're going to end up with 22
something the public is going to be happy with. 23
Chair Reckdahl: Jeff, do you want to explain? 24
Commissioner Greenfield: I agree with everything that Don has said. I am concerned, as 25
Don has suggested, that we're chasing a deadline that is going to be difficult to hit. A 26
little bit more time to make sure that we're moving in the right direction and going to end 27
up with something that the public is going to be happiest with is worth taking some more 28
time for consideration. 29
Commissioner Cribbs: I would agree with the comments of both the other 30
Commissioners. I'm also concerned about the process. I would have liked to know—31
maybe I just missed it—more about the opportunity for community input and if we really 32
got to the groups that really have the expertise to comment on this. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Vice Chair Moss: I want to make one comment about Don's comment. I'm not sure that 1
we'll get anything better. You're suggesting that we delay with the idea that we might get 2
something better. What they're saying is we may not be able to get a CEQA passed by 3
the agencies if we keep asking for what we want. We may not get anything. 4
Commissioner McDougall: Remember, I'm the one who said what you see is what you 5
get. I am very complimentary of the work they have done and don't believe we will get 6
anything better. They have optimized this. I hate the word maximize; I love the word 7
optimize. They have optimized this from every angle. Now that it's optimized, 10 feet in 8
the air is 6 feet higher than it used to be, rolling rails and whatnot, and a very complicated 9
path to get there by putting platforms across the marsh and all that kind of thing. I'd like 10
to make sure that I've heard that the public will be happy with this. I'm not proposing that 11
we can get a better—they've got it as good as it's going to get. 12
Vice Chair Moss: What if the public is not happy? 13
Commissioner McDougall: We need to consider whether that's something we should be 14
spending money on. I've said before—I know I'm a pain in the ass about this. As we 15
look at these various things, whether it's the bridge crossing or this, I'd like to make sure 16
that we consider the return on investment. How many people are playing pickleball? 17
How many people are crossing the bridge? How many people are using this pathway? 18
How many people will use the 7.7 acres? Whatever it is, there's no reason why we can't 19
estimate that. There's no penalty for us estimating and being wrong or right. It's just 20
useful decision-making. 21
Vice Chair Moss: I feel that the penalty is we'll lose a year, and we'll get nothing. 22
Commissioner McDougall: They haven't given us—I'm sorry—the confidence that we're 23
going to meet the year. They haven't given me the confidence that I'm standing in the 24
way of us getting there in a year. In fact, they've said very specifically, if we go forward 25
with everything packaged together, you're more likely to get the engineers to do this in 6 26
months as opposed to going forward incomplete. With them asking more questions, 27
we're able to take 9 months or a year. Sorry. 28
Chair Reckdahl: Kristen, path forward. We did pass that. It was 4-3, which means it 29
can't go on Consent Calendar, but it can go to Council. Do we want to come back in a 30
subsequent month and revisit this after more work has been done? If we do that, we 31
certainly are going to be slipping, I suspect, unless the permitting agencies go extremely 32
fast. Do we want to go to Council and throw it in their lap? 33
Ms. O'Kane: It's my understanding that this is going to a couple other—it's going to 34
ARB, correct, and another Commission? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Ms. Hodgkins: This actually is going to hearing at Council in any case. No, sorry. The 1
Baylands Boardwalk is not. It'll go to ARB. Yeah, it would go on Council Consent if we 2
came back and Council agenda. Sorry I'm mixing up the next … 3
Ms. Bansal: It is going to ARB, tentatively scheduled for October 19th. 4
Chair Reckdahl: Does that mean we'll move on, and we'll decide offline what the path 5
forward is? 6
Ms. O'Kane: Is your question do we come back with the PIO or come back with the 7
CEQA later? 8
Chair Reckdahl: Come back with—part of the concern was also the CEQA being 9
unfinished and the design being in flux. If we can iterate on that and come back with an 10
updated PIO, updated design. 11
Ms. Hodgkins: My understanding is that you have approved the project. If we choose to 12
go to Council without coming back, we would just have to go to a public hearing versus 13
going to the Consent Agenda. Is that correct? 14
Chair Reckdahl: Yes, that's my understanding. 15
Ms. Hodgkins: Do we need to make a decision right now on it or could we … 16
Commissioner McDougall: That's your decision. 17
Chair Reckdahl: Staff did discuss … 18
Commissioner McDougall: It was passed, and now you can decide to move forward 19
appropriately. Things could change, and you could have me at that meeting, ranting and 20
raving that this was the best thing since sliced bread. 21
Chair Reckdahl: In the past, when we've had PIOs pass but not unanimously, sometimes 22
we do come back to get a second iteration, so we get a unanimous vote before we go to 23
Council. That's staff's decision. 24
Commissioner McDougall: I'll repeat what we see is what we get. I don't think there's 25
anything to iterate. They've done an optimized job. 26
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to the next item then. Does staff want to say anything? 27
Ms. Ames: Thank you very much. We can come back next month. We'll wrap up what 28
ARB hopefully mentions about the project. Is that timing going to work with us? We 29
can go to ARB and then come back to the Commission. We might follow that meeting. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
We can get the comments from the environmental document. Hopefully it would 1
reinforce the vote on the PIO moving forward to Council. I don't know if we need to vote 2
on the PIO twice. I don't think that's necessary. It's just an update. 3
Commissioner McCauley: If you want to update this group, that's fine. If you wanted to 4
re-present the PIO potentially, I guess you could in the hopes of having a unanimous vote 5
and then going to the Consent Calendar. Again, that's totally up to you. This is done as 6
far as we're concerned for the time being. 7
Chair Reckdahl: I concur. Thank you. Sorry that wasn't very satisfying, but that's life on 8
the Commission. 9
4. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Park Improvement Ordinance 10
Chair Reckdahl: Number 4, we're moving onto the Highway 101 pedestrian and bicycle 11
bridge. This, again, is a PIO. Hopefully, a shorter PIO than this one. 12
Ms. Ames: Good evening again. Here we go, round two. This is the Highway 101 13
overcrossing. Hopefully, this evening you would recommend approval of the Park 14
Improvement Ordinance. We actually have a Mitigated Negative Dec in circulation. 15
This is the document here in hard copy; it's also online. It's in the staff report in the 16
environmental section of the report. The deadline is October 2nd. All the comments, 17
again, go to Clare Hodgkins in Planning Department. She will be consolidating these 18
comments at that time, after the 2nd. We can also report back to you on what those 19
comments are, like we had just talked about with the Boardwalk. With that, I think I'd 20
rather turn it over to Megha because of the time to go over the scope. Again, you saw 21
this last month. Hopefully, we can address any other comments that you have on the 22
project. 23
Ms. Bansal: Thank you, Elizabeth. I will give a quick overview of the project and then 24
discuss key refinements made to the design since we presented to you back in July of this 25
year. As you can see on this slide, this project includes principle span structures 26
consisting of self-weathering steel trusses across Highway 101 and East and West 27
Bayshore Roads with concrete approaches and 12-feet wide pathway. To the west of 28
Highway 101, there is a pedestrian access ramp incorporated into the western approach 29
structure via a "Y" connection. This is shown as Item E. There is another small self-30
weathering steel truss at the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks, which is referred to 31
as Adobe Creek Bridge on this graphic. On the west side, there are two new trailheads. 32
One is at West Bayshore Road, and one is on East Meadow Drive, which is not shown on 33
this graphic. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail connects these two new trailheads. To the 34
east of Highway 101, there is an overlook included in the eastern approach structure, and 35
a roundabout connects the bridge to San Francisco Bay Trail. The project also has 36
landscaping component. We are removing 28 trees. Majority of them are on the west 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
side. We are placing them in accordance with City Street Technical Manual. On the east 1
side within the Baylands area, our baseline project includes hydroseeding and some 2
native planting; however, based on input we have received from environmental 3
stakeholders, we are considering habitat restoration of this area as an additive alternate to 4
hydroseeding. With regards to lighting, we have … I'm sorry? 5
Chair Reckdahl: Could you repeat that? 6
Ms. Bansal: We are considering habitat restoration in the Baylands portion of the project 7
as an additive alternate because it was not part of our baseline project that was approved 8
by Council. We have pole-mounted lighting only on the west side and railing-integrated 9
lighting within the rest of the bridge structure. We are also replacing couple of street 10
lights located on the West Bayshore side. The project also has signage and amenities. 11
We have a refined plan, which is included in your package. We identified location and 12
types of signage and amenities. We are looking at wayfinding, informational, and 13
educational signage. Pretty much the wayfinding signage will be at trailheads, at the 14
entrance points. We may have some pavement marking at the West Bayshore Road 15
trailhead. If you would like to go into detail, we can review those graphics. We have 16
bike racks, benches, trash receptacles, drinking water fountain, and bike repair stations 17
included in the amenities. With that, I have—the key refinements in the project include 18
bike racks revision based on input we received from you. We presented you specialized, 19
aesthetically pleasing bike racks before. Based on your input, we have revised them to 20
bike racks used on other City projects. We have refinements made to signage and 21
amenities plan. Adobe Creek Reach Trail will now be paved as part of this project based 22
on input we received from Planning and Transportation Commission and public. With 23
that, I turn it over to Amy to go over Initial Study and mitigation measures. Thank you. 24
Ms. Ashton: Similarly to the last project, we have been consulting with the agencies and 25
discussing with them various measures in particular to biology. For this one, we don't 26
quite have the sensitive habitat. It is considered ruderal vegetation, so we don't have full-27
time monitoring. However, we do have requirements for exclusion fencing, pre-28
construction surveys, vegetation removal that is monitored. Work will not occur during 29
extreme high tides, when water will be located within 100 feet of the work area. That's to 30
avoid saltmarsh harvest mice from entering the area during high tide events, when they're 31
escaping the water. Otherwise, I'm here for any questions, in particular if you have any 32
specific questions about the measures. Again, these were coordinated with the agencies, 33
and we worked closely with the wording. I think that's it. 34
Ms. Bansal: Touching on the schedule, we have preliminary design, 35-percent design 35
complete. The Initial Study is in circulation until October 2nd. PTC recommended 36
approval of site and design review application on September 13th. Again, after today's 37
meeting, we are tentatively scheduled for an ARB hearing in October followed by 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
Council approval of CEQA and site and design and review in November. Caltrans, 1
NEPA, and right-of-way and final design will begin upon CEQA approval. We are 2
currently on schedule to begin construction in early 2019 and complete by 2020. That 3
concludes our presentation. Thank you. 4
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. Let's go down the line. Commissioner Cribbs, do you want 5
to start? Jeff. 6
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. Just a few quick comments. On page 6.1, where 7
you show the pictures of the trees and you have the dots of the different trees, it'd be great 8
if you could add the symbol of the tree key to match the tree rather than having to flip to 9
another page. On page 7.1, I'm really thrilled to see this circulation map that clearly 10
shows bike-only and pedestrian-only and mixed bike and pedestrian. That's great. Just 11
one suggestion there. I would recommend adding the blue and green lines for the bike 12
and pedestrian pathways on Fabian Way as well. If the connector along the creek is 13
closed, then Fabian Way becomes part of the primary use path. Let's just fill those in 14
please. A clearer picture of the layout of the bike pump area and the trail and the bike 15
lane would be helpful. You can kind of see where it is. It's kind of hard to see how far 16
the pump area bulbs out into one or the other. It'd just be useful to get a clearer picture 17
there. I just have one question. Do we have an overall count of the removed trees, 28, 18
and the new trees that are planted in return? 19
Ms. Bansal: As I mentioned, we are still refining that plan. We will follow City's 20
ordinance, basically based on canopy area. We are working with City's Landscape 21
Architect, Peter Jensen, and Urban Forrester and environmental stakeholders. There will 22
be some refinements. Number of trees removed will be 28. 23
Commissioner Greenfield: The number added will be more than 28? 24
Ms. Bansal: Yes, absolutely. 25
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. 26
Commissioner LaMere: The importance of signage is very high in that this is going to be 27
a path that bicyclists are going to be going at an extreme speed because it's wider. It's not 28
like the current overpass, which is very narrow. People, even if they are told to dismount, 29
are still riding their bike, but they're going slower because they know there's not much 30
room. People are going to be going either direction, and so the signage is going to be 31
important, and the stencils on the pavement and so forth as far as safety and the fact this 32
is mixed use. Because it's so nice and wide, I envision bicyclists really using it as a 33
commute path and really using it not slowing down. I think that's going to be extremely 34
important as you guys go forward. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
Commissioner McCauley: Thank you very much for the presentation. (inaudible) 1
Ms. Bansal: Thank you. 2
Commissioner McDougall: I just want to agree with Jeff's comment about the fact that 3
there will be fast users and slow users and reiterate my previous comments about 4
everything, which is it'd be really nice if we figured out a use model ahead of time, so we 5
had some idea. Is this for commuters or is this for visitors? 6
Ms. Ames: I just wanted to—I do remember that comment from last time. We had this 7
November 2011 feasibility study, where Alta Planning and Design did some modeling 8
about the use of the facility. They had estimated—I think this is—maybe I lost it. They 9
call it the seamless travel model they came up with based on pending land uses and full 10
development. They had projected that there was going to be ultimately between 57,000 11
trips to 74,000 trips. This is at full build-out. When you consider there's development in 12
Mountain View, there's housing units going in there. We have the Comprehensive Plan. 13
We have some development on San Antonio potentially. I'm not sure where that is in the 14
timeline. I think it's going to be a commuter route as well, but we don't have the split of 15
commute and recreation. It will be heavily used. 16
Commissioner McDougall: Where do I find that? 17
Ms. Ames: We used to have this on our website; we can repost this. This is just 18
information from when we determined that this site was going to be the site for the 19
bridge. We looked at different crossings over 101. We can post this on the website for 20
you or we can just send you—maybe there's a link to this; we can send it to you. 21
Commissioner McDougall: If you could send me a link, I'd appreciate it. It's good to 22
know the total numbers there. I never didn't believe it'd be heavily used. I still question 23
what kind of use because we're putting in amenities that were not for the commuters. 24
Chair Reckdahl: For what it's worth, when I go into Lefkowitz today, Monday through 25
Friday, it's just commuters. I don't see any kids. That's not quite as user friendly as this 26
nice, new bridge, so we may expand the range of people. First question is schedule. We 27
have no constraints here? We can build any time of the year? Do we have harvest mouse 28
or whatever—which mouse is it? 29
Ms. Ashton: We've built in measures to allow the project to continue year-round 30
essentially. The only real prohibition would be during extreme high tides because you do 31
have saltmarsh harvest mice and rails that might enter close to the work area during those 32
times. It's expected that those would be relatively infrequent. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Chair Reckdahl: End results is as soon as the bidding is done and as soon as all the 1
permits are done, we'll just start building. We don't have to wait for a time of year? 2
Ms. Ashton: Yes. 3
Chair Reckdahl: In the previous design, they were going to have a staging area, build it, 4
and then transport it and erect it overnight. Is that still going to be the case, we're going 5
to have the staging area? 6
Ms. Ames: Yes, we do have a staging area over by the Los Altos Treatment Plant side; 7
that's in the environmental document. We don't want to try to do any staging in the 8
Baylands or near the vicinity because that's a sensitive habitat. We do plan to have the 9
steel bridge being fabricated offsite and then delivered over to the site here at that 10
Treatment Plant site. 11
Chair Reckdahl: None of the staging will be done on the Baylands or along East 12
Bayshore? 13
Ms. Ames: Correct. 14
Chair Reckdahl: Things will be done over at the Los Altos site? 15
Ms. Ames: There might be some little bit of staging, but not this—if there are 16
construction activities, they might have some materials when they're closing a lane, but 17
nothing like stockpiling, blocking the lane with materials for a long time. Most of this 18
stuff is going to be stored at Los Altos Treatment Plant site. 19
Chair Reckdahl: I had one question on page 9.7. They have a cross-section of the ramp. 20
One thing I noticed is that the curb is 1-foot wide, which is rather wide. Why would you 21
have a 1-foot curb? If you have any handrail there whatsoever, it's going to be very 22
awkward to hold a handrail that's a foot away from your body. The rest of the design has 23
6-inch curbs. In the upper right of 9.7. Do you see what I'm looking at? The upper right 24
of page 9.7. 25
Ms. Ames: We can double check with the consultant. I thought there was some lighting 26
conflict. There's going to be some lighting near the railing. We can double check on the 27
1-foot dimension there. 28
Chair Reckdahl: My only concern is the handrail. If the handrail's against the fence, will 29
that be awkward? Finally, if you go back on your slide, on page 2 of your presentation, 30
can you back up to that? Right now, we have "F" on the lower right. There's going to be 31
a bench there. I really think having a bench over at the Adobe Reach Trail, at "H," would 32
be a very good location. We have a senior housing just down the road. Some of the 33
seniors will be using it, and it'll be good to have two benches there, one at each end. That 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
bench H would be right next to the bicycle repair. If you're changing a flat, it's really 1
nice to have a bench to put that flat on. I'd see it as a win-win, both for the people using 2
the bike changing and also for the seniors to have a bench at "H." There's room there. 3
Ms. Bansal: We will discuss with Santa Clara Valley Water District. We are limited in 4
this area, at (inaudible) Trail and west Bayshore trailhead due to their requirement. They 5
really don't want us to put anything except the bike repair station that we are proposing. 6
In our subsequent meetings, we will discuss about the benches with them. 7
Chair Reckdahl: Okay, discuss that. It's something that could be added after the fact, but 8
the fact is at least on the drawings you had there was room for a bench there. I thought 9
they had added one there. Especially with the seniors next door, that would be a very 10
good idea. Any other follow-ups? Don. 11
MOTION: 12
Recommendation to Council to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for the design 13
of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement Project was 14
moved by Commissioner McDougall and seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 7-0 15
5. Allowing Public Access to the 7.7 Acres of Parkland at Foothills Park 16
Chair Reckdahl: Next, we're going to be talking about the 7.7 acres. Daren Anderson is 17
here. 18
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks, and Golf. I've got 19
my colleague, Kurt Dunn who's the Supervising Ranger at Foothills Park. We're here 20
tonight to discuss allowing public access to the 7.7-acre parcel at Foothills Park. We'll 21
give you a quick background, and I'll walk you through a few photos. In August 2014, 22
Council passed an ordinance dedicating that 7.7 acres as parkland and directed the 23
Commission and staff to develop ideas with the community on how best to use that land. 24
Staff hosted a number of public tours and a public meeting to discuss feedback on our 25
community's ideas on how to use that land. One of the items that kept coming up was 26
"you really ought to figure out Buckeye Creek before we decide what ultimately to put on 27
this." That brought about the CIP to study the hydrology of the creek. Now, we're at a 28
stage where we're very close to presenting a final draft of that study. Both the 29
Commission and the Council in 2015 directed staff to conclude that hydrology study first 30
and keep the parcel closed until that was complete. Let me walk you through these 31
photos real quick. This shows the parcel from a high aerial view. On the right side, you 32
can see the park shop and the oak grove picnic area furthest to the right. The yellow line 33
outlines that 7.7-acre area. The light blue line is the creek itself. The orange line is that 34
emergency evacuation easement that passes through the park out to Los Trancos Road. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Chair Reckdahl: I have a question about that emergency access. Right now, there's a 1
fence there, a locked gate, that prevents people from going through it. Is it that Rangers 2
have keys and we would open that in certain emergencies? 3
Mr. Anderson: That's right. The Fire Department or Police if they had to. They have 4
had to. They'll typically come through, and oftentimes they don't use keys. They'll just 5
cut it and come in and stage for fires or whatever they need to. In the event that we had 6
to have people exit that way, the Rangers would go and open that lock. It hasn't 7
happened in the duration of our time, where the Rangers had to do it. We have had the 8
Fire Department come in through that place plenty of times. 9
Chair Reckdahl: Thank you. 10
Mr. Anderson: This is looking from the maintenance shop towards the 7.7-acre area. 11
This is the existing fence that stops people and deer from going in there. Currently, the 12
only access right now is usually for Grassroots Ecology to take care of the nursery that's 13
onsite. This is as you just pass a little pedestrian and vehicle bridge that opens up to the 14
flat area, approximately 2.1 acres of the 7.7-acre parcel. Right now, it's looking towards 15
Mr. Arrillaga's property, which is just beyond that tree line. This is Buckeye Creek 16
following through, looking really nice there. What you also see just to the left of that is 17
about 30 cubic yards of debris and sediment that had washed down with the last rain and 18
been pulled out from this area and piled, later on to be removed. What happens if you 19
don't remove that debris pile is it builds up and blocks, and the water would overflow. 20
It's regularly cleaned out. We've talked about this before. On average, on typical high 21
rain events, it could be three times where we have to come in with a backhoe. You could 22
be removing 600 cubic yards of soil. Sometimes on really low rain years, you don't have 23
to remove any. It really varies. Sometimes it could be a tremendous amount. This is the 24
7-foot diameter culvert that exits that 7.7-acre area. Buckeye Creek flows through there. 25
This is one of those items that we talked about needing to fence off to protect the public 26
from getting into an area where they might get harmed. The other fenced-off area that 27
we've discussed before is the nursery itself. That's to protect their investment. Also, 28
there's the phytophthora issue. Phytophthora is a disease that can cause trouble for 29
nurseries. There's a number of best management practices, which include limiting the 30
access in and out of there to make sure you're not bringing in that problem. 31
Chair Reckdahl: Can you talk about fencing this off and how we would—do we have to 32
worry about debris building up at that fence at this location? 33
Mr. Anderson: My colleague, Kurt Dunn, and I were discussing that issue just before this 34
meeting and all the different options. We've got some preliminary cost estimates for 35
fencing off the nursery. This site, we were looking at a bunch of different options. This 36
is the area right near that, if you can see my cursor. That's where that 7-foot diameter 37
culvert is. The creek flows all the way down here. If someone wanted to, right now, they 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
could walk, if the parcel was open, the creek line all the way out into this 7-foot diameter 1
culvert and eventually would narrow down to the point where you probably couldn't pass. 2
That's our assumption. I had originally thought that we would do some very simple fence 3
right here. The rest of the area would either have vegetation or something else blocking 4
you from getting through. We'd put a gate and a very simple fence that says "please stay 5
out, hazardous area." The gate would allow a backhoe to come in and scoop out debris as 6
necessary for high rainy years. That's another spot where the debris settles. 7
Chair Reckdahl: The gate nominally would be locked? 8
Mr. Anderson: The gate would be locked, but there's nothing to go to beyond that point. 9
It's right to the creek and then immediately up to another fence on the opposite of the 10
creek, that separates the property owner's piece. It's not precluding you from anything 11
except for going into the creek. The problem is there's a little service road/pathway that 12
goes off this way. If I fenced it here, this one leads you on a one-way path that peters out 13
around here and would encourage people to go in. We're still thinking through what kind 14
of fencing would be necessary or just signage. What I would like to stay away from is 15
fences that go right through the creek to block people off. First of all, I think it's going to 16
be expensive, trapping debris. There might be pluses and minuses to that. We just 17
haven't figured it out. Something Kurt and I were just discussing before the meeting was 18
maybe we start with the very basics of signage and the simple fence and a gate that 19
allows the backhoe in and maybe some signage over here to tell people where they can 20
and can't go, but not to overthink this huge, barricade, exclusion fence. I'm not convinced 21
it's necessary, frankly. The analogy I gave to Kurt as we talked about it, on why that 22
might be so is I've got dozens of areas throughout all of open space where it's far more 23
precarious. On the edge of 15-foot drops or 30-foot drops, we don't put exclusionary 24
fence. We don't put signs that say "don't go down in there," even though it'd be far more 25
dangerous. A modicum of intelligent design of a very simple fence with the right kind of 26
signage could address our needs without overly burdening the expense, overly damaging 27
the aesthetics with ridiculously high fence lines, or potentially delaying the project by 28
putting fence into creek that would necessitate additional permitting. The ad hoc 29
committee has been visiting the site and discussing where we're at with both the Buckeye 30
Creek hydrology study and what to do with the 7.7 acres. We're at the stage on our last 31
visit where the ad hoc committee suggested maybe now's the time that we open up this 32
parcel to public access. Again, the original concept that Council had talked about when 33
they dedicated it was that we should open it up as soon as possible. There was a lot of 34
naysaying that we would even wait for this hydrology study at all. Ultimately, the 35
recommendation was to wait until it was complete, but there was a lot of feedback saying 36
"open it up as soon as you can." One of the chief advantages during the discussion of the 37
value of opening it up, especially as it pertains to deciding what we do with the land, was 38
let them in there to see what's there. It's so difficult on a 15 or 30-minute tour or just an 39
aerial photograph to envision how that land could really be used. We also feel, the ad 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
hoc and staff, that the value of opening that up to the public is to let them in, and they can 1
learn and figure and provide valuable feedback when it comes time, which is hopefully 2
very soon, to discuss how the public and how the Commission and how the Council 3
would like to ultimately use the other parts of that property. Another piece to this is its 4
connection to the Buckeye Creek hydrology study. As we've discussed, there's a 5
preferred recommendation that staff is proposing, that includes using about 1.2 acres of 6
the 7.7 acres as floodplain. That's part of the process of remedying the erosion problem 7
that creek has. What we could do, one idea, is we open it up when we bring this to 8
Council for their adoption of the Buckeye Creek hydrology plan and the recommendation 9
and we ask Council at the same time. Our recommendation is we open this up now. It's 10
dedicated parkland, so it wouldn't require any PIO or anything like that. It's just really 11
Council guidance saying go ahead and do the necessary fencing and open it up to the 12
public. Another element that the ad hoc had discussed was debating do we add any 13
elements, do we add any amenities to this property before we open it up, benches, trails. 14
The more we looked at it the more it seems prudent not to, to just leave it an open 15
property much like you would walk in the open area in front of the Interpretive Center, a 16
huge lawn area that we just let people go. You can go right down to the creek in several 17
areas. This would be very similar. Also of note is it's such a short walk to the oak grove 18
picnic area. We've got drinking fountains, bathrooms, picnic tables, a parking lot, and all 19
the other amenities that you could want in a very close area. With that, I think I'll turn it 20
to the ad hoc committee and see if I missed anything that they'd like to weigh in on. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Who is on the ad hoc? 22
Commissioner McDougall: I would say you've covered everything. We would support 23
basically everything you've been saying, personally. 24
Commissioner McCauley: I agree. Providing public access as soon as possible is the 25
priority from my perspective. 26
Commissioner Greenfield: I agree with everything. Keeping it simple and opening it up 27
as-is is the most appropriate use for the area. It's the most expedient and in keeping with 28
Council's direction of waiting for the Buckeye Creek study. It totally makes sense to 29
make the recommendation to open the area at the same time we're presenting the 30
hydrology study. 31
Chair Reckdahl: What about Acterra? Would we be moving them? 32
Mr. Anderson: No, we would fence off their area, and they would stay just where they 33
area. 34
Chair Reckdahl: Long term, are we going to plan on moving them or is that still no 35
decision? 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
Mr. Anderson: The lease and terms—what we learned from the hydrology study is it's 1
not necessary to move them to resolve our creek issues. 2
Chair Reckdahl: They do kind of clog it up, but the maintenance yard kind of clogs it up 3
to begin with, so it doesn't make it much worse, I don't think. 4
Commissioner McCauley: Something that we had discussed was to try and consolidate 5
that footprint of the maintenance shop and Acterra at the extent possible, so that 6
everything is centrally located in that area and you have the smallest area possible fenced 7
off for those two purposes. 8
Chair Reckdahl: I forget. Does Acterra have any real infrastructure there or is it all stuff 9
that's fairly easily moved? 10
Mr. Anderson: They do have some infrastructure there that would be … 11
Chair Reckdahl: Some concrete they've poured or something or is it … 12
Mr. Anderson: I think there's a rudimentary base rock foundation to that structure, but 13
Kurt can probably elaborate. 14
Kurt Dunn: There is actually a building there with a concrete foundation, standalone 15
solar system. All the rest of them are portable buildings, shade structures, and that kind 16
of stuff. Even the storage container they have for secured lockup is movable with a 17
crane. 18
Chair Reckdahl: If down the road we want to consolidate that and scoot that over closer 19
to the maintenance yard, we'd have to repour a concrete foundation. That would be the 20
extent? 21
Mr. Anderson: I'm not convinced that would be necessary. In conversations with 22
Grassroots, rather than have them expand out towards the creek or out in other areas of 23
the 7.7, it may make sense to have them move closer towards—if they were going to add 24
tables or other grow areas, maybe that's towards the shop, and they use that area. 25
Chair Reckdahl: How close are they to the shop right now? 26
Mr. Dunn: It varies in distance. There's actually a little bit of an unused area between, 27
that was spoils from prior floods. Part of the plan was to actually fence off that area in-28
between and maybe reclaim that as part of the fenced-in area of our shop so that 29
everything is contained. There's a definitive barrier between us and the Grassroots 30
nursery. 31
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there a cost? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
Mr. Anderson: There is a cost of the fencing. We're looking at approximately $40,000, 1
but we need more price quotes. 2
Commissioner McCauley: Daren, are you—excuse me. I don't mean to jump the gun. 3
Are you anticipating removing fencing that's essentially old fencing, that no longer has 4
purpose? 5
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 6
Commissioner McCauley: Could you show folks where that would be, the fence that you 7
(inaudible)? 8
Mr. Dunn: The existing fencing is pretty much this white line here. It does protrude up 9
here on the hillside where it matches up with the private property fencing. It'd be pulling 10
this out, down to about where our fence starts at the shop area. This fence would stay in 11
place down to just before the creek. This would have a slight opening here, before the 12
private property starts. Again, this area would be open. Essentially, we'd fence in this 13
triangular section and match it up with our shop. 14
Commissioner McDougall: There is no fencing along the bottom, where that yellow line 15
is. I understand we have tentative agreement from the property owner to put the fence in. 16
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. There is some fencing there, but there needs additional 17
ones. They've agreed to add it. It's going in right now. 18
Commissioner Greenfield: I think it's worth noting that … 19
Commissioner McDougall: I knew you could do it. 20
Commissioner Greenfield: I think it's worth noting that this really is not the most pristine 21
area of Foothills Park. Opening it up for a simple walk through is an appropriate use. 22
We had considered the possibility of adding a loop trail because it's something a little bit 23
more interesting than an in-and-out walk. The assessment we got was the area was too 24
steep. The hillside was too steep to add a trail onto, to make it practical. That's not really 25
a viable alternative for us. Just having a walk out there, it's a pretty simple area if the leaf 26
blowers aren't blowing on the property across the way or there isn't some other noises. 27
The best thing that could happen to this area is to flood out the creek plain and add some 28
more riparian environment and add some of the plants supporting that as well. 29
Mr. Anderson: If I could just add onto that. For about a year, in this area just on the 30
other side of the creek—this is just on the other side of the creek and the Grassroots 31
Ecology nursery—we've done plots to analyze how well native vegetation would grow 32
through that 5-foot of over-burden. Grassroots did, I think, four or five plots of either no 33
amendments or some amendments with mulch. We're going to continue doing more of 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 48
those to learn—if it ends up being the will of the Council and the Commission and the 1
public to restore it, we'll have some insight on what it would take, how successful, which 2
plants do well. We've learned so far, for example, that planting certain native plants with 3
the mulch and having done modest breaking up of the soil was somewhat successful. 4
We're going to try it again now with compost in addition to that, see how that plot does 5
and learn a little bit more. 6
Chair Reckdahl: That means that down the road we don't necessarily have to haul that 7
gravel out. 8
Mr. Anderson: We'll learn more about that. Grassroots might provide even more 9
direction on the speed with which we can do the renovation. For example, I learned 10
through Mr. Arrillaga's caretaker that you can get trees to grow there, but they don't grow 11
real well. That might be the same thing with those plants. We can get native plants to 12
grow there, but maybe we can get them to grow a whole lot better if we do something 13
different. I'd like to keep doing the little plots where we study. Maybe one plot is a rip 14
out and we put in something new, and then we can juxtapose the various techniques and 15
see what's most successful. 16
Commissioner McDougall: I like the idea of getting some local college or whatever to 17
take it on as a research project. 18
Commissioner Greenfield: My understanding is that if the creek restoration were done in 19
that area, that would require some regrading, which would mean pulling out a lot of the 20
over-burden and the soils. Soil removal is part of the envisioned, long-term plan. 21
Mr. Anderson: That's true for that 1.2 acres of floodplain, which is in this area here. 22
Vice Chair Moss: The mounds of dirt that are there now, have you taken that dirt and put 23
it back uphill to fill in the ever-deepening … 24
Mr. Anderson: No, no. Unfortunately, we can't dump it into the creek. We would need 25
the permits to do that. What's happened in the past is they've either spread it on the 7.7 26
acres or it's gone up to different debris piles that we've got and need to manage. That was 27
one of the recommendations that came out of the Buckeye Creek hydrology study. Tell 28
us what to do with the enormous amounts of earth that we've got, or debris. Some of the 29
recommendations are that we move it to other spots in the park where we had—one 30
example is we had historically taken a significant amount of earth to build the dam next 31
to Boronda Lake. One idea is we could put the earth back there, for example. Off-32
hauling it is awfully expensive, and no one wants it. We'd be paying to bring it 33
someplace. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 49
Vice Chair Moss: The second question is what are we going to do this coming winter. I 1
don't know where we are with the hydrology study, when we can actually get it approved 2
and do it. It's going to be a year or two, a winter or two. What are you going to do for 3
the 7 1/2 acres for this winter? 4
Mr. Anderson: Thank you for that question. I think it might even be longer than a winter 5
or two before we're able to actually accomplish it. It looks like it'd be a 5-year project if 6
we started right away. The funding is still in question. There's more work to come on 7
the Buckeye Creek hydrology recommendation and exactly which way we go. I still 8
need to consult with the City Manager. I haven't had an opportunity to speak with him on 9
the support of the recommendation that we do the entire thing. A little more to come on 10
that. To your question, though, what do we do in the interim, much of the same. We'll 11
keep monitoring that creek flow. As debris comes down, we're going to take it out. 12
More of the same basically. 13
Vice Chair Moss: Will you restrict people's access if it floods? 14
Mr. Anderson: I don't think that's going to be a problem. If it did—let's say in a 15
hypothetical situation where we didn't get the material out and it was really, really high 16
flow and it was unsafe, we'd shut it down like we would shut down any area. It would 17
just be for the duration of the hazard. I've done that at the Baylands during extreme high 18
tides. When it overflows the levee, we shut down that portion of the park or the levee 19
trail for the duration of the high tide event. Then, it opens back up. 20
Vice Chair Moss: That's all I have. 21
Chair Reckdahl: Comments, questions? 22
Commissioner McCauley: Very quickly. When we were last there, the hillside, for those 23
of you who may not have been to the site recently, is essentially everything to the right of 24
the creek, where Kurt is outlining right there. It's a fairly steep hillside. You had 25
speculated that the hillside itself contributes to erosion and the burden that falls into the 26
valley essentially. Right? 27
Mr. Anderson: To some degree, yeah. It's very loose. Kurt and our trail contractor hiked 28
it at the suggestion that perhaps we could find a pathway through there. On the 29
recommendation from our trail contractor and Kurt, it just wouldn't work. It was just too 30
loose. I'm imagining some of that probably ends up in the creek. 31
Mr. Dunn: It tries to go to a 1:1 slope eventually at some point. If it's too steep, it'll go 32
in. Plus some of the material that was pulled out of the creek, the property manager at the 33
time was actually trying to pack into those steep hillsides to lessen that slope. Just 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 50
because it's been there so short a time, it's going to settle, and some of it may end up 1
going towards the creek. 2
Commissioner McCauley: Certainly in the next month as you think about presenting the 3
hydrology study again, it's going to be important to determine whether or not that hillside 4
is going to have a long-term effect or whether you think the current plan to have the creek 5
meander is going to be sufficient to resolve issues in that area. 6
Mr. Anderson: That's a good question. I'll follow up with our consultant on that one. 7
Chair Reckdahl: Was that hillside historically dug out? Why would it be loose up there? 8
Mr. Anderson: Our understanding is it was over-burden that created most of that. Is that 9
your understanding too, Kurt? 10
Mr. Dunn: From the scars before he filled in, it actually looks like it was excavated at 11
some point or it was on the edge of that excavation for the quarry, which is now John's 12
property over there. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Is there any benefit to building it up or would you be building up 14
something that you wouldn't use? 15
Mr. Anderson: Building up the hillside? 16
Chair Reckdahl: Yeah, the hillside. If it's too steep—if you made it more shallow, you 17
may not get erosion then. 18
Mr. Anderson: It's so heavily vegetated, I don't think it's that serious of a contributor to 19
the materials. I think most of it is upstream, and I'm judging that by the down-cutting 20
that's so obvious upstream. I have not seen in the last 17 years that significant of a 21
change to that hillside. While it's some, it's certainly nothing like the down-cutting we're 22
seeing. 23
Chair Reckdahl: One last question. Down in the bottom corner of the yellow, is there 24
any way that you'd have a trail that would go up that hill? Basically from the bottom 25
corner and then straight down into that area and hook up to Los Trancos or something 26
like that? Would there be any access or is that just too steep? That hillside is pretty steep 27
there. 28
Mr. Dunn: It is fairly steep and heavily vegetated with a variety of bay trees, poison oak, 29
all that kind of stuff. Distance-wise from where—that whole slope is actually really 30
steep, to the point where I don't know if it would be advantageous to actually do that one 31
or if it would create more erosion from that hillside going down toward the creek. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 51
Chair Reckdahl: I'm grasping at straws as to how to use this thing. Thank you. This was 1
just a discussion item, so there's nothing to recommend. Down the road, are we going to 2
have an official recommendation to Council to open it up? 3
Mr. Anderson: I don't want to speak for the ad hoc, but my recommendation is it gets 4
tied to the recommendation for Buckeye Creek. When it goes to Council, we present 5
both. 6
Chair Reckdahl: All in one fell swoop. Any other follow-ups? We'll move on. 7
6. Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 8
Chair Reckdahl: One last item here, the Master Plan. The gift that keeps on giving. 9
Ms. O'Kane: Kristen O'Kane, Community Services. I first want to just remark on the 10
fact that our Parks Master Plan was adopted by Council on September 11th. 11
Congratulations to the Commission on that huge accomplishment. Now, we have 12
probably an even bigger task ahead of us, and that is to develop a plan for how we're 13
going to fund the Master Plan. Council actually included in their motion a statement to 14
direct the Parks and Rec Commission to explore funding options to fund the Master Plan 15
including a possible ballot initiative. Tonight, we're not going to try and come up with 16
that funding plan by any means. Chair Reckdahl and I thought it would be a good 17
starting point to talk about what the Commission's role is versus staff's role, what the next 18
steps might be in that process. Rob de Geus and I met with the ad hoc committee, which 19
is Commissioner Cribbs, Commissioners Moss and LaMere, just yesterday—was it—to 20
talk about just the first steps. I don't know if the ad hoc wants to say anything at this 21
time. Chair, do you want to talk about your plans? I can give a brief thought as to … 22
Chair Reckdahl: Why don't you start out, and then I can chime in later? 23
Ms. O'Kane: The ad hoc did develop an initial list of items that might be considered in 24
this Phase I funding plan, which are those taken from the list of high priority projects and 25
programs that we might want to start looking for funding in the nearer term. That was 26
sort of a first shot at that list. We as staff are going to be creating our own list. At some 27
point, we may want to come together and develop a final one. We met internally today as 28
staff. I think we might take it a bit further and look at all of those high priority projects in 29
the Master Plan and develop either a spreadsheet or some sort of description of each of 30
those and what sorts of funding might be possible for each of those priority projects. 31
Then, develop that into a Council staff report that we would bring back to Council and 32
share with them the different options for funding. Some may be funding through public-33
private partnerships, some may be through a bond measure, some may be through our 34
normal CIP process. There could be others, a capital campaign, donations, things like 35
that. That was our thought process moving forward in the nearer term. We agreed that 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 52
getting back to Council sooner rather than later is probably a good idea, especially if it is 1
a recommendation that we do a bond measure in November 2018. That means we don't 2
have a lot of time to be developing that. I'm not saying that's the direction we're going. 3
If it is a recommendation, then we would want to know sooner rather than later from 4
Council that's the direction they want to go. 5
Chair Reckdahl: Have you discussed with Manager Keene about his preferences about 6
bond measure versus not bond measure and timing if there is a bond measure? 7
Ms. O'Kane: I haven't directly, but I know there have been discussions with the City 8
Manager about that. I don't think he specifically stated one way or the other. There are a 9
lot of other funding needs within the City. This is just one of them. Some of those other 10
ones might need public financing as well. It's definitely something that we need to weigh 11
all of those and really have an expert tell us what the different options are for financing 12
some of these projects and what makes the most sense if we group some of them together 13
or if we don't, and the order of looking for financing. There's a lot of little nuances that 14
we don't have the expertise. I think it would be helpful to have someone who did have 15
that expertise weigh in. The City Manager is out of the office visiting some of our Sister 16
Cities right now. He won't be back for a couple of weeks. We'll be definitely checking 17
in with him before we bring anything to Council. 18
Chair Reckdahl: He needs to have a good discussion with Council. We had a short 19
discussion at Council. We really could have had a more focused discussion about how 20
we're going to fund this. That was just a small, little piece. Jim wasn't there, so we're not 21
getting a full discussion. When I look in my crystal ball, I don't see us doing a bond 22
measure for this just because the City would have to pay that off out of the General Fund, 23
and the General Fund is so strapped right now. I don't see that being an attractive option 24
for the Council Members. The most attractive option for the Council would be having a 25
parcel tax, and then the question is timing on that. Whenever you have an election, you 26
have not only the time to the election but what else is going on in that election. Maybe 27
we have a window now, and that window may be much harder in 3 years as it is in 1 year. 28
We really have to work this quickly and some type of estimate of costs, so they know the 29
scope. One of the questions was, if you did every project in the Master Plan, how much 30
would that be. We don't even have a rough order of magnitude on that. If we can price 31
things out, even if it's plus or minus 4X, just rough order of magnitude estimates, that 32
would be very useful to our Council. 33
Ms. O'Kane: I said bond measure when I intended to say a ballot measure. Just for 34
clarification. 35
Commissioner Cribbs: This is what this list is supposed to help us with? Obviously, if 36
you are going to raise money, the first question you get from everybody is how much do 37
you need to raise. The second question is who are the interested groups who might help 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 53
you, who are the stakeholders. The third is how long is it going to take and what's in it 1
for me, essentially. This list is really important. The list can have both the staff's idea of 2
what they see as the priorities from the Master Plan and then the Commission's ideas as 3
well, and see how they go together. If you were to put a couple of columns in this great 4
Excel sheet, one that had to do with the stakeholders and who they might be. Obviously 5
for the dog parks it's the dog people. We could go through the list and see who these 6
stakeholders are. The last thing is how the CIP money fits into that for some of the long-7
term projects that we think there may be CIP money already in the budget or not. Then, 8
we can all come back together and explore the options of whether it's a parcel tax or it's a 9
bond or whatever else. We have to factor in what kind of foundation money there is 10
available as well and who is actually going to do the work of finding that out. That's not 11
something our staff is able to take on right now. There are a lot of pieces to this. 12
Chair Reckdahl: To me, the foundation is a hard question. How much foundation money 13
is out there is a very hard question. 14
Commissioner Cribbs: There are foundations out there who want to support parks and 15
programs in parks and recreation. California Park and Recreation has some opportunities 16
for grants. You just have to know about them, and you have to be able to have the 17
statistics and apply for them and that kind of thing. 18
Vice Chair Moss: I don't think it's an either/or. Even if we had a ballot measure or a 19
parcel tax, you might fund 90 percent. The other 10 percent, you would go to the 20
foundations or stakeholder groups. 21
Commissioner Cribbs: I didn't mean to say it was an either/or. I mean to say we have to 22
find all the potential possible sources of money. The one we didn't talk about, that we've 23
seen fairly successful with the Junior Museum, is the high net worth individuals in Palo 24
Alto, who might want to leave something for the future and how we can facilitate that. 25
We need a price for all these things. 26
Chair Reckdahl: Are we getting assistance to price out these or how are we determining 27
how much a gym costs? 28
Ms. O'Kane: That we can do internally, provide estimates. We need to decide if it is 29
everything in the Master Plan or if it's this list of things we would like to do in the next 5 30
years with a consideration that the Master Plan is a 20-year plan. It was also intended to 31
be aspirational. With the caveat that we anticipate not everything in the Master Plan will 32
get done in 20 years. 33
Chair Reckdahl: Some things may add to other things and come out. From the Council's 34
standpoint, if they knew it was X million dollars to do the high priority items and Y 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 54
million dollars to do most of the Master Plan, that would give them a sense of how much 1
money we need to raise. Right now, they don't know, and we don't know. 2
Commissioner McDougall: Does our ad hoc committee have the lead on this, and we can 3
leave it with them for now? 4
Ms. O'Kane: Was that a question to … 5
Commissioner McDougall: It was more a question to our Chairman than it was to you. 6
You've indicated that your team is moving ahead and already building the answers to the 7
questions that we need and what not. 8
Ms. O'Kane: We're moving ahead with the ad hoc. It's not doing it alone. We'll check in 9
with the ad hoc and get their input as well. 10
Commissioner McDougall: I'm just wondering do we need to discuss it more here now. 11
Does the ad hoc have the lead on this? 12
Commissioner Cribbs: Don, coming out of the meeting that we had yesterday, we 13
thought we would all talk about it tonight at this meeting, and then we would get this list 14
put together and have another ad hoc meeting and then come back probably at the next 15
Commission meeting, that's what I understood, and have another discussion because we 16
have some more information. 17
Commissioner McDougall: That's okay with me. What input are you looking for from 18
us at this point, when you say discuss it together? 19
Commissioner Cribbs: At some point, each one of us can look at this list and add to the 20
column about the stakeholders. That would be really beneficial and useful. All of us 21
have an idea of what things cost. It'd be interesting to see just our ballpark estimation of 22
what stuff costs. 23
Commissioner Greenfield: It sounds like the—putting together a cost estimate is a huge 24
challenge. As Kristen mentioned, the Master Plan is an aspirational document. It's a 25
guiding document. There are plans that are outlined, but they're not detailed. Whatever 26
cost estimate we have is just that, an estimate. There's going to be some range in it. I do 27
really like the idea of focusing on a 5-year plan. We just created a 20-year document. It 28
doesn't seem realistic to try and put a cost estimate on what we're going to do for 20 29
years. Biting off a prioritized chunk that's manageable really seems like a good 30
approach. At the point that we do consider a ballot measure, it'd be wise to consult with 31
the Friends of the Library who have been through the process. They've been through the 32
downs and the ups. They have lessons learned. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 55
Commissioner Cribbs: What I didn't mention earlier is that the ad hoc has had a couple 1
of meetings with the people who did the successful fundraising for the Library. We're 2
trying to learn from people's past experiences, whatever advice they have about what we 3
should do. We're talking to Junior Museum and also (inaudible). The other thing that 4
we've been successful in is being able to identify how you actually give money to the 5
Friends of the Parks and how you give money to the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation 6
and specifically say, "I want this to be for this," and "I want this to be for that." That's an 7
important thing that people want to know, how you give money to the City. 8
Chair Reckdahl: There are other questions on that, but that's another tangent. What I 9
want to get into is timing. When do we expect to go back to Council? We can't sit on 10
this very long. Otherwise, we paint Council in the corner. 11
Ms. O'Kane: We'd like to go to Council in November. 12
Chair Reckdahl: A month from now, we'll have our October meeting. Shortly thereafter, 13
we'd go back to Council. 14
Ms. O'Kane: Correct. 15
Chair Reckdahl: We should be striving for that. 16
Commissioner Cribbs: We just didn't want to lose the momentum of having the Master 17
Plan approved and people being excited about it. We want to be able to move ahead, but 18
we want to have some of the answers. There are a lot of answers that we don't have yet. 19
Chair Reckdahl: We're not doing Council any favors if we go back there without enough 20
information. If we go back too fast, it's not going the job. If we wait too long, we're not 21
doing the job. There's a Goldilocks spot. Ad hoc, do your stuff. We'll come back in a 22
month, and we'll talk about it and hopefully head to Council shortly thereafter with an 23
informational packet. Any other comments? 24
Commissioner McDougall: Is the ad hoc going to create a list that gets shared with us, 25
that we can comment on and add … 26
Commissioner Cribbs: We have a beginning list right now. The staff is having their 27
beginning list. Those lists are going to get mushed together. We're going to have another 28
ad hoc meeting. We're going to do the list of who the stakeholders are. We're going to 29
do a couple of other things. They're going to find out what the potential is for bonds and 30
other ways of raising money. We're going to come back to the Commission next month. 31
Commissioner McDougall: We will see the mushed list? 32
Commissioner Cribbs: Yes, the mushed list with the prices on it, we hope. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 56
Commissioner Greenfield: I have a couple of other questions regarding the Master Plan, 1
not related to funding. I don't know if this is the time to talk about it or wait 10 seconds 2
to talk about it in other items. 3
Chair Reckdahl: No, go ahead. 4
Commissioner Greenfield: The first question is the updated copy of the Master Plan. Is 5
there a finalized copy available? When you go to the link for the Master Plan, it's still the 6
August draft. Is there a schedule for that to be posted? 7
Ms. O'Kane: The consultant is working on revising the Master Plan into its final form. 8
We'll have that bound, and we'll provide each of you one of those. 9
Commissioner Greenfield: That's the goal, a bound copy? Is there a time estimate for 10
that? 11
Ms. O'Kane: It should be in the next few weeks. 12
Commissioner Greenfield: Thank you. One other significant item of Council discussion 13
in approving the Master Plan was regarding the usage of public facilities by private 14
parties. Do we want the field, court, and facility use ad hoc to start work on 15
recommending a policy change consistent with that Master Plan? Is that something we 16
should be moving forward with in short order? The second part of that question is that ad 17
hoc is already working on pickleball as part of the court use. Would staff recommend 18
that we try to tie in the court use change and the facility use by private parties into a 19
single recommendation to Council or should we look at these as separate efforts? 20
Ms. O'Kane: I'm going to start with your last question first because that's the one I 21
remember. They should be two separate Council items, especially if one is related to 22
pickleball. I just feel like they're very separate and have a different feeling to them. As 23
far as the ad hoc meeting, what I recommend is the ad hoc meet with staff, and we can 24
talk about our plan for moving forward with that policy partly because some of the 25
changes to that policy are related to things like the golf course, changing the fees, things 26
like that. It would be helpful to have staff there to have the conversation. 27
Commissioner Greenfield: I wasn't actually suggesting meeting without staff. I was 28
thinking of including staff with the meeting. 29
Vice Chair Moss: Why do we have to go to the Council about pickleball? It seems like a 30
very low-level, staff kind of thing. 31
Ms. O'Kane: If we move forward with having some courts dedicated for pickleball … 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 57
Vice Chair Moss: I thought it was going to be they could reserve a tennis court like any 1
other tennis player. 2
Ms. O'Kane: That could be too. It's depending on if we're doing a change to a policy or 3
if we're … 4
Commissioner Cribbs: (inaudible) change to a policy is the issue. 5
Commissioner Greenfield: The current policy outlines tennis as the only allowed use on 6
the court. Anything we do is going to require a policy change, which is going to require 7
Council approval. 8
Vice Chair Moss: It doesn't seem like it's at the policy level. It just doesn't seem like it's 9
at the policy level. 10
Ms. O'Kane: It may or may not require a trip to Council. We'll go with that. 11
Commissioner McCauley: Since we're on the topic of pickleball—forgive me. I don't 12
mean to pile on. We've heard loud and clear from many people on the pickleball issue. It 13
seems as though that issue is lagging. I don't know if there's a way to prioritize it. It was 14
in February and March and April and probably May and June as well that we heard from 15
pickleball users, who were very vocal. It's a large number of people who are interested in 16
the issue. It's not a criticism at all. It seems as though the issue is going slowly, and it's 17
one that perhaps we could fast track because it doesn't require the same sorts of 18
environmental reviews and other considerations that other issue before ad hocs do. For 19
what that's worth. It seems as though it's something we could act on quickly, and it's 20
lagging. 21
Chair Reckdahl: I agree it seems like something you should move forward with, but look 22
at the dog parks. How long did we work on dog parks, and that really wasn't that 23
complicated. 24
Mr. Anderson: I can tell you that my staff is working with the recreation team to look at 25
Mitchell Park and see where we can reconfigure things to have dedicated, permanent 26
pickleball. We're actively working with the consultant, taking measurements in the field, 27
and identifying areas. The next process is public outreach. What I see as part of the 28
challenge is the tennis clubs are not going to love giving up courts. We don't just 29
arbitrarily make that call. We meet with the community, as always, with multiple public 30
meetings and try to reach a happy compromise. That process is always a little 31
cumbersome and a little slow. We'll expedite it as quickly as we can. My staff is 32
committed to at least fleshing out all the options that we can think of. Hopefully, that 33
makes that process a little bit faster. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 58
Vice Chair Moss: You already did that masterfully with the Rinconada pool and the 1
adult swimmers versus the lap swimmers versus all those others. You did a great job to 2
work among themselves to come up with a solution. Hopefully you can do the same with 3
the tennis players. 4
Mr. Anderson: We'll try to do it and do it quickly. 5
Chair Reckdahl: When you say dedicated pickleball, does that mean we'll replace a 6
tennis court and make it pickleball? We're not talking about building any new courts? 7
Mr. Anderson: It might be both. We're trying to look at all the options, which would 8
include one possibility of taking the handball courts, which are far lesser used relative to 9
the tennis, and say, "Can we convert that?" We're right now trying to get all the options 10
on the table. When we go to the community process, we can have everything laid out in a 11
sensible—rather than guessing what options there are, we'll know in terms of what 12
actually fits. 13
Commissioner Cribbs: Daren, do you have an idea of the timeline for the options to be 14
ready? 15
Mr. Anderson: My staff will probably have that in the next 3 weeks or so, 3 or 4 weeks. 16
Commissioner Cribbs: Once you have that, then we have to go to the tennis and the 17
pickleball community meetings. How long does that take? 18
Mr. Anderson: My team's not leading that endeavor. It's another recreation staff person. 19
I would help them and guide them where I can, be helpful. I'm not sure of their schedule. 20
Maybe Kristen has more. I would imagine it would be shortly after we have those 21
options identified. 22
Ms. O'Kane: Adam Howard, who's one of our Community Services Managers in 23
recreation—I just received a schedule from him today on what the process might look 24
like including how we would reach out to the tennis players as well as the pickleball 25
players and the schedule for that. I'll take a look at that, and I'll share that with the ad 26
hoc, if that sounds like a plan. We can talk about that and get your feedback. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: The good news for the pickleball people is that there is a class for 28
pickleballers, and that's very well attended. Everybody seems to be very happy about 29
pickleball in Palo Alto. Although, they would really like to know that they could reserve 30
courts and have—it'd be great to have some dedicated courts. It's good. Pickleball is 31
increasing in Mountain View and Foster City with dedicated courts, and actually all over 32
the place. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 59
Ms. O'Kane: I'd like to add that I did spend an afternoon playing pickleball at Mitchell. I 1
had a blast. It was so much fun. Great people. I just learned so much about the sport, 2
not just how to play but also the benefits of the sport, the social, the emotional, the 3
physical. I kept saying, "One more game," because I had to go back to work. I went on 4
my lunch break, for the record. It was really fun. 5
Commissioner McDougall: That's exciting. Thanks for doing that, Kristen. That's great. 6
Chair Reckdahl: The next time the pickleball folks come, you'll look back with your 7
racquet with them. 8
Commissioner McDougall: I'm going to suggest that—what we do at the Library 9
Commission—we started to move and have the meeting at different libraries. Maybe we 10
should have our next meeting at the pickleball courts. 11
Chair Reckdahl: Let's move on. 12
7. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 13
Chair Reckdahl: Ad hoc committee, any other updates? 14
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 15
Chair Reckdahl: We'll move on to Comments and Announcements. Do you have 16
anything more to add? 17
Ms. O'Kane: I just wanted to add that we did have the Commissioners recognition event 18
last weekend. Thanks to those who were there, and thank you also to those who weren't 19
there. You probably noticed that there was a proclamation at your seat and also a little 20
gift for you from the City Clerk's Office. Just to reiterate what they said, thank you so 21
much for your service, for the time that you volunteer to give back to the community, and 22
for our great parks system that we have here, and the recreation programs we provide. 23
We truly do appreciate it. We couldn't do this work without you. Thank you very much. 24
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm really glad that Kristen brought that up. It was really a very 25
nice event. Keith and I were both there. It was pretty amazing to see the commitment 26
and Commissions that Palo Alto enjoys. Thanks to all of you for putting it on. It was 27
very well received. The ice cream was good. 28
Chair Reckdahl: The ice cream was very good. It's always nice to get together and just 29
talk with the Council Members. It's a much more informal setting. You also realize 30
we're not the only Commission. There are other Commissions out there. It was a nice 31
event. We have it up at Foothills Park sometimes, which is a much nicer situation but 32
less convenient. It's always a tradeoff. Any other comments and announcements? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 60
Commissioner McDougall: Keith, if I might. I was remiss in not submitting anything 1
from my contact with Project Safety Net. I have spent time with Mary. This is National 2
Suicide Prevention Month. There have been activities going on all month. It is a good 3
organization. Our participation relative to Project Safety Net has to be associated with 4
the total wellness of all teens. It's important that we take that position and support them 5
that way. Just be aware this is National Suicide Prevention Month, and Project Safety 6
Net does have activities going on. 7
VII. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 24, 2017 MEETING 8
Chair Reckdahl: One issue that we have to decide tonight is our next meeting. It's 9
scheduled for October 24, and then we have the November meeting, which will be 10
Thanksgiving week. Do we want to … We can shimmy the November meeting up or 11
shimmy it back. 12
Commissioner Greenfield: The November date is fine. 13
Chair Reckdahl: We're missing Thanksgiving? 14
Ms. O'Kane: That's correct. It's the week after Thanksgiving. 15
Chair Reckdahl: December, do we want to deal with that now or do you want to wait 'til 16
next month and chew on our schedules then? 17
Vice Chair Moss: I would prefer moving it up before Christmas and New Year's. 18
Commissioner McCauley: (inaudible) 19
Chair Reckdahl: Our personal schedules will be more firmed up. 20
Commissioner McCauley: (inaudible) 21
Chair Reckdahl: Let's talk options first. We have Wednesday, December 12th—22
Tuesday, December 12th, and Tuesday, December 19th. The 26th will not work out. If 23
we do want to move it up, we have the option of the 12th and 19th. Do people want to 24
stew on that for a month or do you have feelings? 25
Commissioner Cribbs: I can say right now I'm not available on the 12th. I'm not in town. 26
Ms. O'Kane: I could ask Tanya to send out an email, and you could all check your 27
schedules and see what date might work best. 28
Chair Reckdahl: If it's a special meeting, we don't have to be on a Tuesday. We 29
probably want to avoid Mondays. Let's do a doodle poll. Any other items? 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 61
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 1
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Cribbs and second by Commissioner 2
McDougall at 10:13 p.m. Passed 7-0 3
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2017
SUBJECT: FUNDING OPTIONS FOR PARKS, TRAILS, NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND
RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will present the results of an analysis of potential funding options for the Parks, Trails, Natural
Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, specifically high priorities projects and programs. This is a
discussion item and no action will be taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
BACKGROUND
The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) was adopted by City
Council on September 11, 2017. The Master Plan includes several policies and programs aimed at
guiding the future of Palo Alto’s system of parks, open space, and recreation facilities and programs for
the next twenty years. Although the Master Plan is intended to be aspirational, it does include a set of
projects and programs that have been identified as high priority based on community feedback and staff
input. Planning and implementation of these high priority projects and programs will likely be initiated
in the short term.
Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Master Plan Funding Ad Hoc committee have
begun the additional evaluation and analysis necessary to determine how to fund the high priority
projects and programs. Included in the September 11, 2017 City Council motion to adopt the Master
Plan is language that directs “the Parks and Recreation Commission to explore funding options to fund
the Master Plan, including a possible ballot initiative.” This report presents an initial assessment of
potential funding options for a segment of Master Plan projects and programs. The assessment was
completed by Community Services staff and the PRC Master Plan Funding Ad Hoc committee.
DISCUSSION
Projects and Programs
City staff and the PRC Ad Hoc developed a list of projects and programs that together represent what
are considered to be the highest priority for an initial funding analysis. These projects are a subset of
the high priority projects and programs identified in the Master Plan. This is considered a draft list and
further refinements will be necessary depending on the type of funding option that is pursued. The
following list identifies the projects and programs determined to be high priority by staff and the PRC
Master Plan Funding Ad Hoc.
2
PROJECTS PROGRAMS
Enhance existing sports fields Establish and grow partnerships, cultivate park
donors
Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in
Baylands for park uses
Expand recruitment and training of coaches and
instructors
Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley
Community Center Expand aquatics programs
Plan, design and construct a new public
gymnasium
Collaborate with school district to increase access
to facilities
Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility Expand programs for seniors
Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park Expand non-academic progams for teens
Acquire new parkland in high-need areas Provide intramural sports program for middle and
high school students
Golf Course facility improvements Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and
inclusive program development
Develop conservation plans for open space
preserves Increase the variety of activities available in parks
Construct new restrooms in parks Encourage unstructured play at parks and
community centers
Incorporate sustainable practices in
maintenance and management Connect youth, teens and families with nature
Develop new dog parks in underrepresented
areas Expand programs related to health and wellness
Exceed ADA requirements in parks Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks
Improve trail connections and access Expand community focused special events
Develop adult fitness areas in parks Offer cultural enrichment programs
Create wayfinding signage showing safe route to
parks
Develop new community gardens
Enhance seating areas in parks
Integrate nature into urban parks
Potential Funding Sources
Staff identified and researched several funding opportunities that could potentially be used to fund the
implementation of the Master Plan. A description of these opportunities is described below.
New Revenue Sources- There are different types of new revenue sources that could be used for funding
the array of Master Plan projects and programs. Pursuing new tax revenues would require a ballot
measure and could only be collected with a supermajority vote of the people. These measures include
general obligation bond proceeds, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) parcel taxes,
community-wide parcel taxes and sales taxes. Further research and investigation is required to
determine the most favorable option for generating new revenue to fund the Master Plan, including the
requirements and restrictions of each source.
3
Pursuing a ballot measure for collection of new tax revenue would require a financial feasibility study
and preliminary community polling to determine the feasibility that a ballot measure outcome would be
successful. There is currently no existing budget to complete the financial feasibility study and the
preliminary polling. Staff would need to request a budget amendment from City Council to pursue this
effort. It is expected that the cost of performing the study and the preliminary polling would be
approximately $60,000. Pursuing a ballot measure for the Master Plan should also be weighed against
other priority large capital projects that require funding by the City, including amount and timing of
funding.
Existing Capital Improvement Plan and/or Operating Budget Sources – The City’s fiscal year begins on
July 1st and ends on June 30th. Although there is a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan only the current
fiscal year is adopted by the City Council. The amount of funding allocated to Master Plan projects from
the Capital Improvement Fund and General Fund would be determined on an annual basis through the
City’s budget process and would be weighed against other City capital and operating projects.
Donations – Donations can come from a variety of sources including capital campaigns, directly from
private donors, through the City’s nonprofit partners and public/private partnerships. Funds received
through capital campaigns and private donors typically result in funds directly supporting the project,
while public/private partnerships may require an agreement for shared use. Both the Friends of the
Palo Alto Parks and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation are nonprofit partners to the City and have
contributed to Palo Alto’s parks and recreation system for many years.
Grants – There are many grant opportunities available for projects that provide a community or public
benefit. Example grant opportunities include, but are not limited to, environmental enhancement and
restoration projects, trail and trail connection projects, and constructing all-inclusive playgrounds. Most
grant opportunities require the applicant (for example, the City) to match the grant amount. This can
limit the amount of grant funding that is pursued if there isn’t another source of funding for the match
amount.
Analysis
Using the list of projects that are considered high priority for funding in the near-term, staff developed
the spreadsheet included in Attachment A to identify: 1) a potential timeline for planning and
implementation; 2) the range of initial and ongoing costs for each of the capital projects; and 3)
potential funding opportunities that could be pursued for each project and program. All projects and
programs will require some level of funding from the City’s existing Capital Improvement Fund or
Operating Fund, and includes staff resources. It is important to note that the cost ranges are
preliminary and not based on detailed cost breakdown estimates.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the initial findings of the funding opportunities analysis to the PRC then continue to
work with the PRC Master Plan Funding Ad Hoc to further refine the work following PRC review and
comment. It is anticipated that staff will present the analysis and a potential funding plan to City Council
in December 2017.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Funding analysis of Master Plan projects and programs
ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT
DRAFT
THE COSTS LISTED REPRESENT ROUGH ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL COST RANGES AND ARE NOT BASED ON A FORMAL, DETAILED COST BREAKDOWN.
Major projects Study & Planning Implementation Low $ Estimate High $ Estimate Low $ Estimate High $ Estimate New Tax Revenue
Existing CIP and/or
Operating Budget
Sources
Donations Grants
Enhance existing sports fields 2019-2023 2020-2038 1,000,000 5,000,000 25,000 75,000 X X X
Plan, design and construct 10.5-acre site in Baylands for park uses 2019-2023 2020-2028 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000 25,000 X X X X
Plan, design and redevelop Cubberley Community Center 2018-2021 2020-2038 1,000,000 20,000,000 5,000 300,000 X X X
Plan, design and construct a new public gymnasium 2024-2028 2028-2038 5,000,000 15,000,000 75,000 150,000 X X X
Improve the Rinconada Pool Facility 2024-2028 2028-2038 5,000,000 10,000,000 75,000 300,000 X X X
Incorporate 7.7-acre site into Foothills Park 2019-2023 2020-2038 1,000,000 10,000,000 2,500 5,000 X X X X
Acquire new parkland in high-need areas 2018-2038 2018-2038 5,000,000 10,000,000 5,000 25,000 X X X X
Golf Course facility improvements 2024-2028 2028-2038 1,000,000 5,000,000 25,000 75,000 X X X
Projects Ready in the Short Term
Develop conservation plans for open space preserves 2018-2028 2018-2028 250,000 1,000,000 - - X X
Construct new restrooms in parks 2018-2028 2018-2028 250,000 1,000,000 5,000 5,000 X X
Incorporate sustainable practices in maintenance and management 2018-2023 2019-2038 50,000 1,000,000 2,500 5,000 X
Develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas 2018-2028 2018-2028 150,000 250,000 5,000 5,000 X X X
Exceed ADA requirements in parks 2018-2038 2018-2038 100,000 5,000,000 25,000 25,000 X X X X
Improve trail connections and access 2018-2038 2018-2038 250,000 1,000,000 25,000 25,000 X X X X
Develop adult fitness areas in parks 2018-2038 2018-2038 100,000 250,000 2,500 5,000 X X X X
Create wayfinding signage showing safe route to parks 2018-2038 2018-2038 25,000 250,000 1,000 5,000 X X
Develop new community gardens 2018-2038 2018-2038 100,000 250,000 5,000 5,000 X X X
Enhance seating areas in parks 2018-2038 2018-2038 25,000 100,000 2,500 5,000 X X X X
Integrate nature into urban parks 2018-2038 2018-2038 25,000 250,000 5,000 5,000 X X X X
Totals Implementation
Low $ Estimate
Implementation
High $ Estimate
Ongoing Cost Low $
Estimate
Ongoing Cost High $
Estimate
25,325,000 95,350,000 296,000 1,045,000
Programs
Establish and grow partnerships, cultivate park donors 2018-2023 X X
Expand recruitment and training of coaches and instructors 2018-2028 X
Expand aquatics programs 2016-2020 X
Collaborate with school district to increase access to facilities 2018-2023 X
Expand programs for seniors 2018-2023 X X X X
Expand non-academic progams for teens 2018-2023 X X X
Provide intramural sports program for middle and high school students 2018-2023 X X
Invest in staff training to enhance therapeutic and inclusive program development 2018-2028 X X X X
Increase the variety of activities available in parks 2018-2038 X X X
Encourage unstructured play at parks and community centers 2018-2028 X X
Connect youth, teens and families with nature 2018-2023 X X X X
Expand programs related to health and wellness 2018-2023 X X X X
Pilot temporary/pop-up programming in parks 2018-2028 X X X
Expand community focused special events 2018-2038 X X
Offer cultural enrichment programs 2018-2038 X X X X
Timeline (FY)Expected Implementation Cost Ongoing Cost Funding Sources - Percentage Split
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2017
SUBJECT: AUDIT STATUS REPORT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE AUDIT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will be providing an update on the implementations status of the City Auditor’s Fee
Schedule Audit for discussion only. No action will be taken by the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
BACKGROUND
The City Auditor’s Office issued an audit, the Community Services Department Fee Schedule
Audit on February 14, 2017. The audit objective was to determine if department fees cover the
cost of services provided as expected. The City Auditor made three recommendations to
strengthen the departments cost recovery procedures and processes for monitoring program
costs. The key recommendations were:
• The City Manager’s Office should coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office and the
Administrative Services Department to revise the City’s cost recovery policy and
Questica budget system procedures to clarify which fees are not subject to laws limiting
fees to cost recovery.
• CSD should create a procedure to implement the City’s User Fee Cost Recovery Level
Policy and incorporate relevant and useful elements from its existing “Class Cost
Recovery Policy,” which can then be rescinded.
• CSD should work with the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and the
Information Technology Department to configure SAP or include a requirement for the
proposed new enterprise resource planning system to align cost centers with CSD
programs.
DISCUSSION
The City Manager’s Office, Administrative Services Department, and Community Services
Department have begun implementing the three open recommendations and anticipate that
the recommendations should be substantially complete by the end of the fiscal year.
Audit Recommendations:
Recommendation #1: The City Manager’s Office should coordinate with the City Attorney’s
Office and the Administrative Services Department to revise the City’s cost recovery policy and
Questica budget system procedures to clarify which fees are not subject to laws that limit fees
to cost recovery; modify the cost recovery categories to allow for fees that recover more than
costs, based on market rates; and configure the Questica budget system to support setting fees
to recover more than 100 percent of costs when appropriate.
2
The City Manager’s Office, City Attorney’s Office, and the Administrative Services Department
have not yet begun this recommendation but anticipate that the policy update will be complete
by the end of the fiscal year.
Recommendation #2: After recommendation 1 is complete, CSD should create a procedure to
implement the City’s User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy and incorporate relevant and useful
elements from its existing “Class Cost Recovery Policy,” which can then be rescinded. CSD’s
new procedure should:
a. Update and finalize the draft CSD program level cost recovery targets to be consistent with
the ranges in the City policy. The procedure should clarify the rationale for targets
assigned to programs and reference the City policy categories.
b. Clarify exceptions to fees that are set to target specific cost recovery goals and that may
impact rates for other service recipients and program cost recovery levels, such as
discounted rates for certain groups.
c. Require CSD to annually assess whether cost recovery levels achieved targets and address
obstacles and opportunities to meet targets.
d. Describe how to use the fee-setting form to calculate service costs based on total costs for
the service provided, including direct costs and an indirect cost rate calculated by OMB,
and set fees that are consistent with the City’s cost recovery policy. To minimize
administrative efforts, describe which classes/services may be grouped together when
calculating costs (i.e., one form may cover more than one class).
e. Require completion and review of the forms to ensure that class/service costs are known
and that fees are set to recover costs consistent with targets. Clarify who is responsible to
complete the forms, when the forms are completed, and who reviews and approves the
forms.
f. Establish a method to estimate a reasonably accurate minimum and maximum class
enrollment number to enter in ACTIVE Net. The procedure should address what enrollment
levels should prompt a review to determine whether to cancel a class or increase offerings
to accommodate demand.
CSD is in the process of finalizing updated Cost Recovery Procedures which include:
• Cost recovery targets in alignment with the City’s three Cost Recovery Level Groups and
clarity around how the rationale for cost recovery levels for each major CSD activity as
well as references to City policy categories
• A list of exceptions to fees and a rationale for each exception
• A clear process outlined for staff to use with instructions on who should assess costs,
where the assessments are maintained, how they are reviewed, how to calculate
service costs, how to group activities, and how frequently to do these assessments
• A process to incorporate cost recovery reviews into the Department’s existing internal
quarterly budget review
3
• A process outlined for management responsibility and oversight to ensure that service
cost calculations and fee setting occur when expected
• A process outlined for establishing minimum and maximum enrollments in Activenet
and the rationale and evaluation of whether to proceed with classes enrolled below the
minimum.
Recommendation #3: CSD should work with ASD and the Information Technology Department to
configure SAP or include a requirement for the proposed new enterprise resource planning
system to align cost centers with CSD programs.
CSD has worked with Budget Office staff to better align cost centers with CSD programs. Staff
have already updated cost centers for the Children’s Theatre and Human Services and are in the
process of updating Recreation, Teen Programs, and Cubberley. Staff have also reviewed CSD
staff assignments to ensure that positions are assigned to the appropriate cost centers. Staff
anticipates that this review of staff and budget by program should be substantially complete
this fall but will likely require clean-up at the beginning of FY 2019.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: City Council Staff Report, dated April 17, 2017 - Policy and Services Committee
Recommendation to Accept the Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
April 17, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the
Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit
The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Community Services Department: Fee
Schedule Audit. At its meeting on February 14, 2017, the Policy and Services Committee approved
and unanimously recommended that the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services
Committee minutes are included in this packet.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit (PDF)
Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (February 14, 2017)
(PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Page 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
February 14, 2017
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit
In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Audit Work Plan, the Office of the City Auditor has
completed the Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit. The audit report presents one
finding with a total of three recommendations. The Office of the City Auditor recommends that the
Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the
Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit.
Respectfully submitted,
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Community Services: Fee Schedule Audit (PDF)
Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Attachment A
Page 2
Attachment A
Community Services Department:
Fee Schedule Audit
December 15, 2016
Office of the City Auditor
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor
Marisa Lin, FISCal Intern
Attachment A
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing
Attachment A
OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit
December 15, 2016
PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT
The purpose of this audit was to determine if fees cover the cost of services provided as expected.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
Finding: Most Community
Services Department
(CSD) programs recover
costs consistent with City
policy; however, CSD
does not consistently
apply its cost recovery
policies and procedures
(Page 6)
In FY 2016, six of eight Community Services Department (CSD) programs1
recovered service costs at rates consistent with the City’s 2015 User Fee Cost
Recovery Level Policy. The policy does not require recovery of all service costs,
and acknowledges that the City will subsidize some programs more than others
depending on the level of benefit to the community versus the individual. CSD
can refine and further implement existing fee-setting policies and procedures to
ensure:
• Financial sustainability of its programs.
• Customers pay the appropriate share of service costs, including direct costs
and the indirect cost rate related to the service.
• City programs are subsidized in accordance with the City’s cost recovery
policy and that the financial impact of subsidies on total cost recovery is
clear.
CSD does not consistently apply its cost recovery policies and procedures, and
its internal policy’s four cost ranges are not aligned with the three cost recovery
ranges in the City’s 2015 cost recovery policy. Implementing the City’s cost
recovery policy and updates to procedures may result in changes to CSD’s cost
recovery levels and overall 28 percent recovery rate.
Key Recommendations:
• The City Manager’s Office should coordinate with the City Attorney’s Office
and the Administrative Services Department to revise the City’s cost
recovery policy and Questica budget system procedures to clarify which
fees are not subject to laws limiting fees to cost recovery.
• CSD should create a procedure to implement the City’s User Fee Cost
Recovery Level Policy and incorporate relevant and useful elements from its
existing “Class Cost Recovery Policy,” which can then be rescinded.
• CSD should work with the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and
the Information Technology Department to configure SAP or include a
requirement for the proposed new enterprise resource planning system to
align cost centers with CSD programs.
1 We use the term “programs” throughout the audit as a generic reference to all services, programs, or activities that CSD
offers to the public.
Attachment A
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing
Attachment A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Finding:
Most Community Services Department (CSD) programs recover costs consistent with City policy;
however, CSD does not consistently apply its cost recovery policies and procedures .................... 6
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix 1: City of Palo Alto User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy .................................................... 12
Appendix 2: Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy ........................................ 14
Appendix 3: Community Services Department Expenses, Revenues, Subsidies, and Cost Recovery
Percentages (FY 11 to FY 16) ......................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 4: City Manager’s Response ................................................................................................ 22
ABBREVIATIONS
ASD Administrative Services Department
CSD Community Services Department
FY Fiscal Year
GFOA Government Finance Officers Association
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Attachment A
Page intentionally left blank for double-sided printing
Attachment A
INTRODUCTION
Objective The purpose of this audit was to determine if fees cover the cost
of services provided as expected.
Background The City provides a variety of services to the public that benefit
the entire community, individual residents, or businesses. The
City has traditionally recovered a portion or all of the costs of
certain services, which otherwise would have been paid from the
General Fund or other sources. Each City department
recommends a schedule of fees and rates for its services to the
Administrative Services Department (ASD) and is required to
collect and deposit fees in accordance with City policies and
procedures. The City Manager issues an annual municipal fee
schedule, which the City Council approves.
Community Services Department
Programs2
The Community Services Department (CSD) operates the Arts and
Sciences; Open Space, Parks, and Golf; and Recreation and
Cubberley Divisions and the Office of Human Services to provide a
diverse range of programs and services designed to increase
knowledge, creativity, artistic expression, physical activity, social
assistance, and enjoyment of the outdoors. Although CSD charges
fees for many services and programs, it provides some that do
not charge fees based on City Council and management direction.
The City’s fee schedule lists specific fees for facility rentals, golf
services, open space and parks, and certain recreation activities
and a range of fees for camps and classes. The specific fees for
camps and classes are provided in CSD’s quarterly Enjoy! catalog.
Calculating costs The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends collecting cost data for a variety of purposes,
including setting user fees and charges and identifying alternative
service delivery options. The full cost of a service encompasses:
• Direct costs, including the salaries, wages, and benefits of
employees who deliver the service; materials and supplies; and
other associated operating costs, such as utilities, rent,
training, and travel.
• Indirect costs, including shared administrative expenses within
the work unit and in support functions outside the work unit
2 We use the term “programs” throughout the audit as a generic reference to all services, programs, or activities that CSD
offers to the public.
Attachment A
(e.g., legal, finance, human resources, facilities,3 maintenance,
technology). Shared costs should be apportioned by a
transparent, systematic, and rational allocation methodology.
General fund charges for
services
The City’s General Fund revenue includes “charges for services,”
which includes fees for fire services to Stanford, paramedic
services, golf-related activities, art and science classes, and plan
checks. “Charges for services” was the City’s third largest source
of revenue and comprised $25.4 million (14 percent) of the City’s
General Fund revenue in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015.
Legal framework Under California law, municipalities have wide discretion to
establish charges for use of government facilities, including park
entrance fees and facility rentals, and participation in elective
services and programs, such as arts and recreation classes.
Although the California Constitution, Article XIII C, as amended by
Proposition 26 in November 2010 (“Prop. 26”), limits some types
of user fees to the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service, it exempts the fees and charges addressed in this audit.
For these fees, it is lawful for the City to establish charges at,
below, or above the cost of providing the service.
User Fee Cost Recovery Policy The City adopted a User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy in
May 2015 (see Appendix 1). Its purpose is to set cost recovery
goals for City services. The policy acknowledges that fees should
not be charged or should be low for services that benefit the
entire community or for services that promote City goals and
policies, such as healthy habits and environmental stewardship.
The policy identifies three cost recovery levels and says that
recreational activity fees should generally be set at the medium
level, which means that fees would generally recover
30.1 percent to 70 percent of the related costs. The policy also
states, however, that high-demand recreational activities may
have a high cost recovery level due to high enrollment per class.
The City began to align fees with the policy during the FY 2017
budget process.
CSD Class Cost Recovery Policy The City adopted CSD’s Class Cost Recovery Policy in 2007 “as a
guideline to establish cost-recovery targets for fee-based classes
and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts &
3 According to a November 2013 City Manager report, the City does not include facility expense as a cost component to
calculate cost recovery.
Attachment A
Sciences, and Open Space & Parks.”4 The policy identified four
cost recovery groups, which represent the low to high ends of the
cost recovery spectrum:
• Group I: Community benefit
• Group II: Majority community benefit
• Group III: Equal community benefit and personal benefit
• Group IV: Majority personal benefit
The policy, which CSD developed as a result of an October 2006
audit recommendation, requires programs to be reviewed
annually and fee adjustments to be made to ensure that
established cost recovery levels are met. CSD drafted another
document that assigned categories of classes and activities to a
group.
Scope Our original audit scope included financial information through
FY 2015; however, the audit process extended through December
2016, which provided an opportunity to include certain FY 2016
financial information to assess the extent to which CSD’s fees
recover the cost of its programs. We did not update background,
sampling, and class enrollment information to include FY 2016
data. We did not assess fees that other departments, such as
Planning and Community Environment and Development
Services, charge for services that primarily benefit service
recipients. We also excluded activities that primarily benefit the
community and do not generate revenues.
CSD’s cost recovery and fee setting policies and procedures cover
only fee-based classes and camps. However, because cost
recovery data for individual classes was not readily available, we
focused our assessment on cost recovery for CSD divisions and
programs overall. CSD did not have written procedures specific to
other program areas.
We did not benchmark Palo Alto’s CSD program cost recovery
levels with other jurisdictions because other studies identified
difficulties due to variations in service levels, service bundling,
pricing structures, and methods of budgeting and accounting for
revenues. For example, unlike most jurisdictions, CSD operates
the Office of Human Services, the Children’s Theatre, the Art
Center, an artist studio program, and the Junior Museum and
Zoo.
4 CSD has reorganized since 2007 and now includes the Arts and Sciences; Open Space, Parks, and Golf; and Recreation and
Cubberley Divisions and the Office of Human Services.
Attachment A
Methodology To accomplish our audit objective, we:
• Interviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and CSD
staff responsible for fee setting to understand the relevant data
and policies and procedures.
• Obtained clarification from the City Attorney’s Office regarding
laws and regulations applicable to CSD fees.
• Conducted a risk assessment to identify and prioritize risks
associated with setting fees.
• Reviewed applicable laws and regulations, and fee setting best
practices from the Government Finance Officers Association.
• Reviewed published audit reports and included audit steps to
address risks identified in the City’s 2006 audit report on CSD
class cost recovery and relevant audit and technical reports
from other jurisdictions.
• Calculated CSD’s cost recovery rates from FY 2011 through
FY 2016 by compiling and mapping relevant financial data from
the City’s SAP system, CSD, and OMB. The SAP financial data
consisted of actual City revenues and expenses, excluding
noncash expenses such as depreciation.
• Compared CSD’s cost recovery rates with ranges specified in
the City’s cost recovery policy.
• Reviewed a judgmental sample of CSD fees to assess the fee-
setting process and alignment of cost recovery with the City’s
cost recovery policy.
• Reviewed CSD class enrollment data.
Sampling methodology We judgmentally selected and reviewed a sample of 33 CSD fees
to assess whether CSD’s cost recovery procedures are consistent
with the City’s cost recovery goals and objectives. Our sample
covered classes, camps, registration seasons, and varying
participant and fee levels. Because this was a judgmental sample,
our conclusions cannot be projected to the total population of
CSD classes.
Because expense data was not readily available for the 33 CSD
classes in our sample, we could not assess whether cost recovery
levels for each class were aligned with the City’s cost recovery
policy. The finding provides an assessment of cost recovery for
CSD programs overall, assuming that most classes or services
within each program align with the same City policy cost recovery
category.
Attachment A
Data reliability We assessed the accuracy and completeness of CSD revenue and
class enrollment data in its ACTIVE Net recreation management
software system by reconciling the data with the City’s SAP
system and published CSD course catalogs. Based on these
assessments and discussions with ASD accounting staff, we
concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report.
Because SAP data, which the City’s external financial auditor
audits annually, is widely accepted as the source for financial data
in the City, we relied on the data without assessing data
reliability.
Compliance with government
auditing standards
We conducted this audit of CSD class fees in accordance with our
FY 2016 Annual Audit Work Plan and generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We would like to thank management and staff in the Administrative Services and Community
Services Departments for their time, cooperation, and assistance during the audit process.
Attachment A
Finding Most Community Services Department (CSD) programs recover
costs consistent with City policy; however, CSD does not
consistently apply its cost recovery policies and procedures
In FY 2016, six of eight Community Services Department (CSD)
programs recovered service costs at rates consistent with the City’s
2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. The policy does not
require recovery of all service costs, and acknowledges that the City
will subsidize some programs more than others depending on the
level of benefit to the community versus the individual. CSD can
refine and further implement existing fee-setting policies and
procedures to ensure:
• Financial sustainability of its programs.
• Customers pay the appropriate share of service costs, including
direct costs and the indirect cost rate related to the service.
• City programs are subsidized in accordance with the City’s cost
recovery policy and that the financial impact of subsidies on total
cost recovery is clear.
CSD does not consistently apply its cost recovery policies and
procedures, and its internal policy’s four cost ranges are not aligned
with the three cost recovery ranges in the City’s 2015 cost recovery
policy. Implementing the City’s cost recovery policy and updates to
procedures may result in changes to CSD’s cost recovery levels and
overall 28 percent recovery rate.
Most CSD programs recover
costs at rates consistent with
City policy
CSD recovered $8.0 million (28 percent) of its $28.5 million in service
costs in FY 2016 through fees and outside contributions. Exhibit 1
shows cost recoveries for CSD program areas. Based on the City’s
2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, eight program areas would
generally be expected to recover at least 30.1 percent of costs and
four would generally be expected to recover 30 percent or less of
costs. Although CSD has its own class cost recovery policy, it is
applicable only to fee-based classes and camps and is not consistent
with the City’s newer cost recovery policy, which has broader
applicability. The amount of future cost recovery will depend on
Council and City management decisions within the broad framework
of the City policy.
Attachment A
Although the City’s User Cost Fee Recovery Level Policy was not
expected to be implemented until the FY 2017 budget process,
Exhibit 1 shows that six of CSD’s eight programs that would generally
be expected to recover at least 30.1 percent of costs did so in
FY 2016.
• The cost recovery rate for the Junior Museum and Zoo is less than
the policy range because the City does not currently charge
admission fees to the facility, which is considered a community
benefit.
• The cost recovery rate for Theatre, Music, & Dance is lower
because the Children’s Theatre does not charge to participate in
productions, the City fully subsidizes the three theatre groups’
exclusive use of the Stern Community Theatre, and the theatre
groups do not meet the City’s $90,000 revenue target for annual
ticket sales that they provide to the City. CSD estimates that the
EXHIBIT 1: CSD Cost Recovery by Program Area (Fiscal Year 2016)
CSD Programs
CURRENT POTENTIAL
Expense
(millions)
Revenue
(millions)
Recovery
Percentage
General Fund
Subsidy (millions)
City Policy Cost
Recovery RangeA
CSD programs that should generally recover at least 30.1 percent of costsA
1. Art Center (Exhibitions
& Visual Arts) $1.8 $0.8 43.2% $1.0 30.1% - 70%
2. Theatre, Music, &
Dance $2.6 $0.8 29.8% $1.8 30.1% - 70%
3. Junior Museum and
Zoo $2.9 $0.7 22.4% $2.3 30.1% - 70%
4. Aquatics $0.9 $0.4 44.8% $0.5 30.1% - 70%
5. Middle School Athletics $0.5 $0.3 61.3% $0.2 30.1% - 70%
6. Recreation $3.9 $2.1 53.6% $1.8 30.1% - 70%
7. Cubberley $2.1 $0.9B 45.3% $1.1 30.1% - 70%
8. Golf $1.8 $1.5 84.2% $0.3 70.1% - 100%
CSD programs that should generally recover between 0% and 30% of costsA
9. Public Art, Concerts, &
Art Partnerships $0.3 $0.0 1.0% $0.3 0% - 30%
10. Special Events $0.3 $0.0 5.8% $0.3 0% - 30%
11. Parks & Open Space $9.2 $0.5 5.0% $8.7 0% - 30%
12. Human Services $2.1 $0.0 0.5% $2.1 0% - 30%
A Based on City of Palo Alto 2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy ranges as applied by the Office of the City Auditor.
However, some activities within a program area may have different cost recovery expectations, including services that
are either not expected to generate fees or warrant lower or higher fees due to their level of benefit to the community
or individual.
B Does not include revenue from leases managed by ASD that are not considered “charges for services.”
Source: Office of the City Auditor cost recovery analysis based on City policy and SAP financial data.
Attachment A
theatre group subsidies have a combined value of about $500,000
annually.
• Golf is the least subsidized program. Golf revenues surpassed
expenses from FY 2011 through FY 2013 (see Appendix 3), but the
City began subsidizing Golf in FY 2014 and recovered about 84
percent of costs in FY 2016.
Some CSD programs do not
have cost recovery objectives
Exhibit 1 shows four programs that do not have significant cost
recovery objectives: Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships; Special
Events; Parks & Open Space; and Human Services. Because most of
the expenses for Parks & Open Space are for maintenance, there
currently is limited opportunity to recover those costs. Cost recovery
rates may reflect the Council’s policy to subsidize, in part or in full,
services that benefit the public at large or promote health activities
and educational enrichment to the community, but the City policy
does not provide detailed expectations regarding subsidies for
specific activities. CSD’s implementation of the City policy will help
define where subsidies supplement or supplant fees for specific
services.
Cost recovery rates fluctuate
from year to year
CSD’s total cost recovery has ranged from a high of 34 percent in
FY 2011 to a low of 28 percent in FY 2015 and FY 2016. The decline is
mostly due to lower Golf revenues. Appendix 3 shows program
expenses, revenues, general fund subsidies, and cost recoveries, by
CSD program, from FY 2011 to FY 2016.
CSD has not consistently
applied its cost recovery
policies and procedures
CSD has developed policies and tools to meet cost recovery
objectives but has not updated them since 2007 or consistently
applied them. These include fee-setting templates, a draft document
with specific program cost recovery targets, and a 2007 Class Cost
Recovery Policy. The City’s policy does not acknowledge that state
law exempts recreation programs and facility rentals from the cost
recovery limits that apply to many other City services.
Fee-setting templates and
tools not consistently used
CSD created a document to show the cost recovery targets for its
programs and a fee-setting template to calculate fees based on
projected costs, revenues, enrollment, and cost recovery targets.
However, CSD does not have a process to ensure that the templates
are completed, reviewed, and used, or that the targets in the
templates align with the cost recovery target document. CSD had not
used the template to set fees for any of the 33 classes and camps in
our sample, although some program coordinators provided
completed forms as examples for the audit. Updating the cost
recovery target document and consistently using the templates
Attachment A
would help ensure compliance with the City’s 2015 User Fee Cost
Recovery Level Policy.
SAP not configured to help
monitor cost recovery
As shown in Exhibit 1, comparing cost recovery levels by program
area with City policy cost recovery ranges is useful to assess if the
City is meeting cost recovery objectives. The City’s SAP financial
system tracks revenues and expenses by City department, division,
fund, and cost centers that generally correspond to services.
However, SAP cost centers are not aligned with program revenues
and expenses. Calculating cost recovery by program area, including
appropriately allocating indirect costs, requires a manual process to
map SAP cost centers to program areas. Also, there is no procedure
or tool to allocate division, department, and City indirect costs to
program areas. Calculating cost recovery, including both direct and
indirect costs, by program area can help CSD staff ensure that it sets
fees at a level that meets the City’s cost recovery objectives.
CSD Class Cost Recovery
Policy not aligned with City
policy and is redundant
CSD has a 2007 Class Cost Recovery Policy but has not yet updated it
to align it with the City’s 2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy,
which was expected to be used starting with the FY 2017 budget
process. CSD’s policy:
• Only addresses fee-based classes and camps and excludes services
such as golf green fees.
• Has four cost-recovery groups with targets based on the benefit
level to the community or the individual versus the three cost
recovery groups in the City’s policy.
• Has cost recovery targets that are based on direct cost plus
overhead rates for department and City overhead; the City policy
targets are based on total cost but does not specify how to include
overhead.
Class enrollment levels may
affect anticipated cost
recovery
Of the 33 CSD classes we reviewed, 14 (42 percent) had enrollment
that was less than the minimum or more than the maximum listed in
ACTIVE Net. Because of this, we looked at FY 2015 enrollment levels
in ACTIVE Net and found that 428 (19 percent) of the 2,238 activities
or classes had actual enrollment under the stated minimum. CSD
does not have written policies and procedures to ensure that class
enrollment levels support the City’s cost recovery policy. Although
CSD program coordinators use their judgment, based on knowledge
of past enrollment levels, ideal class size, and room capacity to enter
minimum and maximum enrollment levels in ACTIVE Net, they do not
always cancel classes or limit enrollment based on these numbers.
According to CSD staff, enrollment levels below the minimum in
Attachment A
ACTIVE Net may not adversely impact cost recovery for contracted
classes because the contracts compensate instructors based on the
number of enrollees. However, this does not consider that overhead
costs for that class or activity may not be recovered or that the
facility may have been better used for a different activity.
State law exemption to cost
recovery limit not reflected in
policies and procedures
The City’s 2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy; budget, fee
setting, and publishing tool (i.e., the Municipal Fee Module of the
City’s Questica budget system); and procedures to use the Municipal
Fee Module limit fees the City can charge to 100 percent of service
costs. This limit applies to fees for recreation services such as golf
where market pricing may lawfully provide revenues that exceed
costs. Prop. 26 exempts recreation programs and facility rentals from
the cost recovery limits that apply to some service costs, such as
permit or utilities fees. Minutes for various Council meetings show
that fee-setting decisions were influenced by this misunderstanding
of state law.
Effects of lower than
expected cost recovery
Lower than expected cost recovery could result in:
• The City subsidizing more programs than expected or not being
able to offer some programs.
• Some residents paying more or less than appropriate for services
they benefit from.
• The City not achieving its social goals and objectives, such as
subsidizing low-income individuals, seniors, and/or youth, because
it subsidizes other unintended individuals.
Recommendations 1. The City Manager’s Office should coordinate with the City
Attorney’s Office and the Administrative Services Department to
revise the City’s cost recovery policy and Questica budget system
procedures to clarify which fees are not subject to laws that limit
fees to cost recovery; modify the cost recovery categories to
allow for fees that recover more than costs, based on market
rates; and configure the Questica budget system to support
setting fees to recover more than 100 percent of costs when
appropriate.
2. After recommendation 1 is complete, CSD should create a
procedure to implement the City’s User Fee Cost Recovery Level
Policy and incorporate relevant and useful elements from its
existing “Class Cost Recovery Policy,” which can then be
rescinded. CSD’s new procedure should:
a. Update and finalize the draft CSD program level cost recovery
Attachment A
targets to be consistent with the ranges in the City policy.
The procedure should clarify the rationale for targets
assigned to programs and reference the City policy
categories.
b. Clarify exceptions to fees that are set to target specific cost
recovery goals and that may impact rates for other service
recipients and program cost recovery levels, such as
discounted rates for certain groups.
c. Require CSD to annually assess whether cost recovery levels
achieved targets and address obstacles and opportunities to
meet targets.
d. Describe how to use the fee-setting form to calculate service
costs based on total costs for the service provided, including
direct costs and an indirect cost rate calculated by OMB, and
set fees that are consistent with the City’s cost recovery
policy. To minimize administrative efforts, describe which
classes/services may be grouped together when calculating
costs (i.e., one form may cover more than one class).
e. Require completion and review of the forms to ensure that
class/service costs are known and that fees are set to recover
costs consistent with targets. Clarify who is responsible to
complete the forms, when the forms are completed, and
who reviews and approves the forms.
f. Establish a method to estimate a reasonably accurate
minimum and maximum class enrollment number to enter in
ACTIVE Net. The procedure should address what enrollment
levels should prompt a review to determine whether to
cancel a class or increase offerings to accommodate demand.
3. CSD should work with ASD and the Information Technology
Department to configure SAP or include a requirement for the
proposed new enterprise resource planning system to align cost
centers with CSD programs.
Attachment A
APPENDIX 1 – City of Palo Alto User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy
Attachment A
Attachment A
APPENDIX 2 – Community Services Department’s Class Cost Recovery Policy
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
APPENDIX 3 – Community Services Department Expenses, Revenues, Subsidies, and
Cost Recovery Percentages (FY 11 to FY 16)
Year CSD Programs/Divisions Expense Revenue
General Fund
Subsidy/Revenue5
Cost
Recovery %
FY
2
0
1
1
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,244,402 $450,597 $793,805 36%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $203,404 $2,986 $200,418 1%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,217,346 $553,620 $1,663,726 25%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,353,146 $551,066 $1,802,080 23%
Aquatics $777,592 $469,109 $308,483 60%
Middle School Athletic $460,362 $258,597 $201,765 56%
Recreation $3,323,113 $1,646,006 $1,677,107 50%
Special Events $226,955 $13,593 $213,362 6%
Cubberley $1,825,519 $865,944 $959,575 47%
Golf $2,076,378 $2,817,141 -$740,764 136%
Parks & Open Space $7,107,273 $380,431 $6,726,842 5%
Human Services $1,557,612 $14,027 $1,543,585 1%
2011 Total $23,373,103 $8,023,117 $15,349,985 34%
FY
2
0
1
2
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,209,679 $303,594 $906,085 25%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $230,632 $4,399 $226,233 2%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,254,777 $548,622 $1,706,155 24%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,471,170 $512,266 $1,958,904 21%
Aquatics $820,346 $500,110 $320,236 61%
Middle School Athletic $516,139 $288,737 $227,402 56%
Recreation $3,135,541 $1,493,968 $1,641,572 48%
Special Events $131,480 $15,686 $115,794 12%
Cubberley $1,959,129 $838,380 $1,120,749 43%
Golf $1,951,978 $2,740,197 -$788,219 140%
Parks & Open Space $7,948,316 $398,164 $7,550,152 5%
Human Services $1,535,920 $11,996 $1,523,924 1%
2012 Total $24,165,107 $7,656,120 $16,508,987 32%
5 Negative values for Golf through FY 2013 mean that revenues exceeded expenses and the General Fund received revenue
as a result.
Attachment A
Year CSD Programs/Divisions Expense Revenue
General Fund
Subsidy/Revenue5
Cost
Recovery %
FY
2
0
1
3
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,453,828 $522,431 $931,397 36%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $240,109 -$264 $240,373 0%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,107,253 $593,381 $1,513,872 28%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,361,788 $498,189 $1,863,599 21%
Aquatics $834,692 $569,079 $265,613 68%
Middle School Athletic $550,576 $346,143 $204,432 63%
Recreation $3,031,055 $1,795,906 $1,235,149 59%
Special Events $128,069 $21,580 $106,490 17%
Cubberley $1,984,666 $905,257 $1,079,409 46%
Golf $2,184,277 $2,528,484 -$344,207 116%
Parks & Open Space $8,395,630 $418,449 $7,977,181 5%
Human Services $1,479,075 $11,716 $1,467,359 1%
2013 Total $24,751,017 $8,210,351 $16,540,666 33%
FY
2
0
1
4
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,502,846 $604,625 $898,221 40%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $356,030 $5,943 $350,086 2%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,443,410 $744,354 $1,699,056 30%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,516,689 $594,013 $1,922,676 24%
Aquatics $787,284 $454,388 $332,896 58%
Middle School Athletic $567,044 $305,118 $261,926 54%
Recreation $3,050,877 $1,982,081 $1,068,796 65%
Special Events $95,576 $12,738 $82,838 13%
Cubberley $2,065,456 $844,367 $1,221,089 41%
Golf $1,972,998 $1,761,100 $211,897 89%
Parks & Open Space $9,018,480 $419,092 $8,599,387 5%
Human Services $1,862,867 $14,532 $1,848,335 1%
2014 Total $26,239,555 $7,742,353 $18,497,202 30%
Attachment A
Year CSD Programs/Divisions Expense Revenue
General Fund
Subsidy/Revenue5
Cost
Recovery %
FY
2
0
1
5
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,672,498 $654,852 $1,017,646 39%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $284,814 $1,520 $283,294 1%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,476,064 $751,020 $1,725,045 30%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,757,841 $608,276 $2,149,565 22%
Aquatics $856,545 $449,826 $406,719 53%
Middle School Athletic $548,856 $314,146 $234,710 57%
Recreation $3,413,008 $2,010,039 $1,402,969 59%
Special Events $98,392 $22,037 $76,355 22%
Cubberley $2,142,635 $840,003 $1,302,632 39%
Golf $1,829,851 $1,576,872 $252,979 86%
Parks & Open Space $9,177,995 $410,959 $8,767,036 4%
Human Services $1,868,762 $9,588 $1,859,173 1%
2015 Total $27,127,262 $7,649,139 $19,478,123 28%
FY
2
0
1
6
Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) $1,813,481 $783,217 $1,030,264 43%
Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships $316,328 $3,085 $313,243 1%
Theatre, Music, & Dance $2,580,474 $769,582 $1,810,892 30%
Junior Museum and Zoo $2,944,558 $659,974 $2,284,584 22%
Aquatics $948,180 $424,848 $523,332 45%
Middle School Athletic $517,671 $317,540 $200,132 61%
Recreation $3,882,819 $2,079,900 $1,802,919 54%
Special Events $286,205 $16,704 $269,501 6%
Cubberley $2,080,703 $942,867 $1,137,836 45%
Golf $1,839,437 $1,548,993 $290,444 84%
Parks & Open Space $9,168,139 $460,215 $8,707,924 5%
Human Services $2,084,917 $11,257 $2,073,660 1%
2016 Total $28,462,913 $8,018,182 $20,444,731 28%
Attachment A
APPENDIX 4 – City Manager’s Response
Attachment A
The City Manager has agreed to take the following actions in response to the audit recommendations in this report. The City Manager will report progress on
implementation six months after the Council accepts the audit report, and every six months thereafter until all recommendations have been implemented.
Recommendation Responsible
Department(s)
Agree, Partially Agree, or Do Not Agree
and Target Date and Corrective Action
Plan
Status
Finding: Most Community Services Department (CSD) programs recover costs consistent with City policy; however, CSD does not consistently
apply its cost recovery policies and procedures
1. The City Manager’s Office should coordinate
with the City Attorney’s Office and the
Administrative Services Department to revise
the City’s cost recovery policy and Questica
budget system procedures to clarify which
fees are not subject to laws that limit fees to
cost recovery; modify the cost recovery
categories to allow for fees that recover more
than costs, based on market rates; and
configure the Questica budget system to
support setting fees to recover more than
100 percent of costs when appropriate.
ASD Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: 6/30/2017
Action Plan: ASD staff will coordinate with the
CMO, City Attorney and departments to revise
and implement the recommendations.
2. After recommendation 1 is complete, CSD
should create a procedure to implement the
City’s User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy and
incorporate relevant and useful elements
from its existing “Class Cost Recovery Policy,”
which can then be rescinded. CSD’s new
procedure should:
a. Update and finalize the draft CSD program
level cost recovery targets to be consistent
with the ranges in the City policy. The
procedure should clarify the rationale for
targets assigned to programs and
reference the City policy categories.
b. Clarify exceptions to fees that are set to
target specific cost recovery goals and that
may impact rates for other service
recipients and program cost recovery
levels, such as discounted rates for certain
CSD Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: 6/30/2017
Action Plan: Staff will develop a new CSD
procedure with the following features:
a. cost recovery targets in alignment with
the City’s three Cost Recovery Level
Groups and clarity around how the
rationale for cost recovery levels for
each major CSD activity as well as
references to City policy categories
b. a list of exceptions to fees and a
rationale for each exception
c. a clear process outlined for staff to use
with instructions on who should assess
costs, where the assessments are
maintained, how they are reviewed,
Attachment A
Recommendation Responsible
Department(s)
Agree, Partially Agree, or Do Not Agree
and Target Date and Corrective Action
Plan
Status
groups.
c. Require CSD to annually assess whether
cost recovery levels achieved targets and
address obstacles and opportunities to
meet targets.
d. Describe how to use the fee-setting form
to calculate service costs based on total
costs for the service provided, including
direct costs and an indirect cost rate
calculated by OMB, and set fees that are
consistent with the City’s cost recovery
policy. To minimize administrative efforts,
describe which classes/services may be
grouped together when calculating costs
(i.e., one form may cover more than one
class).
e. Require completion and review of the
forms to ensure that class/service costs are
known and that fees are set to recover
costs consistent with targets. Clarify who is
responsible to complete the forms, when
the forms are completed, and who reviews
and approves the forms.
f. Establish a method to estimate a
reasonably accurate minimum and
maximum class enrollment number to
enter in ACTIVE Net. The procedure should
address what enrollment levels should
prompt a review to determine whether to
cancel a class or increase offerings to
accommodate demand.
how to calculate service costs, how to
group activities, and how frequently to
do these assessments
d. a process to incorporate cost recovery
reviews into the Department’s existing
internal quarterly budget reviews
e. a process outlined for management
responsibility and oversight to ensure
that service cost calculations and fee
setting occur when expected
f. a process outlined for establishing
minimum and maximum enrollments in
Activenet and the rationale and
evaluation of whether to proceed with
classes enrolled below the minimum.
Attachment A
Recommendation Responsible
Department(s)
Agree, Partially Agree, or Do Not Agree
and Target Date and Corrective Action
Plan
Status
3.CSD should work with ASD and the
Information Technology Department to
configure SAP or include a requirement for
the proposed new enterprise resource
planning system to align cost centers with CSD
programs.
CSD Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: 7/1/2018
Action Plan: While we will begin working on this
in earnest, realistically, we anticipate that we will
not fully implement this recommendation for at
least two budget cycles. We are currently
working with ASD to better align CSD’s Cost
Centers in SAP with our individual lines of
business. We expect we will complete much of
this recommendation by 7/1/2017 but that there
will be additional clean up in the next budget
year.
Attachment A
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 19
Special Meeting Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Chairperson Wolbach called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. in the
Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
[First 34 minutes recorded on a digital device]
Chair Wolbach: Alright, let's call bring this meeting of the Policy and Services
Committee to order.
Present: DuBois, Kniss, Kou, Wolbach (Chair)
Absent:
Vice Mayor Kniss: Four present, exhausted Council Members.
Oral Communications
Chair Wolbach: Do we have any members of the public that would like to
speak? Looks like we don’t have any Oral Communications.
Agenda Items
1.Community Services Department: Fee Schedule Audit.
Chair Wolbach: Let’s move onto our first Action Item of the evening.
(Inaudible) Community Services Department Fee Schedule Audit. I’ll turn it
over to our City Auditor.
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Chair and
members of the Committee. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor. We’re here to
present the audit of fee schedules in the Community Services Department.
Houman Boussina, who’s sitting beside me was the lead auditor on that and
we also had a Stanford intern, [phonetics] [Merser Lynn] who worked on
that with us. She couldn’t attend tonight but she as a great asset to our
office this past summer. Then, we also have Community Services Center to
answer questions after. The audit objective was whether the fees –
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 2 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
community service fees for their projects cover the cost of services provided
as expected. We focused the audit on CSD primarily, because other
departments we identified that have fees for services had had some recent
fee studies and CSD had not. CSD implemented a cost recovery policy in
2007 and in May 2015, the City adopted a Citywide user fee cost recovery
level policy to set cost recovery goals for City services. We looked at the
extent which CSD’s fee setting practices might need to be updated to align
with the newer Citywide Cost Recovery Policy and because cost recovery
data was not available for individual classes, we focused our assessment on cost recovery for CSD divisions and programs overall. I am going to turn the
presentation over to Houman, who’s going to go through the audit
(inaudible) findings and recommendations.
Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor: The Audit Report has one
finding. Most CSD programs recover cost (inaudible) with City policy,
however, CSD does not consistently apply its cost recovery policies and
procedures. We found that CSD’s total cost recovery has ranged from a high
of 34 percent in Fiscal Rear ‘11 to a low of 28 percent in Fiscal Year ‘15 and
‘16. The decline is mostly due to lower golf revenues. CSD has developed
policies and tools to meet cost recovery objectives…
Vice Mayor Kniss: Can I just ask quickly? Are you on Packet Page 16? Do
you know where you are? (Crosstalk) Am I following along with the right
one?
Ms. Richardson: Did you get the handout?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes. It should be the same.
Council Member DuBois: Page 32 for the findings.
Mr. Boussina: What I’m reading is (inaudible) bullets.
Ms. Richardson: He’s using the PowerPoint notes. Yes.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Ok, good.
Mr. Boussina: Alright…
Vice Mayor Kniss: We’re still waiting (inaudible) with the bouncing ball here.
Ms. Richardson: I think you have – yeah, you have the separate hand out
there.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 3 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Mr. Boussina: CSD has policies and tools to meet cost recovery objectives
but has not updated them since 2007 or consistently applied them. CSD has
a 2007 cost recovery policy but has not yet updated that to align with the
City’s 2015 User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy which was expected to be
used starting with the Fiscal Year ‘17 budget process. The City’s 2015 User
Cost Recovery Policy limits fee the City can charge to 100percent of service
costs, however, Prop. 16 (inaudible) recreation programs such as golf and
facility rentals, from the cost recovery limits where market pricing may
provide revenues that exceed costs. Staff reports presented to Council when the City was developing its Cost Recovery Policy, misstated the requirements
of the law, which influences decisions regarding the policy. As (inaudible)
cost was another area we looked at. We found that they are not aligned with
the program revenues and expenses. Calculating cost recovery by program
area including appropriately allocating a direct cost requires a manual
process currently (inaudible) cost centers to program areas. The Audit
Report includes three recommendations. These include coordinating with the
City’s Attorney’s office and ASD who provides the City’s Cost Recovery Policy
and Questica procedures by which fees are not subject to laws limiting fees
to cost recovery. Creating a procedure to implement the City’s User Fee Cost
Recovery Policy and incorporating (inaudible) in useful elements from CSD’s
existing Class Cost Recovery Policy which then can be rescinded and working
with ASD and the IT Department to configure SAP to include a requirement
for the proposed new ERP system to align cost centers with CSD programs.
Just the correction, I may have said Prop. 16 instead of Prop. 26 as what
exempts recreational grounds from the cost recovery limits. Alright…
Ms. Richardson: That concludes our presentation and we’ll answer your
questions and the departments here to answer your questions.
Chair Wolbach: Ok, we’ll turn to Committee Members for questions or
comments. Liz, (inaudible) you have some questions?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Under – on Packet Page 16, you indicate that cost
recovery rates for the Junior Museum and Zoo is less than the policy
(inaudible) which the City doesn’t currently charge an admission fee for that
facility which is great. (Inaudible) remember that. Just for the mic, I’m on
Page 16 and close to the bottom of the Page. How do we go about making
that kind of, somewhat subjective decision? This is a community benefit and
therefore, I’m guessing that golf is not a community benefit because we
recover far more of the cost there. My question is, how do we make that
subjective decision…
Ms. Richardson: I think…
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 4 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: …of does somebody else make it for us?
Ms. Richardson: I think it is somewhat subjective. If you look at Packet Page
22, the City policy is there and (inaudible) cost recovery percentages in
ranges which allow for some room within those ranges for the cost recovery
should be. It can… as a community benefit – primarily a community benefit,
the expectations at that – it might not recover anything or it might recovery
up to 30 percent of the cost. When it’s an individual personal benefit, the
expectations that it would likely cover 70 to 100 percent of the cost. There’s room within each of those ranges for some decision making and they aren’t
hard set ranges.
Vice Mayor Kniss: You fit them into these and make the best decision you
can, right?
Ms. Richardson: Correct.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Golf is probably pretty easy. Maybe the Zoo is pretty easy.
Which ones are hard to decide whether or not they’re being a good benefit?
Is that your decision Rob?
Rob de Geus, Community Services Director: Yeah, we look at the policy to
give us guidance. Rob de Geus, Director of Community Service (inaudible)
she’s the senior analyst for the department. The Junior Museum – this is a
little tricky one. When we looked at that – (inaudible) we looked at the
whole of the Junior Museum and Zoo and some of the programs within the
Junior Museum (inaudible) may fit into different categories within the
(inaudible). For instance, the exhibit in the Zoo is free and I think that’s
going (inaudible) for the City, right? It’s not in that range of 30 percent-70
percent at least it hasn’t been the policy until now. While the summer camps
and the classes and the fee-based programs in the schools – are fee-based
and they fall within the range of the 30 percent-70 percent but the way the
audit was done, they looked at the whole of the Junior Museum (inaudible)
one program.
Vice Mayor Kniss: One of the things that we’re always discussing is cost
recovery. That’s one of our (inaudible). It just seems that there must be
times when it’s somewhat difficult. I remember this decision a long time ago
at the Children’s Theater and whether that was community or whether that
was individual. I’m not making any new decisions or asking you to. I’m just
curious as to how you made those and where the cost recovery does fit in.
Glad (inaudible) – I don’t play golf so it’s good to see (inaudible), pretty well
on the golf.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 5 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Ms. Richardson: We had – but golf is an example of where you can actually
collect market rate and policy – the City policy right now, goes only up to
100 percent so one of our recommendations does focus on the recognition
that you can go above that. This policy should be revisited to allow for
opportunities where revenue can be generated for the City based on what
the market will allow.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Good thanks.
Chair Wolbach: Lydia.
Council Member Kou: I’m just trying to understand, being new to all of this.
Which of the CSD programs – can your kind of elaborate a little bit more
about how these programs fall into the recovery fee level policy – I mean
the community wide – first there’s private benefit and then they’re 1, 2, 3, 4
over there on Page – Packet Page 21.
Ms. Richardson: As far as – our office would not make that decision. Rob –
someone answered already. It really depends on a bit on who – a lot on
who's benefitting for it. Is it really a community-wide benefit? Is there some
community benefit mixed with some individual benefit? Is it all individual
benefit? Those are the types of things they would look at as they decide
which one of these categories to fit it into. That’s where – when the CSD
policy was established back in 2007, the City policy didn’t exist. The audit is
really focusing on recommending that CSD, now that there’s a City policy.
Look at the City policy and realign their programs to match.
Council Member Kou: What is the percentage between resident and non-
resident that uses all of these services?
Mr. de Geus: It varies from program to program. It’s on average, I think,
70/30, 70 percent residents. With our summer camp program and swim
lessons, it’s very high residents, 90 percent-95 percent. Some of our art
programs for instance – studio – adult art program is really a regional
(inaudible). We have almost 50 percent non-residents, 50/50. The Junior
Museum and Zoo also sees a lot of non-residents because there’s not
something like it nearby so we get people coming from a long way away.
The golf course is the other example. We get a lot of non-residents which is
not – which is typical for a golf course to see. (Inaudible)
Vice Mayor Kniss: Could I piggyback on that because that’s really
interesting?
Chair Wolbach: Tom, do you mind if Liz just ends (inaudible) (crosstalk).
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 6 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: I promise – just a follow up (inaudible) because I think
that’s just a good question, the resident versus not. In return, do many of
our residents go to Mountain View or Melow Park (inaudible) could swim
program and so forth? Is there any exchange there like we belong to the
same club and therefore, we go back and forth because residency is so
interesting? Are we – the real question I think would eventually be, are we
subsidizing other communities to our own – for our own cost? I didn’t want
to say the word.
Mr. de Geus: There aren’t too many programs or any that I can think that is
predominately non-resident. Actually, they’re majority resident and when we
get non-residents they pay a little more. They don’t get the first…
Vice Mayor Kniss: They do pay a little more.
Mr. de Geus: …opportunity to register. Yeah, so residents get the first
chance. Usually, it helps the bottom line to have -- to fill the class, fill the
program.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I didn’t realize they paid a little more. That’s good. We’re
cost recovering. Thanks, Tom.
Chair Wolbach: Tom.
Council Member DuBois: First of all, Houman, thank you for the audit. It
looks like it was a good audit. There was the finding about the SAP System I
guess. I don’t know how quickly we’re going to get our new system but do
we have a way to track requirements that we want to put into the new
system?
Ms. Richardson: One of the things that happing right now is that the new
(inaudible) system is in the requirement development phase and the
Department of Information and Technology has hired a consultant,
[phonetics] [Plant Meran], who has met with all the departments and
collected information about requirements. Now they’re re-meeting with
departments and reviewing those requirements. We have been doing this,
trying to identify in our audits some things that we know. I had requested a
specific meeting with Plant Moran and IT – on what was that, about 5 or 6
months ago? Where we actually sat down with them and just talked about
issues we identified in audits so that they would pick up on those things in
case…
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 7 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Council Member DuBois: Is there an ongoing way? Does Rob have to add it
to the list for CSD or when you find something new that you want in the
(inaudible) system? How do we make sure it doesn’t get lost?
Ms. Richardson: I think the primary way is when the – we’re hoping
departments can keep track but I think the primary way is when the RFP is
ready to be issued, we are going to be looking at that and when we see that,
we’ll do a cross check with some of our – with all of our outstanding
recommendations and say, is there something we identified that we’re still missing? In some ways, the RFP will identify things in a very broad way and
we might not be able to exactly say that’s a direct match but as they
implement, there’ll be more discussion to make sure that that happens.
Council Member DuBois: Ok. That would be great if the departments owned
it in some way and just added it to their requirements.
Mr. de Geus: I was just going to say, we expressed that same thing. We
looked at the new system, what we would like to see and we would like to
see a robust system that allows us to tie direct cost to programs so when we
get questions about how much does it cost to run the pool? We can easily
and quickly report.
Council Member DuBois: This could be really helpful for you. What kinds of
programs can go over 100 percent legally?
Terence Howzell, Principal Attorney: Terence Howzell, City’s Attorney’s
Office. Just direct your attention to Packet Page 11 which kind of lays out
the legal framework and I think that accurately sets forth what the law is.
Responding directly to your question, we can go – given that this is the
services that are the subject of this audit, are excepted from the Prop. 26
requirements that we’ve all discussed at other context. Given these are
(inaudible) recreation programs, we can exceed those…
Council Member DuBois: So, all of these?
Mr. Howzell: All of these that are subject to – of the audit.
Council Member DuBois: Then can you include overhead and Capital
Replacement Fund as part of the cost recovery?
Mr. Howzell: You can as long – I think the only real challenge is making sure
that you are just competitive in whatever market you're in but that – those
are really the limits.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 8 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Council Member DuBois: Ok. It doesn’t even really apply to this?
Mr. Howzell: No.
Council Member DuBois: I did see one place where we offer classes when we
have more than or less than the minimum amount. How did we decide to do
that?
Mr. de Geus: We did look at that. That was one of the findings that surprised us in the department to and we took a closer look and said, why is that
happening? So many that seem to go forward with less than the minimum
and so we looked into that further and we found a couple things. One, when
classes were canceled – effectively canceled, they didn’t have any
enrollment. They were not being subsequently canceled in the system. You
actually have to go into the system and official cancel the class and so when
we ran the numbers or the auditor ran the numbers, those classes came up
as still active, even though they were effectively canceled. That was a big
portion of why that number was there. In addition to that, what we found
was several program areas had minimums that were really just too high. We
have group lesson for products as an example, where if we get two out of
four, we will go ahead with the class but we had set the minimums at three.
I’m not sure why we did that because we would always go forward if there
are two kids in that class. I think we need to relook at (inaudible) and make
sure that they’re accurate.
Council Member DuBois: Cool, thanks. I guess with the new Junior Museum,
I think the plan is they are going to charge – start charging fees, right?
Mr. de Geus: That’s correct.
Council Member DuBois: That will… I mean overall, I think we make the right
choices. I’m pretty comfortable with the levels of recovery and what we offer
for free. I do think – do we have a golf course management company when
the fold course opens?
Mr. de Geus: We – (inaudible) to ask because we currently have three firms
that we work with. We have Brightview Maintenance that does the
maintenance at the golf course. Brad Lozares does the golf professional
services and (inaudible) that own the restaurant. The (inaudible) makes sure
everybody is working together. All of those contracts expire in April of 2018.
We are currently thinking about how we might proceed with a new operator.
Do we extend the contracts of the existing 3 or do we put out an RFP and
bring in a new operator? One operator which we think is more effective
ultimately. Have them come in before we re-open in November and
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 9 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
(inaudible) Council or something on that soon because that’s the direction
(inaudible) now or the next couple months so we can have someone on
board.
Council Member DuBois: Yeah, this seems like a really interesting pricing
question. It’s going to be (inaudible) of a golf course. Probably want to be
the high end of the market rate I would think but you want it to be used,
right? Some kind of expert like a golf course management company; seem
like they could figure that out.
Mr. de Geus: That’s the balance – we’ve been working closely with National
Golf Course Foundation which is an organization that helps with price setting
and finding a good operator. We will be working with them again as we put
out this RFP if that’s the direction we go. We will have a discount for
residents, certainly. To make sure that that’s (inaudible).
Council Member DuBois: It will probably be – once brand new, it will
probably be the highest and with that over time its (inaudible). I know it’s
not in here, I’m just curious, the airport is not considered community service
at all, right? Those fees?
Mr. de Geus: Not yet.
Council Member DuBois: Ok. I mean, wow. Is it just (inaudible) something at
this point?
Mr. de Geus: It’s kind of Public Works I think. We have an airport manager
that’s managing it, Andy – I forget his last name…
Mr. de Geus: …Swanson. (Inaudible)
Council Member DuBois: I mean it’s off topic, do you guys know if we
manage that as market rate for fees and things?
Khashayar Alaee, Management Analyst: There’s a study underway to look at
all the fees of the airport as well. I don’t know the specifics about it. From
what I understand that those are being looked at too. In addition to the
leases at the site.
Council Member DuBois: Thanks.
Chair Wolbach: Any other questions or comments? Let’s go back to – do the
second round. Would either you want to go ahead then…
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 10 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Council Member Kou: Chair, I still have questions is that ok?
Chair Wolbach: Sure.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Only one per night.
Council Member Kou: I was just wondering what programs are here that are
unique to Palo Alto within – different from say, Mountain View or Los Altos, that would draw in more out of towners and non-residents so we have that
cost recoverage?
Mr. de Geus: We have a number of unique programs and assets in Palo Alto
because the Council and Communities invested in for many decades in parks
and recreation services. I think the Children’s Theater – dedicated Children’s
Theater are very, very unique. You don’t see that in other Cities. Even a
municipally run Art Center in Palo Alto is also quite unique. Junior Museum
and Zoo is another example of something that you don’t see in neighboring
Cities and so it draws people from the region. Palo Alto is definitely an
attraction. People come here to use our facilities, to come to our theaters.
We have three theaters which is unusual for a town of our size.
Council Member Kou: Three?
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, the Community Theater, the Children’s Theater and the
Cubberley Theater. They all have different – they operate differently from
one another. Then we have playgrounds like the Magical Bridge Playground
that gets people coming from Santa Cruz to the north end to participate in
that universally accessible playground that has hundreds of people every
day. (Inaudible) gets at your question but Palo Alto is a draw or a lot of the
different activities and programs that we have; which has an impact on wear
and tear and other thing but most of the fee-based programs across the
realm non-residents pay and they pay more than Palo Alto residents. They
stay in Palo Alto and hopefully spend a little money in Palo Alto. They get
lunch or dinner or spend some money (inaudible).
Council Member Kou: I guess what I’m trying to figure out is are we taking
full advantage of the cost recovery for those that we can charge for? I know
Magical Bridge is not – there’s not cost there.
Mr. de Geus: There’s no cost. The City covers the full cost of the Magical
Bridge Playground and it’s not inconsiderable because it wears down
because of the amount of use it gets there.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 11 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Council Member Kou: I met with Magical Bridge people and they said that
they like the show. Every other City who wants to have one, they come here
to look at it and then there is definitely that wear and tear. When the…
Vice Mayor Kniss: We should charge those other Cities.
Council Member Kou: …the Junior Museum, when it comes back is there the
cost – there’s a fee charge. Is it going to be the same where non-residents
are going to have a high fee?
Mr. de Geus: Yes.
Council Member Kou: Ok. Very good. Thank you.
Chair Wolbach: Liz, you had another question to?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yeah. (Inaudible) because we went late last night and I’m
not totally absorbing some of it. The theater, music and dance; we’ve got
three theater groups. We’ve got Theater Works. We’ve got Palo Alto Players?
Mr. de Geus: Yep.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Ok, Theater Works, Palo Alto Players and
Vice Mayor Kniss: (Inaudible) that’s the one I hadn’t thought about. Those
are – when you say they don’t meet the City’s $90,000 revenue target or in
those (inaudible) provides to the City so on and so forth. Then you talk
about the value annually. Why am I having some trouble with my math
here? The theater group has to meet the $90,000 revenue target for annual
sales and if they did meet it – even though it’s the $500 on the next that’s
kind of (inaudible) me a little.
Ms. Richardson: I can tell you what was explained to us during the audit.
They have a target to generate a certain amount of revenue from each ticket
that gets contributed to the City; that’s the $90,000. We’re at the bottom of
Packet Page 16, top of Page 17. At $500,000 is the value of the City’s
subsidies and that takes into consideration the cost of maintenance of the
facility; utilities that are provided and that sort of thing. There isn’t right
now an expectation where the portion of the ticket sales that the City gets to
offset – to fully offset that – those cost so that’s where your $90,000,
$500,000 are.
Council Member DuBois: Does that include theater Staff as well? Yep. That’s
probably the biggest part of it.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 12 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Vice Mayor Kniss: Does that also include – Theater Works is kind of
interesting because they go back and forth between two theaters. Does that
alter anything or not?
Mr. de Geus: When we – the theaters come in and it’s pre-scheduled
throughout the year and they each have approximately (inaudible)
(crosstalk).
Vice Mayor Kniss: You figure it out…
Mr. de Geus: Yeah.
Vice Mayor Kniss: … is what you’re saying.
Mr. de Geus: Their participation and attendance have not been growing.
That’s been a challenge for the theater groups that they have shared with
us. Theater Works does pretty well but the other two…
Vice Mayor Kniss: I know.
Mr. de Geus: …they struggle a little bit.
Vice Mayor Kniss: How about the Children’s Theater? Have you listed that
separately somewhere? I just remember one awful year we tried to raise the
ticket prices a dollar and needless to say, we never did.
Mr. de Geus: I think that’s here, right?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes.
Mr. de Geus: The Children’s Theater…
Vice Mayor Kniss: Pardon?
Mr. de Geus: There’s a policy or a philosophy – I’m not sure what you call it
but the Children’s Theater does not have a pay to play program. Kids sign up
to be in a play, they don’t need to pay for that. The parents do pay for
costumes, they pay for tickets to go see the play but we do not (inaudible)
charge the kids to participate in the Children’s Theater and that’s been a
long stand tradition…
Vice Mayor Kniss: It has been, right.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 13 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Mr. de Geus: … at the theater.
Vice Mayor Kniss: I think it’s worth reiterating because there’s really no cost
recovery there and – but there is a cost to maintaining the theater. Just
what Tom has talked about the Staff and the backstage crew.
Mr. de Geus: The Children’s Theater has some cost recovery. Those kids also
take acting lessons and singing lessons and all of those are fee-based
programs. We have the friends of the Children’s Theater. By the way, we have five friend’s groups in community service that support – they are
tremendous in what they do for the department but the friends of the
Children’s Theater -- is that when that topic came up, should we charge pay
to play? The friend's group stepped up and said, we will pay. We will raise
money and pay. They pay, I want to say $50,000 or something annually to
support the theater.
Vice Mayor Kniss: There’s no appetite for charging Children’s Theater
anymore that we do, I know there isn’t.
Ms. Richardson: I just want to add something. When Rob mentioned the
friend's group, that reminded me of another thing where with – during the
audit, there’s not a clear way to identify where those subsidies from the
friend's groups are coming into offset program cost. The new ERP system
could potentially help with that so you could really get a full sense, not just
of what the cost of a program is? What’s revenue are being generated
through fees? What costs the City is paying because you really have three
revenue sources; fees, General Fund and those friend’s groups and being
able to link those altogether would give a much better picture of what’s
going on.
Council Member DuBois: Are those friends amount showing up in here? Not
at all?
Ms. Richardson: No, we couldn’t identify how they (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Council Member DuBois: The theaters at 30 percent but the friend's money
is on top of that?
Mr. de Geus: Yes.
Council Member DuBois: Great. Yeah, it would be good to see that.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 14 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Mr. de Geus: Some of it is really considerable. It’s remarkable what the
friends of the Junior Museum have been able to do. They just now hit their
25-million-dollar goal rebuilding…
Vice Mayor Kniss: Astonishing.
Mr. de Geus: Yeah. Amazing residents and non-residents that just love the
program and are willing to put that much into it and spend money and ask
for money to support a City program like that. The Palo Alto Art Center Foundation is the same way. I mean, they raised over 4 million dollars to
renovate -- as you know, is the Palo Alto Art Center. They raised $100,000
or more a year to support programs which are also not represented here.
Council Member DuBois: Well, that’s pretty big.
Vice Mayor Kniss: They – at least the Art Center has a paid developer. I
don’t know about Theater Works whether they do or not.
Mr. de Geus: Each of the friend – every friend's group or most have some
type of Staff to help the development … (Crosstalk).
Vice Mayor Kniss: Somebody who attracts that development work.
Mr. de Geus: Particularly ones that have a membership program like the
Junior Museum and Zoo. They have a robust membership program. The Art
Center does as well. The Recreation Foundation not so much in the friends of
Palo Alto parks. They are really project based. They raise money for a
specific park or playground.
Vice Mayor Kniss: You know that would be fun to know Tom, is how many
friend’s groups there are because I have a feeling there are 20 or 25.
Mr. de Geus: We have many partners that support us like Save the Bay and
Acterra, the two (inaudible) but there’s 5 foundations that exist, non-profits,
just to raise money for the City of Palo Alto in a specific program area.
Council Member Kou: Can you name them?
Mr. de Geus: Yeah, there’s the Friends of the Children's Theater, Friends of
the Junior Museum and Zoo, Friends of Palo Alto parks, the Palo Alto Art
Foundation, and the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation. They’re the…
Council Member DuBois: That’s a lot of (inaudible).
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 15 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Mr. de Geus: They’re a different department -- there is a Friend’s of the
Library, also raise a lot of money and sell used books and other things in
generating a couple $100,000 for the libraries.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Theater Works has something called Their Inner Circle,
where they raise money as well.
Council Member DuBois: Those are expenses we don’t see (inaudible).
Chair Wolbach: Alright. Any other questions for now?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Not at the moment.
Chair Wolbach: Tom, do you have a couple more?
Council Member DuBois: I would just make us move that we accept the
audit for (crosstalk).
Chair Wolbach: Mind if I ask a couple questions first?
Council Member DuBois: Oh, certainly. Sorry. (Crosstalk).
Chair Wolbach: I’ll try to be quick because I know we all want to get out of
here. It’s Valentine’s Day and we did have quite a meeting last night. Just a
few questions. First, the goals on – just stepping back a little bit, right, to
think about the goals for a second on Packet Page 6. Ensuring financial
stability – I mean, obviously, that’s something I think we want to be in favor
of. Customers paying appropriate shares of the costs and (inaudible)
programs are subsidized in accordance with the City’s Cost Recovery Policy.
I think these are generally pretty good goals but I just want to make sure
we are all thinking about that in the context of this. I don’t really have a
question there but in that context, looking at a couple of other things here.
On Packet Page 10 at the top listing the objectives of the audit. In kind of
getting towards what the impact of the audit will be. Does this audit obligate
CSD to seek more cost recovery or does it just offer a recommendation?
Then it’s totally up to the director or the City Manager to make that
determination.
Ms. Richardson: It doesn’t direct them to seek new cost recovery. What it
does is it makes a recommendation to ensure that they’re – now that the
City has a City-wide policy, that their cost recovery practices align with the
City policy and that they look at the cost – the actual cost which was hard
for us to really identify on a class by class basis. I don’t think it’s necessary
that they identify it to class by class but they do need to know on a program
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 16 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
level basis at least, what it’s costing them so that they can set their fees
appropriately. The goal is really and the recommendation is to really make
sure that what they charge aligns with the City policy but before they can
necessarily do that, that City policy needs to be revisited to allow for market
level recovery when that’s appropriate.
Chair Wolbach: Ok. Going – actually looking at Packet Page 20, Item C,
where it talks about – it says, requires CSD to annually assess whether cost
recovery levels achieved targets and addressed obstacles and opportunities to meet targets. I actually wonder if there are times where Council will
actually want to be one of those obstacles, right? Really my question here is
knowing that there may be times where – I really – let me step back a
second and say, I think this audit is really useful because I think it does help
get us towards a better understanding and help the department have a
better understanding in coordination and alignment with the City policies.
Then when it comes time to make a determination or make a decision about
how much to charge for a program? Obviously, Council may have a sense
about a particular program where we want to charge more or maybe even
more likely, where we want to charge less than the director or the City
Manager may recommend because we see an equity issue or we see some
need in the community – a benefit to the community of having a lower fee
for – especially for residents. I just wanted to check – as a reminder for all
of us, what the process is for when Council wants to say, we actually want to
see a lower fee? That would come to us as a separate – that would be a
separate agenda item, right? Whether it’s at Policy and Services or at full
Council, talking about the Fee Schedule itself separately from the audit of
the Fee Schedule.
Ms. Richardson: I would agree. Let Rob speak for a second but I also want to
say, we didn’t (inaudible) wrote that. We didn’t envision Council as being the
type of obstacle (crosstalk) (inaudible). We were thinking that more once
there was some sort of agreement and there was something that was
unexpected that caused them not to be able to meet – that they would look
at that and say, why can’t we meet this target. Kind of like a performance
measure. What causes you not to meet that measure?
Chair Wolbach: Right. I was taking it a bit poetically, you say. Taking
liberties but again, when Council wants to weigh in on the fees themselves.
That will come back to us. Will that come to P&S or will that come to – does
that come to full Council or does that come to finance.
Mr. de Geus: It goes to Finance…
Chair Wolbach: That’s right.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 17 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Mr. de Geus: …Committee. I think to you question Chair Wolbach, we – and
we currently are preparing the ’18 Budget – and I see Kiely over there and
we talk at length about fees and revenues and what is reasonable. What
does the policy say? We know that costs are going up and so to keep up with
even today’s cost recovery level means fees need to go up to maintain that.
What does that mean? Does that create a barrier for participation or not so
there are some real trade-offs that we have to consider? You’re right, it
comes to the Finance Committee and the full Council as part of the budget process and the (inaudible) Fee Schedule.
Chair Wolbach: Right and I think that that’s important for us to just
remember that Staff, you guys will do your best to implement the policy but
then, ultimately – I know you guys know that this Council is never afraid to
weigh in if we wanted to tweak something in the details. My last question is,
just as far as implementing the recommendations. I actually wanted to think
about a few different departments here; CDS, ASD – I see a representative
here (inaudible) and the City’s Attorney’s Office and IT, are all named in the
recommendations. I was just wondering if we had a sense of what the
administrative burden of implementing this audit might be in – even in a
qualified rather than or qualitative rather than quantitative sense. I don’t
know if any of those departments want to weigh in or if there’s any thinking
on the administrative burden that Staff would like to share with us? Just so
that we have a sense of what the implementation would look like.
Mr. de Geus: I can begin – that’s a good question. I don’t think it’s a huge
administrative (inaudible). I think most of it falls to CSD to manage. The
cost recovery policy that was drafted and approved in 2007 is not very
different than the one that the Council approved as the City-wide policy so
there are some tweaks we need to make. The template tools and
consistency, we’ve already begun working on that. We’re going to be
working closely with Office of Management Budget and ASD to make sure
that that’s going to work. I don’t think – first of all, we agree with all the
recommendations and I don’t think it’s a big burden. I would add and I was
going to say this at the beginning but I’ll just say it now. Thanks to the
auditor for the work that they did. I mean, we – as you know, the
department does a lot. Community Services does a great deal – all across
the community and is very diverse and you don’t always get the time to do
deep dives into fee settings and other things. It’s actually very helpful to
have a report like this and we this will help us do our homework better.
Chair Wolbach: Great. Well, that’s it for my questions.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Just one last thing. What are you most popular…?
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 18 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Chair Wolbach: Don’t forget your mic.
Vice Mayor Kniss: What are the most popular programs? I frequently hear
parents say, I just never can get my kids into those summer programs or I
can’t get into the afterschool whatever it is or we waited in line – use to be
for preschool family and things like that. So, that’s school, not you but what
do you – if you were going to expand what you’re doing. Where would you
do it?
Mr. de Geus: The two that come to mind that we see waitlist consistently is
the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Palo Alto Art Center. I think largely a
testament to the Staff that runs those programs, phonetics Karen Kienzel
and John Aikin are the two managers. The unique facilities and they’re
constantly reinventing the program and it’s a combination of fun but also
science and education which just people love. They just do a really nice job
with it and it’s a unique facility. People want to be in Zoo Camp and there’s
only one Zoo and so there’s only so much – that gets filled up immediately.
Those are the two that come to mind that is really, really popular. Within the
recreate division we have more opportunity to add kids and participants
because a lot of the programs are in community centers and on athletic
fields so we can have 30 or 40 or even more – Foothills Park we had 55 kids
at every camp and we have several camps. We have over 150 children and
they do fill up but there’s just a lot of space whereas Zoo Camp, it’s 12-15
kids and that’s all we can really accommodate to make sure the experience
is a quality one.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yeah, no it’s an enormous and varied department and
very visible in the community.
Chair Wolbach: Thank you. (Crosstalk) I think somebody was making a
Motion? Who wanted to go ahead and make it?
Vice Mayor Kniss: Tom did and I seconded it.
Chair Wolbach: Tom, let's just make it official.
MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor to
recommend the City Council accept the Community Services Department Fee
Schedule Audit.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Amen.
Attachment B
TRANSCRIPT
Page 19 of 19
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Transcript 02/14/17
Chair Wolbach: Seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Yes.
Chair Wolbach: Any discussion? Alright.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Thanks, guys.
Chair Wolbach: All in favor of the Motion? Alright.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Good job.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Wolbach: Looks like it passes unanimously. Thank you all.
Vice Mayor Kniss: Go forth and raise the fees.
Attachment B
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Public Works Department
DATE: 10/24/17
SUBJECT: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend that Council:
1. Adopt the Final Rinconada Park Long Range Plan; and
2. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) Project is an evaluation of the park and
it’s amenities to guide future improvements and renovations, analyzing current site
conditions as well as community input and needs. The long range plan provides insight
into how the park is currently being utilized and identifies areas in which the park can be
improved. The LRP will be used to guide the future development and maintenance of
the park over the next 25 years.
The LRP started its development in March of 2012. Over the next two years a full park
analysis was performed to identify the existing conditions. A community design process
was conducted at the same time over a series of three meetings to capture input and
review design options for enhancements to the park. Community outreach also included a stakeholder group composed of representatives from the surrounding facilities and main
park user groups that provided input and participated in the planning process. The
proposed LRP recommendations were reviewed by the City’s Boards and Commissions,
including the Parks and Recreation Commission (three meetings), Architectural Review
Board and Planning and Transportation Commission as well as by city staff. Other feedback was provided by Walter Hays School, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Commission
and the Palo Alto Arts Commission. A LRP was presented at a community meeting in
September of 2013 and subsequently reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC) in November of 2013. The proposed plan was supported by both the community
and the PRC at the time of those reviews. All project information and presentations can be found at the projects web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/rinconadaplan.
As an aspect to finalize the LRP is the completion of an environmental study of the
enhancement proposed to the park per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
As part of the LRP, the expansion of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) was included in this study as a portion of the Zoo extends into the boundaries of the park. To finalize the
environmental study a completed design of the JMZ was necessary. Over a two year period from 2014 - 2016 the design process of the new JMZ facility was conducted with
input from the community and the City’s Boards and Commissions. A full developed
design of the JMZ that provided the necessary detail to conduct the environmental study
was prepared in 2016, which began the start of the environmental study work for both
projects. A schematic of the Rinconada LRP (Attachment ‘A’), the Rinconada LRP Report
(Attachment ‘B’), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment ‘C’), and
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or IS/MND (Attachment ‘D’ - link) have
been provided for the PRC’s review.
Further information concerning the Junior Museum and Zoo Project can be found at the projects web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/jmzproject.
Long Range Plan Review
In the August 22nd PRC meeting a presentation of the LRP to the PRC provided an update
on the plan’s development, recommendations and implementation. The LRP divides the
park into 12 main elements and discusses the recommendations to each. These elements
include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
The recommendation for each of these elements is discussed in further detail in the LRP
Report (Attachment ‘B’).
CEQA Review The findings of the initial study, for both the LRP and JMZ projects, determined that no
significant environmental impacts would result from their implementation. As a result each
project was determined to move forward with the preparation of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). A Mitigated Negative Declaration provides guidance of how and what type of mitigation measures would be required to address areas in which a minor environmental impact would occur. A link to the IS/MND has been provided for the PRC’s
review (Attachment ‘D’). The studies associated with the project’s environmental review
can be found on the projects web page. A community meeting and public hearing was
conducted on August 10, 2017 to obtain comments from the public and to comply with CEQA requirements. The August 22, 2017 PRC meeting marks the second community
meeting and provided another opportunity for the public to respond to the findings of the IS/MND. The 30 day comment period ended on September 5th.
Mitigation measures will be implemented for both the LRP and JMZ projects and focus on
the following aspects:
• Biological Resources
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Tree Preservation and Replacement
• Cultural Resources
• Unrecorded cultural or archaeological resources
• Unrecorded human remains
• Paleontological resources
• Noise
• Construction Activity Noise Mitigation
DISCUSSION
Long Range Plan Review:
Per the August 22nd Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and discussion of the
Long Range Plan Report and CEQA Review the commission had several comments regarding the plan. Below are the responses to those comments and how they were
addressed by the plan.
Commission Comment Response
McDougall Look at the park overall
in terms of access to nature as a design
component.
Outreach for the Long Range Plan included a
stakeholder group composed of the main users of Rinconada Park including: tennis, swimming, Girl & Boy
Scouts, recreation programming, Walter Hayes School and others that were involved in the process along with
(3) well attended community meeting of the surrounding neighborhoods. This outreach process provided a
balance insight between main park user groups and the general use by the community. The Long Range Plan
report divided into areas of the park in which recommendations are discussed. Maintaining the
arboretum and the Magical Forest as a means of preserving natural areas was a main community need
and shaped the recommendation for these spaces, which includes recommendations to support the existing
natural environments that are there now. The recently approved Parks Master Plan which delves more into the
overarching idea of expanding nature will also be a major guide in future development of the park. When it
comes time to do renovations in these areas the PRC will have many opportunities to ensure protection and
expansion of nature. Other elements like removing the
tot lot from under the heritage oak tree to preserve it,
replacing unused turf and ivy with native plants, and recommended upgrades to the parks drainage to hold
run-off on site are all aspects promoting nature in the Long Range Plan.
McDougall Provide separate pedestrian and bike
circulation plans
Circulation plans were developed at the beginning of the project and shown during community, stakeholder,
Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and PRC meetings. These exhibits are not included in
the final report, but have been added to the appendix and are included with this staff report. Further review
of the pathway types and layout will be done at the time of pathway renovation. These plans also call out
all surrounding city facilities
McDougall Provide walking path around the full park for
adult exercise.
The Long Range plan recommends upgrades to the perimeter walkways to make one continuous and
traversable path around and between the many city facilities. Improvements include:
Embarcadero: Expand the width of the path from 5’ to
8’ and pull it off the back of the curb so it’s not right
along the main arterial road. Middlefield: As part of the design process for the
renovated JMZ a new connection point from the Park to Middlefield has been created that aligns with
Kellogg Rd. that allows a direct and safe path of travel into the park through the parking lot that doesn’t exist
now, and is a new element not shown on the current Long Range Plan.
Hopkins: A new segment of sidewalk is proposed along the tennis courts that does not exist now,
completing the loop around the park. The new
sidewalk with start on the West end of the tennis courts and past the Magical Forest toward the
Rinconada Library. Currently no walkway exists in the section now. Park curb cuts will also be installed and
aligned to curb cuts on the other side of the street for direct neighborhood access into the park.
Newell: A flashing cross walk sign recommended by the Long Range Plan has already been installed at the
Newell crossing over to the library and art center. The Path along the power substation is recommended to
be widened to 8’ and be pulled off the back of curb away from the street for a better and safer walking
experience. This new widen path will connect directly to the new widen main walkway through the park that
will link the Library to the Lucie Stern Center.
These perimeter walkway improvements will complete the loop walk around the park.
McDougall Picnic table in the magic
forest seem counter to
The picnic tables proposed for the magic forest would
be loose in the area not set or anchored to concrete
the idea of reduced
maintenance and if have concrete pad impact the
redwood trees.
pads or footings. Due to the nature of the extensive
root system of the redwood trees no permanent structures are proposed for the space for the benefits
of the redwood grove. McDougall Will new restroom at
pool be open to the public?
The proposed new restroom building aligned to the
existing pool structure will have door that are only accessible to the park side. The restroom is not
meant for pool area users which will have access to the locker room facilities as they do now. A more
detailed design of this restroom structure will be conducted at the time of it is renovation which could
include an activity room for day classes like yoga and a snack shop.
McDougall Enhanced Shuttle stop
on Newell if it can have a pull out.
A shuttle stop currently exists on Newell the
enhancement to the stop would be providing a defined
space for the shuttle stop so it’s visible clear and to
enhance and cover the seating provided at the shuttle stop to encourage its use. A drop off pull out is
proposed along Newell where dropping off and picking up at the park can be made easier that will also be
accessed by the shuttle. Further discussion concerning the exact location of the shuttle stop can
be reviewed and the time of its renovation. Existing shuttle stops also exist currently on Embarcadero
adjacent to the Fire station and on Middlefield adjacent to the school. These shuttle stops are also
recommended to be enhanced as well.
McDougall Park Main entrance along Hopkins? All park entries off surrounding perimeter streets are proposed to be enhanced with signage or architectural
elements to create clear entry points into the park at
Newell, Embarcadero and Hopkins. The Newell Entry
and the Entry at the parking lot aren’t seen as main
entries into the park but have recommendations for greater enhancements as a means of demarcating the
main pathway that links the Library to the Lucie Stern center, and establishes a clear connection between
facilities.
McDougall Can add more parking along Newell? The Long Range Plan studied parking around the park. Current parking provided which includes the
parking lot at the Lucie Stern Center and the Library/Art Center meet current demands. Large
structure that wasn’t favored by the community and the cost to provide parking for limited events was to
great. The seven additional spaces along Hopkins were the only opportunity to expand parking for the
park. Other enhancement to promote walking and biking to the park are made to reduce the need for
people to drive including wider pathways, bike parking, shuttle stop enhancement and better connections to
the surrounding neighborhoods.
McDougall Reduce or eliminate The Long Range Plan proposes to maintain the street
entry points form
Embarcadero and address the unsafe lane
change to accommodate parking along Embarcadero.
parking along Embarcadero and only minimal entry
enhancements for those accessing the park from Embarcadero. The Embarcadero entries are
considered secondary entries. Visibility of the Park from Embarcadero is recommended to remain as Rinconada Park is considered a regional park and
should be visible from the main arterial street. The plan also proposes providing a median between the
fire station and the first street parking stall to reduce the abrupt lane change that is occurring at that point.
Transportation is reviewing other options of pushing the Embarcadero curb back into the park a few feet to
eliminate the lane shift while still maintaining the parking. Further discussion about these street
improvements will be conducted at the time of renovations to Embarcadero.
McDougall Create Elevation
Changes in the park - really flat
Elevation changes can be explored further when
developing specific renovation plans for areas of the park in the future. Due to the many existing trees in
the park makes creating elevation changes difficult and in most cases impossible, and the main open
space that could have some elevations differences is the open turf area which should remain level. As part
of the Embarcadero improvements adding elevation can reduce traffic noise and improve views from the
park toward the street. This can be studies further at the time of the renovation project.
Greenfield Add circulation
diagrams to show connection to facilities.
Circulation Diagrams added to the reports appendix.
Greenfield Add signage to Magical Forest about Redwood
ecology and environments as a low
impact enhancement
Information signage can be considered at the time of renovation of the redwood forest. All proposed
renovations will be of minimal impact to the redwood trees.
Greenfield Add bike racks to plan Several new bike rack locations are shown on the plan. This may be hard to see on the smaller print out
and they are not specifically called out, but that is one main recommendation of the plan to add more bike
parking to encourage bike travel to the park. If you refer to the new JMZ plan you can see this
recommendation at work with the expansive bike parking at the facility. Additional bike parking will be
considered at every phase of implementation of the long range plan
Greenfield Should pickleball
additions to the park be recommended?
The addition of pickle ball in the park can be explored
further when the tennis courts and the activity area at the rear of the power substation are up for renovation.
Greenfield Can a Magical Bridge type playground be The city has currently applied for a county inclusive playground grant with hopes of expanding the size of
installed at Rinconada
Park?
the proposed playground to capture more elements of
the Magical Bridge. With or without the grant the playground will be designed in the nature of Magical
Bridge and will focus on being fully inclusive. Greenfield Edit street names in
Environmental document
Tree names will be revised to correct spelling
LaMere Have barrier separation
between tots and children playground
This will be considered in the new design of the
playground, and has used that idea in the preliminary plan submitted for the playground grant.
LaMere Middlefield impacted by
traffic and needs further review
The transportation department is aware from the traffic
study done that Middlefield has a traffic issue and are exploring ways to relieve that congestion.
Cribbs Can the plan be acted
upon sooner than the summer of 2018?
The current phase one renovations of the west end of
the park are tied to the JMZ renovation project which is scheduled to kick off construction next June.
Dependent upon the pass of construction will dictate when the first phase starts, with the idea that the JMZ
and phase one of the park renovations would be completed together in the fall of 2019.
Moss Is a restroom still part of
the JMZ design for park use?
The restroom is no longer part of the JMZ project, but
a restroom is still recommended to be added to the west end of the park as a separate structure
Moss Is an outdoor
amphitheater still planned for the rear of the JMZ in the park for
small group classes or animal showing?
This is not currently part of the JMZ plan but can be
reviewed further when developing the renovation plans for the west end of the park.
Moss Tennis court on Hopkins
part of the park
The tennis courts on Hopkins are on dedicated park
land. The courts are not shown as part of the Long Range Plan as the community wanted to maintain the
area as is for the tennis courts. No further recommendations we made for this area and will
continue to be maintained as a tennis court and associated parking lot. Native and drought tolerant
planting were added to this area in 2013 as part of a renovation project along the neighbor’s edge. The
tennis courts have a planned maintenance schedule established for them and so they were omitted from
the plan.
Reckdahl What will happen to the existing tot lot when the
new playground that includes a tot lot on the
west end is constructed?
The original tot lot would stay in its location until that area of the park comes up for renovation and then
they will be removed. Anticipated time for this is 5-10 years.
Reckdahl Will separate restroom
building take up space in the park?
The tradeoff between having a restroom as part of the
JMZ or as a separate building is not much. The floor plan of each would be of similar size taking up the same area of parkland. Further study of the sewage
connection of Hopkins dictates that a restroom would
need to be placed closer to the street along Hopkins due to the limited depth of the pipe. Further discussion
concerning the location of the restroom with be had with the commission when the proposed design of the parks west end comes to the commission for
comment.
Reckdahl Is parking under the tennis courts feasible? The cost and community push back on constructing and underground parking lot under the tennis courts
eliminated this from being recommendation found in the plan. Promoting other modes of transportation is
favored by the plan to reduce car trips to the park and reduce parking demands.
CEQA Discussion:
September 5th marked the final day of the 30 day comment period for the IS/MND. Mitigation measures recommended by the environmental study were discussed at the
August 22nd PRC meeting, with mitigations to potential impacts being minor and standard
for a project of this type.
No public comment was received regarding the Long Range Plan during the public comment period. Four comments were received that focused on the Junior Museum and
Zoo project, but did not relate to the recommended park improvements.
NEXT STEPS
The Rinconada LRP along with the IS/MND is scheduled to be adopted by Council in
November with planning of the proposed Phase One work at the west end of the park starting this year.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park
facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Schematic
Attachment B: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Report
Attachment C: Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP)
Attachment D: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PREPARED BY Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect
City of Palo Alto
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN
SCHEMATIC
ATTACHMENT A
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN
ATTACHMENT B
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT
LONG RANGE PLAN
July 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This project was a joint effort of the Community Services and Public Works Departments of the City of
Palo Alto. The core team included the following staff members:
Rob de Geus, Director of Community Services
Kristen O’Kane, Assistant Director of Community Services
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks & Golf Division Manager
Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer
The parks and Recreation Commission advised staff throughout the planning process:
Current Members:
Keith Reckdahl
Anne Warner Cribbs
Jeff Lamere
Jeff Greenfield
Ryan McCauley
Don McDougall
David Moss
Past Members:
Stacy Ashlund
Dierdre Crommie
Jennifer Hetterly
Abbie Knopper
Ed Lauing
Pat Markevitch
Jim Cowie
CONSULTANTS
Primary Consultant
Verde Landscape
2455 The Alameda # 200, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Report By
MIG, INC.
800 Hearst Ave, Berkeley, CA 94710
PALO ALTO COMMUNITY
Special thanks to the dedicated Palo Alto residents and community members who contributed their time,
energy and ideas to this effort, particularly the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
In 2012, the City of Palo Alto (the City) launched a long-range planning
process for Rinconada Park. The park is home to many of Palo Alto’s
valued recreational, cultural, and natural resources, including tennis
courts, the Junior Museum and Zoo, the City’s only public aquatic facility,
and a rich canopy of mature redwood and oak trees. The park is adjacent
to the Lucie Stern Community Center and fire and power stations.
Encompassing 11.8 acres of land, Rinconada Park is centrally located in
Palo Alto’s Community Center neighborhood and abuts Embarcadero
Road. The park is a popular destination for both Palo Alto residents and
community members from the surrounding region.
The Rinconada Park Long Range Plan will guide improvements and
renovations to Rinconada Park for the next 25 years. The development of
the Plan reflects the City’s commitment to evolving the parks system to
serve a larger and more diverse set of community needs and maintain
the high standard of living enjoyed by residents. The Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan is consistent with the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space
& Recreation Master Plan principles related to play, health, sustainability,
inclusivity, accessibility, flexibility, balance, and nature.
The planning process started in spring of 2012. The Project Team,
including the design consultant and City staff, worked closely with
community members and stakeholders to understand needs, and
establish priorities for Rinconada Park. The Project Team translated the
initial public input into three design alternatives, which were then
explored by community members and stakeholders. The preferred
design, presented in this document, represents a community supported
vision for one of Palo Alto’s most treasured parks.
RINCONADA PARK
LONG TERM PLAN
OBJECTIVES
Coordinate and update
park resources and
amenities to reflect current
and future needs of park
users.
Balance the needs of a
diversity of users.
Respond to park usage as it
relates to the surrounding
neighborhood and
community facilities.
Address safety concerns
and make building code
updates and infrastructural
improvements.
Establish priority
improvements and a
phased implementation
plan and budget.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
a
n
d
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 2
Chapter II of this Long Range Plan document includes the Rinconada Park
Long Range Plan design with descriptions of planned improvements and
a summary of the implementation approach. Chapter III describes the
process that shaped the Plan, including site analysis and community
engagement. The appendices include a complete cost analysis and
phasing.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 3
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
The technical analysis and public outreach indicated a need for improved
circulation and park gateways as well has enhanced play and social
spaces, natural areas, and recreational amenities in Rinconada Park. The
Long Range Plan includes improvements to circulation, parking, safety,
and accessibility; creating a sense of aesthetic consistency throughout
the park though clear wayfinding and program identification, site
furnishing upgrades, and pathway materials; and preservation and
integration of heritage trees and water-wise landscaping. (See Graphic
1.) The Plan divides the park into twelve elements per the overall
character or programed activity of each. These twelve park elements
include:
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
Gateways
Play Areas
Girl Scout House and Group Picnic Area
Main Lawn
Tennis Courts
Pool Area
Arboretum
Concrete Bowl
Magic Forest
Substation Perimeter
Hopkins Street Frontage
This chapter describes each element followed by a description of the
implementation phases.
PLAN ELEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Rinconada Park’s internal path system will weave together the many uses
and integrate the park into Palo Alto’s citywide multimodal
transportation network. (See Graphic 2.) Insert Circulation – Pedestrian
Graphic The main pathway through Rinconada Park will connect the park
entryways at the east and west ends of the park, providing pedestrian
and bicycle access to the many amenities in and adjacent to the park.
Bike racks located at heavily used entryways and distributed throughout
the park will allow users to secure their bicycles while making use of the
entire park.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 4
The main pathway will be 15-feet wide and constructed of concrete. It
may be textured, colored, or patterned to enhance crossings, gathering
spaces, and entryways. Smaller pathways, constructed of decomposed
granite, will connect secondary park entrances and recreation and play
areas with the main path. Pathways in proximity to existing mature
native trees will be constructed of permeable paving to allow for
stormwater absorption into the soil.
Sidewalk, crosswalk, and entryway enhancements will improve the
visibility and accessibility of the park and better connect Rinconada Park
with surrounding neighborhoods.
GATEWAYS
West Entrance (Rinconada Parking Lot)
The west entrance to Rinconada Park will feature a new plaza that
showcases the existing mature trees. Other enhancements may include
an architectural structure with a welcome sign, wayfinding signage, and
pedestrian scale art work celebrating the Palo Alto Junior Museum and
Zoo. Colorful low plantings and shade trees will welcome visitors and
allow for visibility in and out of the park.
East Entrance (Newell)
The main east entrance is an important point of access to the park,
linking the Rinconada Library and Art Center. An improved crosswalk at
the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road, a drop-off zone, and a
meandering pathway set back from Newell Road will create an inviting
gateway that connects the park with the Rinconada Library and the Palo
Alto Art Center. To achieve the meandering path the existing row of
Redwood trees will be removed, due to high voltage electrical lines
above that require the continuous topping of the trees and subsequent
declining health. The redwood trees will be replaced with other types of
native trees more appropriate for the growing space. An enhanced
shuttle stop along this path will serve both Rinconada Park and the
Library and Art Center.
In congruence with the park’s west entrance, a welcome sign and
wayfinding signage will greet visitors at the entry. Additional lighting will
highlight the entrance while enhancing security. A three dumpster refuse
bin enclosure with access from Newell Road with solid walls and gates
will provide additional service to the park reducing trash pick-up in the
park.
WEST ENTRANCE
EAST ENTRANCE
SOUTH ENTRANCE
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 5
South Entrance (Embarcadero)
Special paving, low landscaped themed stone walls that curve into the
park and away from the curb edge, and art elements will announce the
park entrances into the Arboretum and improve circulation for the
pedestrian and bicyclists accessing the park from the sidewalk
PLAY AREAS
The Long Range Plan brings the tot lot and older child play equipment
together, creating one integrated play environment at the west end of
the park. The space will be accessible for children of all ages and abilities.
The consolidated play spaces will allow guardians to supervise children of
different ages. A low fence will provide secure enclosure and delineate
the children’s areas. Shade sails over the play equipment will protect
children from the direct sun. An adult exercise area features exterior
fitness equipment and open rubber surfacing for physical activity.
Placed between the playground and main lawn activity area, this exercise
space will provide opportunities for people of all generations and
abilities. Seating around the play equipment, the nearby Group picnic
area, and outdoor exercise equipment directly to the east will establish
this as a hub of multigenerational activity. A new restroom located at the
west end of the park will be open during park hours of operation and will
serve this play area and main group picnic area. The established large
trees in and around this space will be preserved.
GIRL SCOUT HOUSE AND GROUP PICNIC AREA
Girl Scout House
The Girl Scout House will be enhanced with ADA upgrades and additional
amenities. This element will be shared by the public and Girl Scouts, with
Girl Scouts having priority use.
Group Picnic Area
New and improved amenities include a fire pit, food preparation table,
benches, and picnic area.
MAIN LAWN
Rinconada Park’s existing large lawn area will remain open space and the
existing mature trees in the middle of the lawn area should not be
replaced when they naturally decline. Due to the limited amount of open
space for large group gathering or activities replacement trees for those
trees located in the main lawn are not recommended to be replaced in
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 6
their current locations, however, further tree planted should be
considered in the many planting areas found throughout the park. The
lawn area can be accessed from a secondary entry on Hopkins Avenue
via the main pathway. The north end of the lawn is boarded by a
secondary pathway and includes a large shaded picnic area. Walter Hays
Elementary School borders the lawn area and uses the pathway as a
running and walking loop. The improved path will include entry nodes
with educational elements, artwork, and demonstration gardens
adjacent to the pathway.
TENNIS COURTS (within the park)
The tennis courts are heavily used, valued by community members. The
Long Range Plan shifts the courts to the west to allow a pedestrian
access route along the east side of the courts. Additional seating and
viewing space will be added around the perimeter, which will help to
enhance the courts as community space where family, friends, and
passersby can watch tournaments or casual play. On the west side, a
covered pavilion will be open to the public and used by the Tennis Club
as desired for check-in and coordination. To the south of the courts, an
informal tennis plaza with shaded seating will provide space for
spectators. A permeable area designed to protect the roots of the large
heritage oak tree will replace the existing tot lot playground and provide
areas of shaded seating and gathering.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 7
POOL AREA
The pool is a popular and beloved community destination and is used for
recreation, fitness, and competitive swimming. Improvements will better
integrate the pool into the fabric of Rinconada Park and enhance the
pool as a central gathering place. Enhancements include the following:
Pool Deck Expansion
Enhancements include increasing the pool deck area on the west side of
the lap pool to provide a much needed larger deck space and to the east
side of the children’s pool providing a larger seating area for families to
gather. Increased the access to shade in the expanded deck areas will
also be incorporated.
Pool Building and Locker Room Renovations
The Long Term Plan recommends the renovation to the existing 4,700
square foot pool structure that includes the locker rooms, office, and
pool storage. The renovation will add a 2,300 square foot wing for a new
public restroom, activity room and a potential space for concessions. The
City may consider concessions operated by a private entity, managed
under the same guidelines as the café in the new Mitchell Park
Community Center and Library.
Exterior Pool Plaza Area
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 8
On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving,
shaded seating and art work will provide an additional area for pool
related activities, including concessions. The perimeter fencing will be
replaced with a more transparent screen that will contribute to the
integration of the pool into the surrounding park and enhance the social
areas. A direct service corridor from Newell Road to the pool will allow
for improved serviceability.
Long Term Pool Expansion
Space has also been defined in the plan for the possible expansion of the
existing lap pool towards the west end of the pool area to accommodate
the demand for increased swimming programs and lanes.
ARBORETUM
The Long Range Plan preserves Rinconada Park’s established tree
canopy. The Arboretum is home to many of the park’s heritage trees and
celebrates these special natural features. The Arboretum is the face of
Rinconada Park to people traveling on Embarcadero.
Within the Arboretum, existing turf areas will be eliminated under the
existing oak trees and replaced with drought tolerant plantings to
enhance and accentuate the existing specimen trees. Improved lighting
will highlight entry elements as well as select trees. The spaces in the
Arboretum are designed for quiet activities.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 9
CONCRETE BOWL
The existing concrete bowl space will be enhanced to continue to
support community gatherings and performances. A small stage to
replace the existing and related infrastructure including electrical, data,
sound and lighting will be installed. The lawn seating area will be
maintained in its current configuration. A turf area along the mounded
berm will continue to provide overflow ‘lawn’ seating for additional
spectators. A planted screen will buffer the concrete bowl from Walter
Hays Elementary School. When the bowl is not in use for performances
and events, the City should consider temporary programming such as
portable skateboard park installations or outdoor classes.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest includes more than 60 mature redwood trees. This
unique park element will be preserved with limited improvements.
Access to the Magic Forest will be enhanced with a new sidewalk along
Hopkins Avenue, a street crossing, and secondary park entries with
signage. There will be a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and
into the park. The shuffleboard courts will be removed and individual
picnic tables will be placed throughout the Magic Forest. A more
transparent fence area will provide views to the pool.
POWER SUBSTATION PERIMETER
This area will include two bocce courts, picnic facilities, and pedestrian
scale art elements. The east end of the pool deck will provide access to
the small picnic and bocce area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 10
HOPKINS STREET FRONTAGE
A new sidewalk in the location of the existing hedge along the tennis
courts will complete a contiguous walkway along the edge of the park on
Hopkins Avenue. New sidewalks and crosswalks will be aligned with
proposed curb cuts along Hopkins Avenue. The improvements will
provide ADA access to the tennis courts. A planted “green” screen added
to the Hopkins side of the tennis courts will provide an aesthetic street
frontage.
PARKWIDE PLANTINGS
The Long Range Plan generally recommends that turf be limited to areas
programmed for active recreation and be removed anywhere it is
underutilized and does not support programming. Where turf is
removed, the City should consider replacing it with drought tolerant
landscaping. Planting buffers and delawned areas should provide visual,
seasonal, and textural interest with consideration given to providing
pollinator gardens and habitats for birds, bees, and butterflies. The
park’s heritage trees should be preserved and a plan developed for
successional tree plantings to ensure a diverse urban forest.
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the Rinconada Long Range Plan will be
accomplished over the next 25 years through multiple phases of capital
improvement projects.
PHASING PLAN
Short term projects (to be completed by 2022)
Western edge improvements to the play area and parking lot
connection.
Rinconada parking lot and building frontage along the park’s
edge.
Paving improvements through the center of the park.
Improvements will align with the proposed LRP and develop
some of the plaza spaces adjacent to the aquatics and tennis
court areas. Paving will align with the existing improvements on
the western end of park.
Enhanced park entry on Newell Road with a trash bin area.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 11
Signage improvements as part of the City’s signage
improvement plan. Signage will also include wayfinding signage
in the park.
Arboretum Area with improved walkways and entries off of
Embarcadero.
Add restroom to west end of park.
Mid-term projects (to be completed between 2023 and 2030)
Expand and improve open lawn.
Remodel and expand pool building and restroom structure.
Hopkins Street improvements.
Concrete bowl improvements.
Magical Forest Improvements.
Long term implementation will include (to be completed after 2030)
Pool remodel and expansion.
Shifting of Tennis courts.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 12
CHAPTER III: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
An analysis of existing conditions, technical sources, and community
input revealed a variety of assets, constraints, and opportunities for
Rinconada Park. The design team evaluated traffic and parking studies
and made site visits to the park to observe the existing conditions and
park users. Input was gathered from community members,
commissioners, committees, and stakeholders. The following section
summarizes the existing conditions, community input, and analysis.
CONTEXT
Established in 1922, Rinconada Park is Palo Alto’s second oldest park.
The most recent renovation was an irrigation upgrade in 1999. Since
1990, only the children’s play equipment has been upgraded and the
tennis courts resurfaced.
Now, in 2017, Palo Alto looks much different. The City has been at the
epicenter of the growth and prosperity experienced by the Silicon Valley
region in recent years. Along with many opportunities, the growth has
also brought increased housing demand, traffic congestion, and a
changing population. During this period, California also experienced
record setting drought and mandated water use restrictions.
The City of Palo Alto is dedicated to preserving a high quality of life for its
residents while also growing sustainably, addressing climate change,
supporting healthy ecosystems, and providing recreational and cultural
opportunities for a diverse community. Today, Rinconada Park is loved
and highly utilized by the community, but it needs updates and
improvements to support the changing community and environment and
to align with current park design standards and best practices.
EXISTING USER GROUPS
Rinconada Park is a hub of activity in Palo Alto and is used by a variety of
community members with a range of interests and needs. Palo Alto
residents and community members from neighboring cities visit
Rinconada Park for its unique amenities and recreational opportunities.
Community members picnic, play, exercise, and socialize. The park is
home to the Rinconada Masters Swim Team, Palo Alto Swim Club, and
the Palo Alto Tennis Club. The park is also used by the Girl Scouts and
Walter Hays Elementary School students.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 13
COMMUNITY INPUT
The Rinconada Long Range Plan was developed in collaboration with
community members and stakeholders. Engagement activities included
stakeholder meetings, community meetings, a community survey, and
City Commission meetings.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee members included representatives
from six neighborhood associations, Palo Alto Swim Club, Master Swim
Club, lap swimmers, Tennis Players Association, Girls Scout House, Lucie
Stern Community Center, Junior Museum & Zoo, Children’s Library,
Children’s Theater, Friends of the Art Center, Friends of the Palo Alto
Parks, Canopy, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Walter Hayes
Elementary School.
The design team translated initial community input and ideas into three
design alternatives. The design alternatives were presented to
community members and stakeholders who provided feedback on the
designs, identifying their preferred improvements. Community feedback
and insights are incorporated into the following Existing Conditions and
Site Analysis section.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 14
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SITE ANALYSIS
Public input and an evaluation of existing conditions in Rinconada Park
shaped the Long Term Plan recommendations. The analysis surfaced
constraints as well as significant opportunities. Following is a discussion
of the challenges and opportunities related to each park element.
PARKWIDE
Plantings
Trees are one of the major assets of the park, particularly the Magic
Forest and the Arboretum trees along Embarcadero Road. Different
types of uses that occur under trees, and the materials that accompany
those uses should be carefully identified as longevity and health of the
trees should take priority. Tree groupings help define spaces in the park.
A reforestation and replacement plan should be developed and
implemented, as well as a possible tree identification or education
program.
Safety and Visibility
RINCONADA PARK
CONSTRAINTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
Constraints
Interface with adjacent
uses
Existing site layout
Historical uses
Existing trees
Parking
Opportunities
Increasing connectivity
Installing educational and
interpretive elements
Expanding park programs
Preserving tree canopy
Incorporating artwork
Supporting city-wide
sustainability goals
E
x
p
a
n
d
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 15
Street crossings from park entrances should be improvement for safety
and ADA accessibility. Throughout the park, lighting is minimal and
certain areas feel more secluded and less visible. Park safety could be
improved through site lighting, emergency call stations, and defined fire
and emergency access routes. Site lines, the sense of safety in the park,
and police input should be considered.
Maintenance
The current maintenance and delivery vehicle routes conflict with users
and park features. There is damage to softscape edges and planting
areas from service vehicles needing to make tight turns. The asphalt is
damaged along the edges of pathways. concrete edge bands would help
protect asphalt from damage. Throughout the park turf areas could be
reduced to save water and maintenance.
Trash management should be improved. Dumpster enclosures and their
locations need to be reconsidered and updated. Service locations and
routes need to be separated from park use. Trash and recycling bins
should be placed throughout the park in high use locations such as picnic
areas. Composting options should be considered. Trash receptacles
should match the style of other site furnishings and be accessible.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION
Internal
Rinconada Park’s main pedestrian path and vehicular path are combined,
which causes conflicts and inefficiencies. The condition of the existing
pathways is poor. Some pathways are not dedicated or are poorly
defined. Pathways must avoid trees and pavement under mature trees
should be permeable. Dedicated vehicular routes, including adequate
vehicular load calculations, with wayfinding signage should be
considered.
External
The park’s relationship and connection to adjacent uses should be
improved. The location of entries and crosswalks should be reconsidered
and improved. Visual connections into the park from adjacent roadways
and neighborhoods are important, and should be considered when
locating or relocating program elements. Off-site directional signage to
the park should be provided.
GATEWAYS
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 16
West Entrance
The western entry and parking areas are disorganized and inefficient,
with poor connectivity to adjacent areas. There are no dedicated service
routes, signage, or wayfinding. There are more trash and recycling bins
than necessary and they are not placed strategically, which creates visual
clutter and degrades one the of the park’s main entryways. The site
furnishings in this area are antiquated and should be upgraded to create
a unifying theme.
PLAY AREAS
Western Playground
The western playground equipment, which serves older children (5-12
years old), should be replaced with more dynamic equipment, as
recommended by the Citywide Play Equipment Replacement Plan.
Despite the play area’s proximity to the Children’s Museum and Zoo, the
uses are disconnected. There are great opportunities for improving
circulation and integrating the uses into a youth-focused, dynamic play
environment.
Northern Playground Tot Lot
The northern playground tot lot area is located toward the center of the
park and isolated from the western playground area. The separation
creates a challenge for families with younger and older children. The tot
lot should be moved closer to the older children playground on the
southwest side of the park. The same observations related to the
condition of the structures and site furnishings of the western
playground apply to the tot lot. Additionally, the sand surfacing in the tot
lot limits accessibly. Alternative surfacing options should be explored to
improve accessibility and safety.
There is a large oak tree in this area that is an incredible asset and should
be protected. The playground and associated uses should be moved
from under the tree as recommended by the City Arborist. If the area
under the tree remains paved, new paving should be permeable or
include a raised platform, which could serve as a seating area.
Girl Scout House
The group picnic area, next to the Girl Scout House, is heavily used and in
need of renovation. The Girl Scout House is disconnected from the play
area. The play area and Girl Scout House should be more cohesive.
Privacy and separation from the neighbors is needed.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 17
MAIN LAWN
The western lawn area is located at the west end of the park between
the two playgrounds and abuts Walter Hays Elementary School. This area
is mostly un-programmed open space with perimeter pathways. The turf
edge bordering the school is aesthetically sterile and institutional and
underutilized. The lawn supports large events, but lacks amenities and
utilities. There are several large trees as well as others which were
recently planted. These trees should be reviewed as to their location in
the lawn and whether they classify as heritage trees. If specific trees
were to be removed it would offer the opportunity for a larger
unobstructed open space and enhanced site lines.
The Hopkins Avenue side of the western lawn includes numerous large
trees that should be protected. This area of turf and irrigated
landscaping could be reduced and replaced with a group picnic area and
drought tolerant, low maintenance plantings. Along Hopkins Avenue, the
park edges are not well defined and pathways are being impacted by
tree roots. There is a need for designated access and ADA improvements.
This edge of the park would also benefit from screening to buffer
adjacent neighbors from park elements such as trash.
TENNIS COURTS AND POOL AREA
The tennis courts and pool area is a heavily used active area of
Rinconada Park that shares parking and circulation. Circulation, parking,
and usage should all be improved around the tennis courts and pool.
Parking improvements are required along Hopkins Avenue to address
circulation and lack of accessibility. Connections to parking, including
sidewalks, signage, ramps, and curbs are limited.
There is an informal social path on the northeast side of the tennis courts
that cuts through the Magic Forest. This pathway should be widened to
allow for a variety of users or users should be directed to alternate
access routes. Currently there is conflict between maintenance,
deliveries, and pedestrian circulation, which should be addressed with
designated pathways and wayfinding. Service and utility use areas and
pathways should be separated from park use areas and pathways.
Tennis Courts
There are opportunities to improve the aesthetics and directional
wayfinding and program element identification. The hedge along
Hopkins Ave could be reduced or removed, which would provide a wider
and more accessible sidewalk along the existing parking. The parking and
tennis courts are at different elevations, which creates access challenges.
The tennis court perimeter is showing age and the fencing is too short.
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 18
The tennis users have requested a designated storage or small office
building.
Pool Area
The observations related to circulation and parking above also apply to
the pool. The pool area is not visually integrated into the park and feels
isolated. The pool building could use renovations to align with usage and
code requirements. The exterior of the building offers opportunities such
as murals, art, or integrated wayfinding, tying it into the park.
ARBORETUM
The Arboretum area is located at the southeast side of the park along
Embarcadero Road. The mature trees should be preserved and will
require protection from overwatering and root damage. Pathways
through this area should meander to avoid the trees. There is
opportunity to use this space as a passive recreation area and/or a
secluded area for weddings or other events with a small pavilion nestled
in the trees. The edge along Embarcadero Road lacks defined entrances
and site elements. Pedestrian and bicycling safety should be improved
along the park’s border with Embarcadero Road.
CONCRETE BOWL
The concrete bowl area is located towards the center of the park at the
northwest corner of the Arboretum. This area is underutilized due to lack
of features such as utilities and a well-defined stage. The adjoining
restroom building is outdated and is visually unidentifiable. This building
could be relocated to improve site lines as well as park uses.
MAGIC FOREST
The Magic Forest area is at the northeast edge of the park between the
Aquatic Center and Hopkins Avenue. The existing forest of redwood
trees is a significant park asset and should be preserved and
programmed for passive recreation and relaxation. There are over 60
mature redwoods with shallow rooting structure, which will limit the
improvements in this area. The existing shuffle board and horseshoe pits
are in bad condition and are rarely used. An established beehive exists in
the tree base near the existing shuffle board which should be protected,
per a professional bee keeper. This area is bordered by the electric
substation at the east with overhead power lines.
CHAPTER II: LONG RANGE PLAN
RINCONADA PARK LONG RANGE PLAN | 19
RESTROOM
Currently there is one restroom facility located centrally in the park. The
Restroom structure dates to the 1950’s and is in need of renovations.
The current restroom configuration does not meet ADA standards. A
small informational booth where park rangers once operated is now
used as a storage closet. Due to the age of the building and required
renovations to bring it up to code, it’s recommended for removal. The
removal of the building will open sight lines from the Newell end of the
park to Lucie Stern that will create a better link between city facilities.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Palo Alto Municipal code protects the citizens and their
environment. Municipal Code regulates certain park functions and
activities, including:
Hours of use
Approved activities and prohibited activities
Activities and events requiring permits – such as group picnics
and performances
Pet use requirements in park
Protection of flora and fauna
Amplified sound requirements
Markings and graffiti
Picnic area use restrictions
The improvements included in the Rinconada Long Range Plan are
consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the
Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe
and healthy community assets, and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to
the changing needs of the community. The Plan is also consistent with
the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Urban Forest
Master Plan, Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space & Recreation
Master Plan.
The Rinconada Park Long Range planning process included a Historic
Resources Evaluation and an Initial Study of Environmental Impacts.
(Refer to the CEQA Initial Study).
RINCONADA LONG RANGE
APPENDIX
Existing Site Conditions Plan
Overall Site Analysis Plan
Circulation Diagram – Circulation And Connections
Circulation Diagram – Major Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Secondary Connectors
Circulation Diagram – Pedestrian Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Bikes Paths of Travel
Circulation Diagram – Maintenance Vehicle Access
Park Concept Plan #1
Park Concept Plan #2
Park Concept Plan #3
Existing Tree Canopy Study
Entry Enhancements and Site Furnishing Samples
Covered Picnic Trellis and Tennis Building and Trash Enclosure Samples
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT C
MMRP Page 1 of 6
Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Name Junior Museum and Zoo Project Application
Number 17PLN-
00147
Applicant
Agreement
Signed by applicant before final approval action Date
Approved by Signed by Director after MND approval action by Council Date
Environmental
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Responsible for
Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of
Implementation
Impact BIO-1:
Construction of the
proposed project
could result in
disturbance to
active migratory
bird nests.
MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the
California Fish and Game Code, the project shall
implement the following measures:
Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a
qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that
may be disturbed during project implementation. All
potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be
surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal
or pruning, if the activity will occur within the
breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more
than 30 days pass between the completion of the
preconstruction survey and the initiation of
construction activities, the preconstruction survey
shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day
intervals until construction activities are initiated.
If an active nest is observed, tree removal and
pruning shall be postponed until all the young have
fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established
around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW.
Project
applicant,
contractors,
and qualified
ornithologist
Within 30
days of the
start of
construction
activities and
prior to
issuance of a
Grading
Permit or
Demolition
Permit
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
and CDFW (if a
nest is found)
MMRP Page 2 of 6
Impact CR-1:
Construction
activities could
result in significant
impacts to buried
cultural resources.
Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests
shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree
or shrub.
Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the
young fledge. No construction activities, parking,
staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall
be allowed within the exclusion zones until the
young have fledged from the nest.
MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural
materials are encountered during construction grading
or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet
of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment shall be notified, and a
qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance
of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The
recommended mitigation shall be implemented and
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any
significant cultural materials. A report of findings
documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall
be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 3 of 6
MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during
implementation of the proposed project, the City shall
comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section
7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County
Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall
then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the
remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend
to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with
appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the
human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the
reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist
shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC.
If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD
identified fails to make a recommendation, or the
landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and
the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section
5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable
to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized
representative shall inter the human remains and items
Project
applicant,
contractors
During
grading and
excavation
activities
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment,
Santa Clara
County
Coroner, and
NAHC
MMRP Page 4 of 6
Impact NOI-1:
Construction
activities
associated with the
JMZ could result in
significant noise
impacts.
associated with Native American human remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location not
subject to further and future subsurface disturbance.
MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following
measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less
than significant level:
Construction activities shall be limited to between
the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through
Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with
no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays
(consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).
Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with
consideration for school activities and hours:
o Schedule high noise generating construction
activities (such as the use of the concrete
saws) that are located directly adjacent to
school structures during periods when school
is not in session, such as summer, school
breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal.
Coordination of construction activity times
with school officials may be necessary.
o Construct portions of the museum located
directly adjacent to the school first, where
practical, in an effort to provide shielding to
the school from construction activities
located further to the west and south.
Project
applicant,
contractors
During all
phases of
construction
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
MMRP Page 5 of 6
o Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers
to shield on-site construction and demolition
noise from the school. To be most effective,
the barrier should be placed as close as
possible to the noise source or the sensitive
receptor. Examples of barriers include
portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing
for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and
pneumatic-air tools, which generate the
loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g.,
solid plywood fences or portable panel
systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or
acoustical blankets.
Establish construction staging areas at locations that
will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all
project construction.
Construction equipment shall be well maintained and
used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.
Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines and equip all internal combustion engine-
driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good
condition and appropriate for the equipment.
Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment,
such as air compressors and portable power
MMRP Page 6 of 6
generators, as far away as possible from businesses
or noise-sensitive land uses.
Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the
construction schedule in writing.
Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a
point where they are not audible at existing
residences or the school bordering the project site.
Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for
responding to complaints about construction noise.
The name and telephone number of the disturbance
coordinator shall be posted at the construction site
and made available to noise-sensitive land uses
adjacent to the construction site.
RINCONADA PARK
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
ATTACHMENT D
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/docu
ments
Hard copy available at:
City Hall – 6th floor
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA