HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-27 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 ofthe 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 August 27th, 2019 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 at the Lucie Stern Community Center at 1305 Middlefield Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-463-4912.
Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda,
please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at
the appropriate time.
I.ROLL CALL
II.AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS
III.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable timerestriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oralcommunications period to 3 minutes.
IV.DEPARTMENT REPORT
V.BUSINESS1.Approval of Draft Minutes from the July 23rd, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – PRC
Chair McDougall – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2.Informational presentation on Park Visitation Study – Jazmin LeBlanc – Discussion (30 min)
ATTACHMENT
3.Draft Plan for the 7.7-acre area at Foothills Park – Daren Anderson – Discussion (45 min)
ATTACHMENT
4. Update of the Parks and Open Space Regulations – Daren Anderson – Discussion (30 min)–ATTACHMENT
5.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min) ATTACHMENT
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 24th, 2019 MEETING
VII.COMMENTS AND ANNOUCEMENTS - “Hike to Sea” ATTACHMENT
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC LETTERS
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
July 23, 109 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Ryan McCauley, Don McDougall, 13
David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: Jeff LaMere 15
Others Present: Council Member Cormack 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Kristen O'Kane, Natalie Khwaja 17
I. ROLL CALL 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19
Chair McDougall: Are there any comments, changes, deletions, or requests relative to 20
the agenda from anybody? If not, we'll proceed with the agenda as published. I would 21
like to not necessarily warn people but inform people that if you add up the 15, 45 22
minutes and so on, it adds up to about 10:00. I am going to make every effort that we 23
actually get to 10:00 and not 11:00 or 12:00. I hope I'm never rude, but I will be 24
encouraging as we go. 25
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 26
Chair McDougall: The first thing I'd like to do is have Oral Communications on topics 27 that are not on the agenda with one exception. I'll start with Winter Dellenbach. 28
Welcome. 29
Winter Dellenbach: Hi. I have concerned myself with tree protection and our tree 30
protection ordinance for many years. You'll see why this is relevant in a minute. At the 31
post office two blocks away from here is a dawn redwood tree, one of the three kinds of 32
redwood species on the planet Earth. It was planted at the post office on Arbor Day, 33
March 7, 1949, a very significant date as you will learn, 1949. In 1941, a tree fossil was 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
discovered by a botanist in China of what he presumed was an ancient, extinct species. 1
In 1943, another botanist discovered a single tree in Szechuan Province he judged to be 2
450 years old. Finally in 1948, a third scientist went into the area's valleys, finding 3
hundreds of these trees, making the connections between the 1941 fossil and the 1943 4
tree, and the world was introduced to dawn redwood. With less than 1,000 in existence, 5
it was on the edge of extinction. The discovery fired the imaginations of international 6 scientists and the public. Seeds of dawn redwood were distributed internationally in 1949 7
through the efforts of Chinese and American scientists in order to increase the chances of 8
species survival. One of those seeds came to Palo Alto and was planted on U.S. 9
government land at our post office. We were doing our part to save the species, and we 10
still are. Dawn redwood remains a critical risk of extinction in the wild in China. This 11
year is our dawn redwood's 70th birthday at the post office. Until two years ago, dawn 12
redwood was thriving, and then the post office stopped watering the tree, and it started to 13
struggle. Today, it is in great distress not because of drought but because of neglect. The 14
City has no jurisdiction over federal land. It's been hard, but there may now be an 15
agreement negotiated to start to water again, maybe. March 19, City head of Urban 16
Forestry, Walter Passmore, spoke to you about the need for an ongoing community forum 17
such as your Commission that would concern itself with trees and urban forestry, a good 18
suggestion. There is no current City forum directly involved with any role or any 19
interface with urban forestry. Palo Alto, known as Tree City. I ask that you consider 20
being that forum and request staff to look into it. Also, I ask that you request staff to 21
contact Urban Forester Walter Passmore, City Manager Ed Shikada to see if they can 22
lend any assistance in getting a reliable water supply quickly to dawn redwood, which 23
may die. Thank you. 24
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Winter. I have a second card here from Rita Vrhel. Rita, 25 are you speaking to one of the topics or just in general? 26
Rita Vrhel: I wanted to speak to the Foothills Park and to the … 27
Chair McDougall: That is Item Number 3. I'm making one exception on that. If you 28
could hang on, we'd appreciate it. 29
Ms. Vrhel: I appreciate that. Thank you. 30
Chair McDougall: Thank you. The one exception that I'm making to speaking to topics 31
not on the agenda would be to invite Lee Levy to come and speak on Item Number 3 in 32
respect for his time. 33
Lee Levy: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Two weeks ago, I went up to San 34
Francisco to attend a free concert at Sigmund Stern Grove of the San Francisco 35
Symphony. I obviously don't pay taxes in San Francisco, but I had no problem attending 36
the concert. Nobody questioned whether I was from in town or out of town. This past 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
weekend, I was on the Stanford campus, and I had the pleasure of bicycling on their 1
extensive and very-well-kept-up bicycle paths. I also went into the Anderson Collection. 2
Again, it was free. Again, no one asked where I lived, where I was from. Over the years, 3
I've been to many parks locally, Huddart Park, Los Trancos Open Space District, San 4
Antonio, Sam McDonald, and of course spent a lot of time at Foothill Park. I admired 5
Foothill Park greatly and have appreciated how well the City has protected that park and 6 maintained it. I've also felt a little bit of a concern that I was there, but neighbors were 7
excluded. I appreciated the work of the ad hoc committee and their proposal that we test 8
a program to open the park somewhat more to our neighbors. It's a sensible program, I 9
think, and it's a test. If the test doesn't work, we go back. If the test does work, we in my 10
opinion go forward. A number of years ago, when I was more active in public affairs, I 11
used to write songs. One of the songs was about Foothill Park. It was taken from the 12
Woody Guthrie folk ballad, "This Land Is My Land, This Land Is Your Land." This 13
song, however, went "this park is my park. It is not your park." I have a couple of copies 14
of the song if you'd like to take a look at it. I won't burden you with singing it, but I do 15
hope that at long last this song can be laid to rest. Thanks very much. 16
Chair McDougall: Thank you. We'd like to thank you for your comments and for not 17
singing. If there are no other non-agenda items, I'd like to invite the Department Report. 18
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 19
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Community Services Department. 20
I've got a few updates for you. The first of which, I'd like to thank Commissioner 21
Greenfield for reporting some rockslides up at Foothills Park. I just wanted to report that 22
the Rangers found those on Los Trancos, have cleared the rockslides and the downed 23
trees. Thank you for that. I had a couple of Commissioners ask me about the Los Altos 24
sewage treatment plant, what was going on there. This is a City-owned property adjacent 25 to the Baylands Nature Preserve. Public Works has recently taken down some of the—26 it's one old building and several sheds that were adjacent to this property. They were 27 unsafe, unsightly, and falling apart, and so they had to remove them. That's just been 28
accomplished. They're regrading the area around those buildings, where they were. 29
Likewise, there was a drainage ditch that went down to one of the sections of the pond 30
that was ponding and creating mosquito habitat. They have cleared that and are grading 31
that for proper drainage as well. There's one other facility out there, and it's the digester. 32
That will remain onsite. They're going to repaint it because it's covered in graffiti. 33
They're going to put a fence around it and make sure people can't get in there and throw 34
more debris. It was clear there were people camping in it and other nefarious activities. 35
If you want additional information, we can set up a time for the ad hoc on the Baylands to 36
meet with Phil Bobel, Assistant Director, and get into more details. That's the 37
information I've got for you tonight. I also received a question about the fruit fly incident 38
that recently happened. This was on June 28 and July 2nd that the County and the State 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Department of Food and Agriculture identified and confirmed that we had two invasive 1
peach fruit flies in Palo Alto in the area of Embarcadero Road and U.S. Highway 101. 2
As a result of those confirmed detections, organic bait treatments were applied on 3
July 2nd within a 1.5-mile radius from where the fruit flies were found. Commissioner 4
McDougall had asked me if there were any concerns about the parks, are we seeing any 5
impacts. We are not seeing any impacts in the parks, and we did check with our 6 community gardeners to see if anyone had noticed anything. Unfortunately, it's the kind 7
of thing you only notice once you open the fruit that they affect, and you would find 8
maggots inside. No one's reported, but we asked them to keep their ears out. If they hear 9
anything, they'll let us know. In turn, we would report this to the County. The pickleball 10
project, an update on that. This is the Mitchell Park pickleball court project. It's 11
anticipated to begin in September of this year and be completed by November 2019. The 12
project's currently under concurrent review with both our Planning Department and our 13
Building Department. The contract is complete, and insurance bonds are in place. We're 14
ready to issue the notice to proceed as soon as we get those permits. The Cubberley track 15
and field renovation project is underway. We're under contract with O'Grady 16
Incorporated. Their sub on the project is Spin Turf. The work accomplished so far is the 17
removal of the turf and infill, which will be recycled. There's still some infill on the 18
process of the removal of the field that needs to be cleaned up. We're working with the 19
contractor to address that. Thank you, Commissioner Moss, for bringing that to my 20
attention. Between now and mid-August, they'll install the new turf. Between mid-21
August and the end of September, they'll remove the old track and put in the new all-22
weather track. Project to be completed by October 5. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: Will the field be open while the track renovation is in progress? 24
Mr. Anderson: No. It'll have to be closed. The 101 bike/ped bridge schedule update. 25 Caltrans has approved the project design and issued the right of certification and an 26 encroachment permit for the project. We're now anticipating approval of the federal 27 funds authorization application in the next couple of weeks. Upon issuance of that, the 28
project is anticipated to go out to bid in August 2019 and begin construction in fall 2019, 29
to be completed in winter 2020. The existing undercrossing will be closed during the 30
bike bridge construction due to safety reasons and will be permanently closed for public 31
access post-construction. I was also asked about the status of the 3350 Lambert Avenue 32
property, the AT&T parcel, that we have been pursuing purchasing. This is the one 33
adjacent to Boulware Park. I just wanted to let you know the City's still in negotiations 34
with the property owner at this point. As soon as we have more, we'll bring that to the 35
Commission's attention. I was asked about the status of the interpretive signage project 36
for the Baylands Nature Center. This is the one that John Aiken has been working on. 37
This project adds interpretive signs to help the connection between the Baylands Nature 38
Preserve Interpretive Center and the Cooley Landing Education Center. The number of 39
signs will be determined during the design process and the stakeholder review, which the 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Parks and Rec Commission will be part of that. It will be coming to you. We've got 1
confirmation that the Friends of Palo Alto Parks will be giving $54,000 towards the 2
project. That'll go towards design and part of the fabrication. Right now, they're looking 3
at a few other grants to supplement that. The money hasn't come through with the 4
Friends yet; it's sort of pending some other grants that might be coming in. I'll have more 5
information for you soon. The tentative schedule is that the planning and ARB review 6 for this has been completed. The CEQA is underway, and the design will get going in 7
October 2019 through the following year, October 2020. Fabrication is somewhere in the 8
timeframe of November to May 2021, and installation in May 2021. Again, this project 9
will come to you for discussion, and we'll get far more into the details of that project at 10
that point. 11
Chair McDougall: Did you say it had already been to ARB? 12
Mr. Anderson: ARB has done a preliminary review. The Mercedes building application, 13
I think the last time we talked about this, Council had approved the project. They 14
approved the massing of the project, requiring as a condition of approval that the aspects 15
of design come back to the Architectural Review Board as part of a separate application 16
in order to improve the design of the project. The Mercedes project planner informed me 17
that the applicant is in the process of preparing to submit a subsequent application to the 18
ARB, but they don't have the timeframe yet. Lastly, the update on the Arastradero 19
community garden. This is our newest community garden that's coming online soon. 20
Park staff started the installation of the irrigation today, and we anticipate the garden will 21
be open for business at the end of August. That concludes the Department Report. 22
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Are there any questions? 23
Commissioner Moss: Where is the Arastradero community garden? 24
Mr. Anderson: This is at the Palo Alto Christian Reform Church. They formerly had a 25 common ground demonstration garden there. 26
Chair McDougall: If there are no questions or comments, thank you, Daren. 27
V. BUSINESS 28
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 28, 2019 Parks and Recreation 29 Commission meeting. 30
Approval of the draft May 28, 2019 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl and 31
seconded by Commissioner Moss. Passed 5-0, McDougall abstaining, LaMere absent 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
2. Dog Parks and Park Restrooms 1
Chair McDougall: That takes us to the dog park discussion. We will be introduced by 2
Daren as a staff presentation of the review. After Daren speaks, we'll have comments 3
from the speakers who have cards here. 4
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson again from Community Services 5
Department. Here tonight to discuss dog parks and park restrooms and get your feedback 6 on the recommendations and concepts that the ad hoc committee has regarding dog park 7
off-leash opportunities and appropriate locations for park restrooms. I'm going to start by 8
providing background information on our dog parks. Palo Alto's got four dog parks. 9
We've one in Greer, Hoover, Mitchell, and now Peers Park. Peers Park dog park, our 10
most recent one, opened in June 2018. That project was funded through a capital 11
improvement project—I'm going to call that CIP. The City's five-year Capital 12
Improvement Program has a CIP which provides funding, $150,000, for dog parks in 13
fiscal years 2020, 2022, and 2024. It's important to note that the funding for the CIP 14
comes from Park Development Impact Fees, which require that it be used for expanding 15
capacity. That is, new dog parks or taking an existing one and doing something that 16
would expand the capacity of use for that facility. What it may not be used for is 17
maintenance practices. For example, if we were to look at one of our existing dog parks 18
and say we want these other exercise amenities added, that would not be allowed. If we 19
wanted to move the fence or build new fence to expand that, that would be allowed. If 20
that makes sense. The Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan 21
provides guidance on dog parks. The Plan noted that all of Palo Alto's dog parks, except 22
for our newest one, Peers, are all located in south Palo Alto. The policy and program for 23
that dog park, which was included in your staff report, explains that we should pursue 24
dedicated, fenced dog parks equitably distributed between north and south Palo Alto, and 25 that we should have at least six dedicated, fenced parks. In addition to providing 26 potential sites for new dog parks, it also proposed expanding some of those existing dog 27 parks. The ad hoc committee and staff have been working to identify the best use of that 28
dog park CIP funding that's available in FY '20 and '22. The ad hoc committee 29
recommends using the FY 2020 CIP funds to expand those existing dog parks at Greer 30
and Mitchell Parks. The ad hoc committee will continue analyzing potential dog park 31
locations, particularly in north Palo Alto, and staff would conduct community outreach 32
prior to making any formal recommendation to the Commission regarding those dog 33
parks. In addition to dedicated fenced dog parks, dog owners in Palo Alto have 34
expressed an interest to both staff and the ad hoc committee about considering other dog 35
off-leash opportunities, such as the unfenced dog off-leash area model used by the City of 36
Mountain View. In this model, non-fenced sections of parks are used as dog parks for a 37
limited number of hours per day. The ad hoc committee and staff would like your 38
feedback on the idea of pursuing this option as a pilot program. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Chair McDougall: If it's agreeable to the rest of the Commission, I would invite speakers 1
to respond or not necessarily respond but offer their comments on the dog park item. I 2
would start with Michel Callon [phonetic]. 3
Michel Challon: Dog ownership is a huge responsibility that I take very seriously. We 4
are the stewards of an animal that is devoted to us and whose entire life is pretty much at 5
our disposal. If we teach them basic good manners, socialize them to get along with 6 other dogs, and give them opportunities to play with members of their own species using 7
their natural instincts, I believe their life and ours is enriched. What happens to dogs that 8
have no such opportunities? They are erratic around other dogs, and they lunge and bark 9
wildly whenever they cross paths with other dogs, which makes walking them a 10
challenge. There are so many of these dogs that cross my path everyday when I walk my 11
dog. I see their owners crossing the street to the other side when they see my dog 12
approaching. Why is that happening here so often? I think the reason is clear. People 13
are busy; they don't want to get in their car after getting home from work and drive to a 14
far-away dog park, so a walk around the neighborhood is all they can manage. Who can 15
blame them? What's in it for them really? Standing alone at a dog park where you don't 16
know anyone is boring, and making small talk with people you don't see regularly is a 17
waste of time. Walking to your own neighborhood dog park, meeting and talking with 18
your neighbors, many on a daily basis, enriches our lives as much as those of our dogs. 19
Imagine moving to a lovely town with very high property taxes and having kids several 20
years later, only to find out that there were no playgrounds for them or that you got cited 21
every time your child played in an area that wasn't specified for kids, that you had to 22
schlep them out of your area for any park or field to legally play on. Wouldn't you fight 23
for a dedicated playground for your kids? For dog owners, their pups are part of the 24
family and deserve to have their own dedicated space. When law-abiding citizens need 25 to break the law in order to properly care for their charges, something is wrong with the 26 system. We are willing to work with you, fundraise for a dog park if we are approved 27 and the City does not have it in their budget; although, I hear you do have some. There 28
are many interim solutions for this ongoing problem in our neighborhood. We don't have 29
to start with a committed, fully funded, and fully featured dog park. We are also willing 30
to consider a temporary dog park that would be open for even as short as an hour or two 31
every day. If necessary, we can enclose the area under investigation with temporary 32
fencing and judge the impact over the following months. A group of us could be 33
stewards of the park and help the City maintain it. I think the other off-leash area—34
allowing an hour a day off-leash even in a schoolyard or at Pardee Park would be an 35
option as well. I hope you will consider a dog park at Pardee Park or at the very least 36
some legal off-leash hours somewhere else in the Crescent Park/St. Francis/Duveneck 37
area. Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. 38
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I would ask other speakers—I don't want to start setting a 39
three-minute clock because I let the speaker go beyond three minutes. Please try and 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
respect the time in the direction of three minutes. Thank you. The next speaker would be 1
Sabrina Braham, and after that is Rita that I rejected earlier. Thank you. 2
Sabrina Braham: Hello. I'm Sabrina Braham. My son is sitting over there and may have 3
a few words to say. I am a physician. I grew up in San Francisco. I moved down here 4
12 years ago. I was kicking and screaming coming from the city, but I fell in love with 5
Palo Alto primarily because of the people and because of the outdoor spaces. Our family 6 got a puppy a year ago, and our use of the outdoor spaces and our interaction with our 7
neighbors has increased immeasurably since then. Our lives are so much richer, and our 8
appreciation for Palo Alto has increased 100 fold. I feel strongly that the more we can 9
encourage dog ownership and responsible dog ownership the better it's going to be for 10
our community, for good neighbors. These dog parks—I've met many of the people in 11
this room and many other neighbors that I hadn't met in 12 years since having the dog. I 12
just think it's an important part of our Parks Department. Finally as a physician, dogs 13
have been shown to improve both mental and physical health and in a time and a place 14
where we have a lot of stress and a lot of mental illness, I think this is only a positive to 15
increase the access that families and individuals have to a good life with a dog. Thank 16
you. 17
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Rita followed by Herb Borock. 18
Ms. Vrhel: Good evening. I wanted to speak to restrooms. I live near Eleanor Pardee 19
Park, and I understand that this is one of the largest parks in the City that does not have a 20
restroom. However, we have picnic benches, we have two children's playground areas, 21
we have soccer and baseball and camp all the time. We do not have a bathroom. We 22
also have a community garden. The park is extremely, heavily used throughout the week, 23
but we don't have a bathroom. Now, I understand that neighbors have objected to a 24
bathroom. I think the park is 9.2 acres. I think there is a place to put a bathroom that will 25 not be across the street from somebody's living room window or in their backyard. I 26 hope when you discuss the restroom part of this agenda item that you will seriously 27 consider that it is time for Eleanor Pardee Park to have a bathroom. Thank you. 28
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Rita. Herb Borock followed by Shuang Wang. 29
Herb Borock: Good evening. In the case of both dog parks and restrooms in 30
neighborhood parks, it may be the case that those who have lived and chosen over the 31
years to live in particular parts of Palo Alto chose to be in a part of town that did not have 32
dog exercise areas and did not have bathrooms in neighborhood parks. The uses are 33
changed in two ways. First with adult sports teams, a majority of each league from 34
people outside Palo Alto, and also people who feel if they spent a lot of money to outbid 35
people for a house it's their intention and right to change things despite the fact that they 36
bought in a place where there were already values and standards. I happen to be one of 37
the people who think that there should be a dog park—actually it's an exercise area—38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
within a park in north Palo Alto. Where we have one now, I'm not quite sure it's north 1
Palo Alto or west Palo Alto. We typically think of north Palo Alto, south Palo Alto, and 2
west Palo Alto. West Palo Alto is west of the Caltrain tracks, but usually you think of 3
that as also being south of Page Mill/Oregon Expressway. Nobody from that area, 4
Barron Park and all those, has been saying they want a dog exercise area there. I had 5
suggested using part of El Camino Park, which at one point was a community garden 6 which may sometime in the distant future be an extension of Quarry Road into the bus 7
island and that is near where the Hetch Hetchy lines come in, but there's been a resistance 8
of staff, I'm unclear why without any clear plans for the area, of using that area as a dog 9
exercise area. I think that would be a good thing. It is certainly better than having an 10
area that's close to people's homes so you don't have to drive there to exercise the animal. 11
There is one other thing, and that is the idea of making larger areas available for part of 12
the time for dogs to run free such as has been considered at Hoover Park and elsewhere. 13
There, I look at the tragedy of the commons, the people who violate the current off-leash 14
law in parts of a park that are not the exercise area so to self-police and are a small 15
number. Once you make it legitimate, you will find that it may destroy the area. You'll 16
also maybe find it's not a place just for the residents of the neighborhood but for dog 17
walkers with many dogs. In terms of fencing, I would hope at some point in the capital 18
budget, perhaps this year, that you'll restore the proper height of the fencing facing the 19
park for Hoover Park. When Hoover Park was expanded, they put a proper tall fence 20
against Matadero Creek, but the fence was lowered between the exercise area and the 21
park; although, that was never on the proposal that was before the Council. Thank you. 22
Chair McDougall: Herb, thank you. This is not an action item tonight. I expect more 23
discussion on this within the ad hoc. I would encourage the ad hoc to follow up with a 24
few of these speakers that have specific suggestions that would be useful. Shuang Wang 25 followed by Matt Greenberg. I am going to start setting a clock. Usually we don't accept 26 cards after we've begun a discussion. I keep getting cards, so I'm going to start with a 3-27 minute clock at this point. Thank you. 28
Shuang Wang: Thank you for having me presenting here. I'm also a dog owner and, 29
similar to other people's experience, I moved to Palo Alto about 10 years ago. Before I 30
had a dog, I never know there are so many people. After we had a dog, we come to 31
Pardee Park, and that is how I met so many people, and we have interactions. I just want 32
to give a little bit of feedback about the benefit that we can bring to the park, especially to 33
Pardee Park. I just want to give a few incidents. Like one year, there are some high 34
school kids having a party at the park, and they throw eggs all over the park. It was such 35
a mess. Most of this group of dog owners cleaned up. We spent so much time just pick 36
up all the eggs. The park was not pretty while the rotten eggs are all over. The other 37
thing is we also participated in clean up for the weeds. We actually care for the park. 38
We're not just taking care of our dogs. If we see there's other trash on the ground, if there 39
are other things on the ground that are not safe for people, we actually are very 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
responsible and pick them up. The other thing is most of our dogs are very mellow in 1
personality. My kids often say that we should train our dog to go to visit hospitals and be 2
a therapy dog. I feel like we provide that kind of interaction with other kids and people 3
in the park anyways. Often, little kids just come over and say hello to the dog. 4
Teenagers come over and say hello, older people as well. A lot of good interaction there 5
is good for the overall neighborhood. Because we are there, we also keep an eye on other 6 children as well. Like little kids running away from their parents, and the group of dog 7
owners are very responsible. We say, "Who are you? Do you have adults to come with 8
you?" It's not just for the dog, it's for the community. It's for everybody living in Palo 9
Alto. We have so many neighbors. Even though they don't own a dog, they enjoy the 10
interaction with dog owners and dogs. I want to propose the priority for using the money 11
and then the priority on which location to have the dog park. I feel the money is better 12
spent to have a new dog park in Pardee Park instead of expanding the existing dog park 13
because they already have something to play with anyway. To the north part of Palo 14
Alto, there is absolutely nothing within walking distance. Thank you. 15
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Matt Greenberg followed by Madhuri. 16
Matt Greenberg: Hi. I'm here mostly for informational purposes. I'm from Redwood 17
City. I'm actually a member of the Park and Rec Commission; I'm a Commissioner in 18
Redwood City. I came mostly to hear you, but in hearing this discussion I figured I 19
would add some perspective. Feel free to contact me at any time. I can give my 20
information. We actually have a 42-acre park called Stulsaft Park. I don't know if 21
anyone's familiar with it. About one-third allows off-leash; two-thirds does not. It's a 22
great source. Not to repeat what everyone else said; I'm not speaking on behalf of the 23
Park and Rec Commission, again. I am an owner of a 3-year-old Australian shepherd, so 24
I go there almost every day. It's a great way not only for the dogs to socialize, and off-25 leash anyone would say is best. It's become like the Starbucks for dog owners. As 26 everyone says, you become friends. You're hanging around in the morning. The same 27 people come. Different people come on the weekends. It's also become a place where a 28
lot of families and children come to meet dogs. It's become an access point. We have 29
toddler programs where people will meet by our creek just designed to meet the dogs. 30
We also have a champions program, which is our Friends of the Park, where we have 31
clean ups and stuff specifically by dog owners to clean up. We have all these poop 32
stations and everything else. Of course, we police not only with this group in the Park 33
and Rec, but also the dog owners make sure that other not-good dog owners aren't 34
welcome, which is also part of it. Most dog owners and dogs are great. Like in any 35
group, there's always that 3-5 percent that cause problems for everyone, and you need to 36
self-control. We do it. I'm mostly here to say if you want to see an example of a place 37
where we certainly have our ups and downs, but it works great for a wide source of 38
people. Love to talk about it. Love to tour you around and show you where it's a true 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
off-leash, non-fenced area. We have some dog parks, but it's a different place for bigger 1
dogs and people with bigger dogs with kids and families to just hang out. Thank you. 2
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I really appreciate you coming up and speaking. I hope 3
we have the opportunity to follow up. 4
Madhuri Chattopadhyay: Good evening everyone. I think I recognize many of the faces 5
because we made a concerted effort to get a dog park in the northern part of Palo Alto 6 about 3-4 years ago. We are back in front of you asking for the same thing. Daren 7
Anderson and many others put in a lot of work then, but we were not able to get it to go. 8
I'm going to try to keep this brief. People before me have explained way more eloquently 9
than I could as to why we need one. We are a community. We like to think of ourselves 10
as a village. A village needs a place, a hub to meet. I know so many people here, and I 11
get to know them only because we meet with our dogs either on walks or trying to find a 12
place for them to run around off-leash. I'm going to try to keep this brief. Some of the 13
setbacks we encountered the last time were extremely negative, NIMBY-type community 14
feedback from the people living in the immediate periphery of Eleanor Pardee Park, who 15
made the effort of extending their outreach to a block and had people come by telling the 16
City and the people here that they did not want a dog park there because of the noise and 17
the smell. We here have all been in dog parks. If anyone here has ever found a dog park 18
that is noisy or smells, please raise your hand. I do not see a single hand. If anyone has 19
found a dog park that is more noisy than a bunch of kids playing soccer or anything, 20
please raise your hand. I don't see any raised hands. Dog parks are not noisy, and they're 21
not smelly. They're a place for people to come together. Most dog owners in Palo Alto 22
are very conscientious. Please keep that in mind as we go forward and encounter the 23
usual routes of resistance. The second point I'd like to make is this is a need for all of 24
northern Palo Alto, not just the people living in the immediate vicinity of Eleanor Pardee 25 Park. If you want to solicit feedback, if you can find a way of extending that to all of 26 Palo Alto, particularly north of Oregon, so that everybody gets a say in whether they 27 want an off-leash dog park in this part of Palo Alto, that'd be great. I assure you that the 28
yeas will far outnumber the nays. Even the people who live in the immediate vicinity of 29
Eleanor Pardee Park and don't want a dog park there do bring their dogs off-leash early in 30
the morning to the park and let them run around. This should not be the case. We are not 31
asking for anything unfair. I do not have kids, but I live on Addison Avenue, and I see 32
wrappers and all kinds of things on my front lawn. It's fine. It's a choice I've made. I'm 33
not cribbing about the tax money that goes to support the schools. I need a dog park and 34
so do many others here. I would really, really, really appreciate it if you could figure out 35
some way of getting a dog park in northern Palo Alto. Thank you so much for your time. 36
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Rohini—I'm not even going to try and embarrass myself. 37
I have another card here from Winter. Is Winter planning on speaking again? 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Ms. Dellenbach: Yes. 1
Chair McDougall: Thank you. 2
Rohini Chakravarthy: I just wanted to add to everybody's comments about Pardee Park. 3
I would really urge you to consider that. We have a black lab called Rocky. He's a year 4
and a half old. He's actually my son's dog, and my son doesn't drive. If he has to be 5
exercised, he has to be walked. Living close to Pardee Park, I've gotten to know the 6 community through that. You do have to consider that there are people who don't drive, 7
who do have dogs. This would be a great benefit. I also want to urge you to think about 8
Pardee Park for a couple of reasons. One is in the agenda you mention that there's 0.4 9
acres being considered out of the 9.6-acre park. It's a park that already has many assets. 10
It has a little dog fountain, which gets well used. It has a community as Shuang and 11
others mentioned, where we will take care of the park for you, not just for the dogs but 12
for everybody. We would really like you to try the pilot project, which is let the dogs 13
have an hour a day to run around maybe with temporary fencing and see how it goes. 14
That's another way to overcome some of the resistance that has been experienced in the 15
past. Thank you for that. 16
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Winter. 17
Ms. Dellenbach: I just thought since I was here. You have Bol Park down for restrooms. 18
I want to congratulate you. Bol Park needs restrooms. When this really comes to you 19
and becomes a real issue, you're going to have a lot of my neighbors, whom I love a lot, 20
come in here and just really disagree. I just want you to know I'm thrilled. We need it. 21
You're going to have to be really sensitive or whoever makes the final decision where 22
you put it. We think Bol Park is the most beautiful park in the whole City, so it needs to 23
have a sensitive placement of the restrooms, which we really, really need. I just want you 24
to remember what I'm saying and remember it is the most beautiful park in the City. 25 Sensitivity is needed. Thank you for being sensitive before you make your decision. 26
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I do have a card from Penny Proctor relative to the 27 bathrooms. Would you like to speak now or wait until after the staff report on 28
bathrooms? If you're willing to wait, I would prefer to have you speak after. You might 29
have a more interesting perspective. I'd like to open this to the Commission for 30
comments on the dog parks. Who is on the ad hoc? Anne, Ryan. Anne. 31
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. Thanks, Daren, for the staff report. It 32
says everything that we talked about in the meeting. We're excited to be able to use some 33
of the money to expand the existing dog parks and, I think, also very excited to see if we 34
could convince our fellow Commissioners and others to move forward with the pilot 35
program for the off-leash dogs in certain times of the day at specific parks. I look 36
forward to comments from Commissioner McCauley and the rest of the Commissioners. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
I'm excited that we're moving forward on this. We've been without dog parks for a long 1
time. It feels really good to get this going. Thank you very much, Daren, for your 2
efforts. 3
Commissioner McCauley: I'll try to be brief. I think Anne covered most all of it. A 4
number of speakers this evening articulated the point, which I heard from Don and Daren 5
and former Mayor Karen Holman when they were dedicating the Peers Park dog park, 6 which is that dogs tend to make us better neighbors, and they help build community. I 7
think this is something notable that we should be continuing to move forward. I am also 8
supportive of the idea of bringing a pilot proposal to the City Council, looking at doing a 9
study along the lines of what Mountain View did to allow one or two areas that have an 10
obvious need for an additional dog park to have off-leash limited hours during the day. 11
Chair McDougall: Keith, you want to comment? 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: I strongly support the dog parks. Dog owners just do not want 13
to have to get in the car, drive across town to exercise their dog. It makes it less pleasant 14
for them. It makes traffic for us, so it makes it less pleasant for everybody. We really 15
should be moving as fast as we can to expand dog parks at most major parks just to 16
minimize the drive. People can walk out their door to the dog park and not drive. It all 17
comes down to money. If we can have some fundraising and Howard can get some 18
money, we can speed up this process because that's what is slowing it down right now. 19
It's not anything else. With respect to the unfenced off-leash area, I'm not a big fan of 20
that. As one of the speakers mentioned, you have like 3-5 percent of the dog owners who 21
aren't watching their dogs, they're not cleaning up after their dogs. That's a hard burden. 22
It's unfortunate because the other 95 percent are doing their job. If you look at Hoover 23
Park, there's waste everywhere. When we lived next to Hoover Park, every night the kids 24
came home with dog waste on their shoes. That's a big issue. If we extend the unfenced 25 areas, I'm afraid that we're going to be spreading dog waste over that area, and it will not 26 be a good experience. 27
Commissioner Moss: About Eleanor Pardee Park, there's not a single Commissioner who 28
is against putting more dog parks, nor has the staff had any issues with that. Peers Park 29
was mainly going to the park of least resistance. The speaker that mentioned NIMBY-30
ism on Eleanor Pardee Park, it's a serious problem if we let five neighbors overrule what 31
20,000 people in north Palo Alto could benefit from. It's really important that we do a 32
conscientious job with staff to make sure there is a dog park in a less-sensitive part of the 33
park. Even if it were 5 feet away from the back fence instead of right up against the back 34
fence of these people who don't want the park there, that would be okay. I think it's 35
really important for staff to pick the right spot and not move on to the next park. We're 36
going to have that issue with every park that we recommend. Dog owners should be 37
aware that their neighbors can have an impact to stop progress, so they need to work on 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
their neighbors. About off-leash, I walk and run the track at Cubberley. As the speaker 1
from Redwood City said, there are these 3-5 percent of people who have a problem, but 2
there are many, many people who use Cubberley and Greendell off-leash at night. As 3
long as they don't interfere with sports teams and runners and walkers, then they haven't 4
had a problem. I would support a pilot for off-leash, but it's really up to the dog owners 5
to help police those 3-5 percent because we and staff can't be there. It wrecks it for 6 everybody. That's what I would recommend for off-leash. I've been to Stulsaft Park in 7
Redwood City. It's amazing. I'm a little worried about the natural diversity and the 8
health of wildlife in that part that's off-leash. When we were there, there was very little 9
wildlife. I don't encourage off-leash on such a huge open space as they have, but I do 10
feel off-leash in certain areas and certain parks is worth a pilot. The last thing I want to 11
mention is in your staff report you talk about dollars for creating dog parks, expanding 12
dog parks versus maintenance. I know there is a dog owners association in Palo Alto, 13
and I encourage them to come forward with funds to improve the existing parks with 14
benches and other amenities, maybe even Astroturf versus turf, things like that. If there 15
is a way the dog owners association can help with that so that the vast majority of the 16
funds can go to creating new parks, I would prefer that. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'd like to echo the comments of a few Commissioners speaking 18
before me. I do support reducing car traffic for dog exercise and for all exercise in 19
general. Pardee does seem like an ideal geographic location for a dog park, but we've run 20
into logistic issues. Maybe we can overcome them, maybe not. It's something we need 21
to pursue further. Regarding off-leash, I agree it's incumbent on the dog owners to make 22
it work. I'd like to better understand the rationale for recommending Mitchell and Greer 23
improvements as opposed to opening a new dog park. 24
Mr. Anderson: The one that jumps out to me is Greer. The potential is there to make that 25 a usable dog park, and frankly it's not. No one uses it. People complain about it and treat 26 it like it's a joke. It's almost a daycare, where you drop off your dog and go do a task, 27 instead of the vibrant dog park dog owners want. I think we've got space at that park to 28
expand it in a way that it could become that. It could be really useful and helpful and 29
create community. Likewise at Mitchell, the last time we did outreach about a dog park, 30
we heard from so many dog park users saying, "Mitchell is disgusting. I can't stand that 31
place. You need to do something different. The grass is always dead." It was the most 32
negative feedback I've heard about any of our facilities. I was astonished and 33
disappointed. We thought this may be a way to help address this. There's capacity on 34
passive turf adjacent to that dog park where you can double the size of grass. Maybe it'd 35
last longer. There's shade because there are trees adjacent to it. There are some 36
amenities there, blowing that out to take advantage of park that's not being utilized and 37
perhaps make that dog park better. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: Is this prioritized over a north Palo Alto dog park based on the 1
easiest option available? 2
Mr. Anderson: I think there's an element of that, that we could make it happen, I think, 3
sooner rather than later. We'd still have to do outreach certainly to the community and 4
the users of those facilities. The number of outreach meetings we've had to do in the past 5
is onerous and causes delays. I already have a lot of complaints about those existing dog 6 parks, and I want to be responsive to those concerns as well as the demand for new ones. 7
Those are some of the reasons. You can make a fair argument that the need is 8
everywhere. Finding just the right spot can be challenging. The ad hoc and staff felt like 9
that would be two good uses for the FY '20 funds. 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: That's helpful. Where are we considering off-leash dog usage on 11
a temporary basis? 12
Mr. Anderson: I think it's still a little bit early. The ad hoc would benefit from a little 13
time and perhaps some more site visits. Ones we've talked about anecdotally would be 14
Pardee, Heritage Park. I think it would be wise and prudent to look broadly at all our 15
sites to find out what would make the most sense in terms of a pilot. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: That sounds interesting and something I'd be interested in 17
supporting. 18
Council Member Cormack: I'm not familiar with Kingsley Island Park. In fact, I've 19
never heard of it. Where is that located? 20
Mr. Anderson: It's not actually a park. It's a parcel that we thought, "Wouldn't it be great 21
if we could make it dedicated parkland?" It's not currently being used for anything. It's 22
just an open piece of grass, and it doesn't abut against anybody's backyard, which is 23
another kind of highlight area that we thought we would have less noise issue. This is on 24
Embarcadero at Kingsley. There are some trees there and a passive piece of turf. It's 25 relatively small, about 0.27 acres. 26
Commissioner McCauley: It's essentially the southern area at the intersection of Alma 27 and Embarcadero. 28
Council Member Cormack: It's the triangle. When you say pilot, does that mean our off-29
leash laws would not be enforced? Is that what a pilot means? 30
Mr. Anderson: I think we'd be seeking an exception to that for a temporary time period 31
to say the off-leash rules would not apply to this area. We'd treat it just like we would a 32
dog park for whatever the pilot length is and the duration of the times per day. It 33
wouldn't be all day but rather a certain time period. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Chair McDougall: Council Member Cormack really liked your answer because she did 1
this project where she went to every park, and she was afraid she was going to have to 2
start over again. Rather than make my own comments, which I'll obviously interject, I'd 3
like to recount what I thought I heard. I heard several people talk about the importance of 4
the dog parks relative to socializing their dogs and exercise for the dogs and, by the way, 5
not wanting to get into their car to get to that. I brought Michel's card back out. When 6 she talked about fundraising, I would like to comment on that. There is Friends of the 7
Palo Alto Parks, which is a 501(c)(3). What they're perfectly willing to do is set up 8
subsections of that. If you wanted to put money into a 501(c)(3) rather than into a club or 9
something, that could be set up that way. If you're interested in talking about that, send 10
me an email, and I'll introduce you. I liked your comment about flexible times. There 11
were at least half a dozen other letters that came to the Commission, people who weren't 12
here and submitted letters. The concept of flexible times was important. Several of those 13
written inputs said, "Just give us a couple of hours someplace, some time." The idea that 14
we have all of these parks and maybe you could make every park. To comment to 15
Council Member Cormack, when you asked if our rules won't be enforced, our rules are 16
not being enforced at any park today. Heritage Park, Tuesday night, 5:00 to 7:00 is the 17
dog park at Heritage Park every week. Probably 30 people come to that, 30 dogs. I 18
know this is not the only park where that goes on. I think that's what people are asking 19
for as much as they're asking for a 7-foot fence and sawdust and whatever. I do hear the 20
whole idea that you have responsible dogs. I heard somebody talk about the fact that you 21
have responsible dogs. I'm not sure I heard as many comments about responsible owners. 22
To reflect what Commissioner Moss was saying, the professional dog walkers at 23
Baylands do walk their dogs with leashes, 20 at a time or whatever it may be. Every 24
individual that takes their dog to the Baylands, particularly Byxbee, let's it off the leash 25 the minute they get out of the car. We're really interested in maintaining the wildlife 26 there and growing the wildlife. Having off-leash dogs chase the rabbits through the 27 bushes does not help that. I'm totally in favor of this off-leash concept, but this idea of 28
responsible owners. I like the idea that several people mentioned, that dog owners could 29
become park stewards, even basically mini volunteers, you might say. That doesn't mean 30
we want to give you green jackets and badges or stuff. It might mean we would give you 31
a card, a pilot card that says, "Here are the regulations. If you encounter somebody, it's 32
not your responsibility to be a policeman." In fact, it might even be dangerous for you to 33
be a policeman. It wouldn't necessarily be bad for you to hand somebody a card and say, 34
"By the way, are you aware that this is the circumstance?" Back to the letters we got, I 35
would say every letter we got talked more about the community value, the people they 36
meet than the letters talked about any of the other items. I do believe before this off-leash 37
thing went even to trial, we would have to make sure that we were talking to City legal 38
staff to make sure things are okay. Carmel by the Beach is totally dog friendly; there are 39
no leashes on the beach, so it must be possible. We have no jurisdiction over schools. I 40
would discourage dog owners from going into the schools. I think that would be a 41
mistake. The question about the two new—when I hear the problems with the existing 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
two that we're going to try to fix, I'm not sure if I'm hearing maintenance versus 1
expansion or expansion as an excuse for maintenance. I don't mean that to be pejorative. 2
On the other hand, we could look at it as we don't have any dog parks right now. Instead 3
of saying we have four, you might want to say we have two because two of them are not 4
usable. Fixing these two would give us four. I would encourage the ad hoc to look at 5
that. I'd like to hear back from the ad hoc very quickly about if we are going to pursue 6 the idea of an off-leash trial, how quickly could we do that. I would really not like to 7
have a pickleball episode where six years later—I know I'm exaggerating. I would like 8
us to see if we could do that trial sooner rather than later. I'd like to thank everybody, 9
especially Matt Greenberg for coming from Redwood City to talk about what they're 10
doing there. We'll probably take him up on his invitation to visit that. This has been a 11
good discussion. I'll send it back to Daren and/or Kristen if they would like to make any 12
further comments. 13
Mr. Anderson: I don't have any additional comments on dog parks but rather continue on 14
with the park restroom discussion. On the topic of park restrooms, the Parks Master Plan, 15
much like the dog parks, illustrated that residents strongly support additional restrooms in 16
parks. The community highlighted the need to include security measures such as 17
automatic locking mechanisms and lighting, which have helped address some of the 18
concerns related to adding restrooms in parks. The Parks Master Plan has a park 19
restroom policy and program, and that is that the City will actively pursue adding park 20
restrooms in parks that are approximately 2 acres or larger, have amenities to encourage 21
visitors to stay in the park, have a high level of use, and have no other nearby restrooms. 22
Fifteen of our parks and open space preserves have restrooms. By the criteria defined in 23
the Parks Master Plan, the Plan recommends adding restrooms in seven other parks. I 24
need to mention that, much like the dog parks, we would need to perform the community 25 outreach for each of those sites prior to taking an action or making any recommendation 26 to add a restroom at those sites. Similar to dog parks, there's a CIP, which provides 27 funding in this case of $350,000, for park restrooms in fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2023. 28
The ad hoc committee and staff have been working on identifying locations where we 29
should add those park restrooms, especially for the funding available in FY '20 and '21. 30
The committee recommends Ramos Park be considered the site for the FY '20 park 31
restroom project. Ramos Park, which is identified in the Parks Master Plan as one of 32
those potential sites, is scheduled for its own capital improvement project that same year, 33
FY '20, and that improvement project would replace the existing playground, benches, 34
drinking fountain, and resurface the basketball court. Community outreach for that 35
project, the Ramos improvement project, is tentatively scheduled for August 2019, and 36
construction would start in approximately February 2020. It'd be about a 3-month 37
construction project. As I noted, the ad hoc would continue to look at where the next 38
park restroom would be, do some more outreach, and look at all our sites again with fresh 39
eyes. With that, I conclude my presentation, turn to the ad hoc for any additional 40
comments they'd like to make on park restrooms. 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Chair McDougall: Before I go to the ad hoc, I'm going to give Rita and Winter 1
Dellenbach the opportunity to speak. Rita, and after Rita, Winter. 2
Ms. Vrhel: Again, Eleanor Pardee Park is a very large park. You have two children's 3
playgrounds. You have picnic tables. You have soccer teams, baseball teams, camp 4
during the summer, park play. I don't know how big Ramos Park is, but Eleanor 5
Pardee—in addition we have a community garden, which is very successful. We need a 6 bathroom. The dog owner people were talking about neighbors running their dogs in the 7
morning and objecting to a dog park for the rest of the community. I know this is true. 8
Some of the people who are objecting are actually friends of mine. It's a public park. 9
When the public park was built and designed by Helen Proctor, Penny Proctor's mother, 10
apparently a bathroom could have been put in at no charge, but the neighbors were afraid 11
of undesirables. Reported in the paper was La Doris Cordell's idea of a bathroom, and 12
apparently Mexicans and Blacks would come from East Palo Alto. We are living in a 13
time where there is racial divide fomented by our President. Palo Alto is better than that. 14
To have a park as large as Eleanor Pardee Park with as many people who visit that park, 15
you know the kids are going somewhere. Having human waste in a proper receptacle, 16
being a public health nurse, would be a good idea. I would really encourage you to do 17
public outreach for both the restroom and the dog run and certainly make it beyond the 18
people that live right next door to the park. I live right next door to a school. It's okay. 19
Things can work out. We just need all to realize that it's not all about us. Thank you. 20
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Winter. 21
Ms. Dellenbach: I thought I spoke on this because somebody said, "You should just get 22
up here and speak all the same …" 23
Chair McDougall: Did you speak on the restrooms? You spoke on the restrooms. 24
Ms. Dellenbach: Weren't you listening, Don? I thought you listened to me. 25
Chair McDougall: I'm sorry. I even have notes. 26
Ms. Dellenbach: Do I have to remind you? I spoke of sensitivity, and I thanked you for 27 your sensitivity. The other thing about Bol Park that I will say, they've put in a rain 28
garden there because of the … 29
Chair McDougall: I don't deserve this, or I do. 30
Ms. Dellenbach: We may be getting bioswales as part of the green infrastructure. You're 31
going to have to negotiate that too. I'm just saying. This is a good thing; it's not 32
insurmountable. Again, who does this? Who makes the decision about this? Do you 33
make the decision or does City Council make the decision? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Chair McDougall: We make recommendations. 1
Ms. Dellenbach: The Council makes a decision. I'll save that for them. It's a little 2
sensitive because it is the most beautiful park. 3
Chair McDougall: That part I remember. Penny Proctor. Penny, thank you for being 4
patient. 5
Penny Proctor: I'm Penny Proctor on Greer Road, and I'm a community gardener at 6 Eleanor Pardee Park. We would really love to have a bathroom there. As you know, it's 7
a big park, heavily used. There's a picnic area, and there's a couple of areas adjacent to 8
the community garden that are used as a toilet, which is not good. One of my gardeners 9
had to quit and give up her plot because she couldn't make it home in time. For a couple 10
of people with various medical problems, it's a problem. The master gardeners have 11
events that the public comes to; although, most of them are pretty short. It would be 12
really wonderful to have a bathroom there. In the past, some of the neighbors have 13
expressed concerns. Maybe it could be tried out with a port-a-potty for a couple of 14
months and see if there are problems or not. It would also be nice to have the dog park, 15
so they aren't running right around the garden. Although, that's okay. Thank you. 16
Chair McDougall: If there are no other cards, I'll invite the Commission members to 17
speak. Thank you, Penny. 18
Commissioner McCauley: My thought is that a pilot is the theme of the day. I think it's 19
exactly the right thing to do. I thank the last speaker for mentioning it. It's something the 20
committee has been talking about. Bathrooms these days have a lot higher technology 21
than they did 10 years ago. The ability for them to be secured in a way—also for them 22
generally to be resilient—for them to be secured overnight and even during the day if 23
needed. They can essentially be remotely controlled. Many of the concerns that we had 24
about restrooms, again, even 10 years ago have been addressed in large part by 25 technology. Back to the pilot idea, it would be a particularly good thing to have a fairly 26 high-end portable restroom facility. It's something we did at the golf course while the 27 golf course was under construction. We could do something similar, and Pardee Park 28
would be a great place to start with a pilot of that nature in order to see how the 29
community responds to it. I hope it would be favorable. 30
Commissioner Cribbs: I agree with Commissioner McCauley about the trial basis for 31
some portables, which tend to be very nice these days. I'm very much in support of 32
bathrooms in the park and moving as quickly as possible to get them installed in the 33
places where they need to be. I also think it's going to be important when we do the 34
community outreach to talk about the things that Daren talked about, that bathrooms are 35
different now. They can be locked at night. They have particular designs that enable 36
them to be kept clean. The old objections probably aren't as strong. I'm really glad to 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
hear the number of people in the audience tonight who are supporting bathrooms in the 1
park and supporting the use perhaps of portables. That's great. We need to do a good job 2
of educating the public about what bathrooms look like in 2019 because they're really 3
different than they were when we were all growing up. 4
Commissioner Moss: Like with the dog parks, I don't think there's any Commissioner 5
who hasn't consistently supported more bathrooms in the parks. It is precisely because of 6 what Commissioner Cribbs said about an increase in security and cleanliness. You can 7
lock the bathrooms at night and things like that. When we have an outreach meeting, it's 8
really important that neighbors talk to neighbors about the importance of these bathrooms 9
because that was probably the reason why we didn't move faster 2 years ago. It's a health 10
issue that the City is responsible for. I don't know if legal will have any issue with that. 11
As we have older gardeners and young kids who cannot make it home to the bathroom, 12
this is a health issue. When we have an outreach, we have to make it clear that there is an 13
exposure there. A pilot is not necessary. We should have a set schedule that every time 14
we redo a park, if they don't have a bathroom, we should be putting one in. If you want 15
to put port-a-potties in in the meantime for health reasons, please do, but don't call it a 16
pilot. Just put the port-a-potties in for health reasons. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: These temporary toilets that would go in as the pilot project. 18
What percentage of a real bathroom would that be? Is it 10 percent? Is it half the cost? 19
Mr. Anderson: We rent them. The only experience I've got with it was the recent one we 20
did at the golf course. It was appreciated. People seemed to like it. It was very clean. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: If it's a small fraction, I see the benefit. If it becomes 22
significant, then you're delaying effectively a real bathroom because you're renting this 23
temporary for a while. 24
Mr. Anderson: I can tell you on the ad hoc discussions we had. It was one of those 25 things to keep in the back pocket. If we're confronting a lot of opposition to it, it's a tool 26 we could say, "Let's see if your fears are realized. Let's put a restroom there without the 27 enormous cost or the permanency." You can put it out there for a limited amount of time 28
and see if these things are true. There's another argument to be … 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: This would be similar in size and style to what we're talking 30
about for Cubberley, just less sturdy? 31
Mr. Anderson: I wouldn't say it's similar to a brick-and-mortar restroom. It's a port-a 32
potty. 33
Commissioner Reckdahl: It's more like a port-a potty. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Mr. Anderson: There's a ramp going up to it. 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'd have to price it out, but I'd be inclined not to spend the 2
money on that and try to accelerate the real toilets as quickly as possible. We talked 3
about problems. When I go to the parks, they seem to be in pretty good condition, the 4
bathrooms do. Are there complaints about the bathrooms? 5
Mr. Anderson: The complaints are typically on really high-use days. If you had a park 6 like Greer, for example, and very heavy tournament play, the complaint would be either 7
the restroom didn't have supplies or wasn't clean. In fact, on those kind of weekends, we 8
have two servicings. It's not like it's waiting through the weekend. That's one. Another 9
one might be some of our restrooms—I'm thinking about the one in Mitchell Park next to 10
the tennis courts. This one is used by both the Magical Bridge Playground and the tennis 11
users. I think it's undersized for the number of people who are using it. We get 12
complaints about either it's availability or its cleanliness. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's one bathroom I've heard complaints about. People are 14
saying it's not big enough. Their kid is dancing around, waiting in line, and they wish it 15
was a bigger bathroom. Are there any plans to expand that? 16
Mr. Anderson: There aren't currently. The ad hoc's discussed the need for that. We're 17
certainly pursuing options with our own Public Works facilities to see if we can enhance 18
it because it's not working well right now. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: The list that you have on page 2, that lists the different parks, if 20
you had to rate them by the number of youth athletic games that were in there, would 21
Ramos be the highest one? What would be the … 22
Mr. Anderson: I don't think I could say definitely. I can get back to you. It's something 23
maybe I could work on with the ad hoc to categorize it. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: That is the common need for bathrooms when you have youth 25 soccer or baseball games because you're constrained. You can't go home because it's in 26 the middle of a game. I would put a lot of weight on the parks that have a lot of youth 27 sports. Ramos is a reasonably good choice because there are soccer games there. I know 28
there are baseball games. I want to make sure we're not overlooking something. 29
Chair McDougall: Council Member Cormack, do you want to comment? 30
Council Member Cormack: If you're contemplating temporary restrooms, I want to be 31
sure they're accessible. I heard Mr. Anderson mention a ramp. It's something to keep in 32
mind. It won't be necessarily the normal one, the straightforward one. We want to be 33
sure that it's accessible for everyone. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: If I understand correctly, we're looking at using CIP budget for 1
restrooms in fiscal 2020 and 2021. 2
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Are we looking at one bathroom per year? Is that what the 4
budget supports? 5
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: We've selected Ramos as the priority for 2020 at this point. 7
When we're talking about a pilot restroom, that would be targeted for the 2021 choice or 8
are we … 9
Commissioner McCauley: Potential, subject to the comment that Daren made, which is it 10
may not be necessary, but it would be an option potentially. 11
Mr. Anderson: If I could add one little caveat. Again, the CIP I don't think could be used 12
for that temporary one. We'll have to secure funding. The ad hoc had asked me to get 13
the cost for that; I don't have it yet. I'm looking into it. That would be another hurdle to 14
overcome. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: The portable toilet you're talking about, is this going to have 16
smell issues that we commonly associate with port-a-potties? 17
Mr. Anderson: These are significantly nicer than your traditional port-a-potty that you'd 18
see on a construction site. I don't think that was an issue at the golf course at all. I 19
frequented it during the construction just to check on it and make sure it was working 20
well and being cleaned. That wasn't an issue. I think it comes down to the servicing 21
schedule. That's probably the chief thing that's going to address the smell issue. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm concerned that if we're trying out something like this as a 23
pilot program and it has some impacts on the site that a permanent restroom wouldn't 24
have, are we doing ourselves a service in this trial and is it an accurate representation to 25 the community of what a restroom would be like? We want to avoid shooting ourselves 26 in the foot on that. What are the most recent restrooms that we've added at parks the last 27 couple of times around? 28
Mr. Anderson: I think it's Briones. The next one that's coming up, even before whatever 29
the Commission recommends to Council and whatever Council chooses, is the field 30
restroom at Cubberley. That one will be trail end of that project that's coming. It's a 31
standalone CIP and not part of this project. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm looking forward to that. I support the work for the restrooms. 1
We just need to get community buy-in and funding and keep moving forward. 2
Chair McDougall: In summary, I agree with the concerns about doing a trial in terms of 3
how legitimate it would be and the concern of if it's $10,000 a month or whatever it 4
might be, have we a year later used up the $150,000 that we were planning. I can't 5
remember where I've encountered this. I didn't see the one at the golf course. These 6 were amazingly comfortable in terms of the amenities and clean and easy to keep clean. 7
They did have a ramp so they were accessible. If those are rentable, I would guess that 8
they're also purchasable. Is there some possibility that we could, instead of spending 9
$150,000 to build a new one, buy those for $75,000 and populate two parks at the same 10
time or something? I would like to think about that. If the issue is they're painted white 11
and they're quite visible, there's no reason why we can't repaint them and make them 12
blend into the landscape much better. It's important that we move ahead with this 13
aggressively. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Master Plan go on and on 14
about our aging population. Once you've got this aging population doing their gardening 15
and has to get home, I can understand how somebody would give up their garden. It's 16
just more and more evidence that that kind of thing is becoming a real problem. I 17
understand that the CIP is put in place, $150,000 for a dog park, but we also know it's 18
flexible in terms of things being moved out. I would hope that it's flexible in terms of re-19
examining even the concept of a dog park every other year and a bathroom every other 20
year. If it were to have to stay that way, I'd be in favor of 3:1 or something like that for 21
the bathrooms. I say that because Council Member Cormack is right to question whether 22
people are out there breaking the dog rules by having their dogs off-leash, but we're not 23
likely to run screaming too badly about that happening. If people decide they've got to go 24
in the bushes, then we are going to scream about that. Trying to address that problem is 25 important, and we should move on it sooner rather than later. The table you sent out 26 relative to potential parks included Heritage Park and the idea that there's going to be a 27 bathroom in the museum. I have no idea what the status of that is and whether that's 28
anytime soon, that that would be the solution to a bathroom in Heritage Park. It's again in 29
an area where you have density of aging population that you need to deal with. It's a park 30
that's used by people Downtown. This is an urgent problem, and I hope we address it 31
quickly. Thank you. 32
Commissioner Cribbs: These portable restrooms that we're speaking about are not the 33
construction restrooms, but they're the ones that you would see at any special event at 34
Pebble Beach and have the accessible ramps, hand washing stations that are lovely. 35
Some even have flowers planted outside. I would assure you that these will not be 36
eyesores. They will not be smelly, and they will be serviced on a regular basis. It's a 37
great opportunity to give it a shot for a couple of months and see how the neighborhood 38
reacts to it. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Commissioner McCauley: The point about not wasting money on a pilot program is very 1
well taken and totally appreciate that. Daren is probably the best equipped to speak from 2
experience about instances where there was some negative pushback against bathrooms. 3
The idea of a pilot would be to, as Daren was saying, essentially see whether those fears 4
materialize or not. I hope they wouldn't be, but it would be a study. It's a great thing to 5
have in the back pocket. 6
Chair McDougall: If we have no other comments on that, I would suggest we move onto 7
the next topic, which is access to Foothills Park. 8
3. Access to Foothills Park 9
Chair McDougall: Unlike most of our topics where we have staff make a presentation, 10
we have the luxury of having the ad hoc speak to this. I invite Ryan to introduce the 11
topic. 12
Commissioner McCauley: The purpose for tonight's discussion is to hear from the public 13
and the Commission about the access policy for Foothills Park and for the Foothills ad 14
hoc committee to then digest that and come back to the full Commission with a more 15
complete proposal. This dialog within the Parks and Recreation Commission has been 16
going on for a couple of years. I know that there's been recently more press attention to 17
the issue of Foothills Park access, but this is something—it's important for the public to 18
know—that's been discussed within the Commission several times in our annual retreats 19
in the last couple of years. Obviously, it's been a topic which has been raised publicly 20
over the decades. I'm going to turn it over to Daren to provide us some of the historical 21
context, and then Daren will pass the baton back. Don maybe will have a couple of other 22
prefatory comments and then welcome public comment, I think. 23
Mr. Anderson: Good evening, again. Daren Anderson, Community Services 24
Department. Just a brief history of Foothills Park. In 1941, Dr. Russell Lee, one of the 25 founders of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, and his wife, Dorothy Lee, bought the land that 26 is currently Foothills Park. In 1958, the Lees offered that land to the City at the special 27 price of $1,000 per acres so it would be preserved as open space rather than subdivided. 28
In May of 1959, an election was held on the proposed purchase. 6,542 people voted to 29
buy the park, and 3,997 voted against it. With that 62 percent of the voters supporting the 30
purchase of the land, the City bought the property for $1.3 million. The park was 31
dedicated on June 19, 1965 as a place of beauty, simplicity, and serenity that would be 32
conserved to protect its natural features and scenic values. The public vote regarding the 33
purchase of the land did not include whether or not the park should be limited to residents 34
only. That was a Council decision that appears to be based on two factors. The first is 35
that Palo Alto fully funded the purchase of the land. Palo Alto approached other cities, 36
both Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, about sharing the expenses of the property, and both 37
cities declined. The second is some information I recently found in an article from 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
December 10, 1980 in the Stanford Daily that discusses the purchase and the price. The 1
article states some residents believe the City had no business creating a regional park, and 2
a group called the Citizens for Good Government formed to oppose the plan of buying it. 3
They filed a taxpayer's lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging that Palo 4
Alto City Council had violated the City Charter by approving the land purchase without 5
waiting the 30 days for public examination of the expenditure. The lawsuit was rejected 6 by the California Supreme Court after a referendum of the park purchase was approved 7
by Palo Alto voters. In what former Palo Alto City Manager Jerome Keithley termed an 8
attempt to salvage the project and to appease the regional park concerns of the Citizens of 9
Good Government, City Council announced in 1959 that the park would only be open to 10
Palo Alto residents and their guests. It wasn't until 1969 that the City added that 11
residency requirement to the Municipal Code, which limited admission to the park to 12
residents and their accompanied guests. Over the years, there's been interest in opening 13
the park to nonresidents. In 1973, the City Council unanimously reaffirmed the 14
residents-only policy, pointing out that the park's acquisition was paid for with City 15
general funds, and no federal funds were used. The residency requirement was brought 16
up again in 1991 and 2005, and both times Council again reaffirmed the residency 17
requirement. In 2005, in exchange for a $2 million grant for funding the purchase of 13 18
acres adjacent to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, City Council voted to allow 19
nonresidents to enter Foothills Park via the Bay to Ridge Trail. Hikers may enter 20
Foothills Park via the Pearson Arastradero-Preserve and from the Los Trancos Preserve. 21
Though your memo also included some information on visitation, I've got some 22
additional visitation information that might be helpful. It is estimated that 153,670 23
people visited Foothills Parks in 2018. This is an increase of 1.8 percent from the 2017 24
numbers. This is down from the 15-year high of 202,538 people, which was experienced 25 in 2011. With the exception of the two higher than average years in 2011 and 2012, 26 visitation levels have basically remained very constant and consistent around that 27 150,000-per-year level. The number of vehicles entering Foothills Park in 2018 was 28
72,949, 2.3 percent higher than the previous year. Monthly visitation during the summer 29
of 2018 was a little higher than the median for the prior years. You can see a drop in 30
visitation in November, which is a month when we usually see a little spike around the 31
Thanksgiving holiday. This was due to the smoke from the fires of 2018. The number of 32
nonresident vehicles being turned away fell from the previous year by 7.5 percent. It was 33
3,482 nonresident turn-aways. The median annual number of nonresident turn-aways per 34
year for the last 5 years has been about 2,800. We've got two very low years in 2006 and 35
2007. I don't have good data for why those were so low. There were 311 dog turn-aways 36
for 2018. As you know, dogs are not allowed in Foothills Park on weekends and 37
holidays. That concludes my presentation. 38
Commissioner McCauley: Just a few other brief comments and then, Don, if you think 39
it's appropriate, we'll go with public comment and then we can perhaps come back. The 40
ad hoc committee has considered a number of different options. I want to stress that 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
they're not exclusive options. Some combination of one of these options might be a path 1
forward. They're laid out in the memo from the committee to the Commission. I'll talk 2
about them a little bit after we hear public comment. Before we hear public comment, I 3
just wanted to recognize and appreciate that there is history with Foothills Park and this 4
particular policy. It's been a thorny issue in the past. I've had many conversations with 5
members of the community. I've found that there are a number of items of consensus, 6 which I think will help guide us to what I view as a better policy. Foothills Park is a very 7
special place. Anyone who might speak to that issue would definitely hold that in 8
common with all of us. Personally, it's where I proposed to my wife, where she accepted 9
my marriage proposal, so it is near and dear to my heart. Part and parcel, the discussion 10
in some part is what motivated the implementation of the current policy in the first 11
instance. It's not to diminish that conversation at all. There are probably a number of 12
different reasons for the implementation of the policy. My own view is the current policy 13
uses a fairly rough tool to accomplish a goal, and we might have other tools available to 14
us today that would allow us to do the same thing, which is to ensure that we have the 15
right balance between number of people using the park and preservation of the park. We 16
have a number of good tools available to us. We've tried to lay some of those out in the 17
memo, but there may be others as well. The third point of consensus I found is that 18
practice and the Municipal Code are not aligned. As we've talked about with the Council 19
itself a couple of months ago, there is a problem in that we have made it a misdemeanor, 20
made it a crime, for someone who's not a Palo Alto resident to step foot or at least drive 21
into the park. They can walk on the Bay to Foothills Trail, as we know. The next point 22
of consensus that I've found is that the park can reasonably support more visitors without 23
degrading its resources. This is probably particularly true on weekdays. If anyone has 24
questions about weekday and weekend visitation, Daren has this incredible trove of data. 25 I hope that will be helpful to the entire Commission as you think about different options 26 here. Don't hesitate to turn to them for information where you need it. The next point is 27 we have an opportunity to build a better policy that's more inclusive and uses some 28
technological means in order to advance the community objective. This is what I was 29
talking about before. With that, unless there are any initial questions from Commission 30
members, it might make sense to take community comment. 31
Chair McDougall: Before we go to comment, the menu of options that you have here 32
includes updating the current Code so that it's not illegal to be there during the week, 33
number one. Number two, focus on student programs relative to various school 34
constituencies as a basis of opening the park more. The third is a reservation system 35
that—the word here is dynamic reservation—can be implemented. Number four is a 36
combination of the above and maybe others that we haven't heard about. It's worth 37
understanding that there are those options. I would invite speakers. I would start with 38
Robert Roth with Barbara Millen next. I am so happy to see that Winter's going to 39
submit a card because I was going to invite her to speak anyway. Thank you. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Robert Roth: My name is Robert Roth. My wife and I are charter members of the 1
Friends of Foothills Park. For the last 25 years, we have been digging invasive weeds to 2
make the park a more beautiful place. When it comes to widespread access to the park, 3
you can color me smallish, not that I feel superior to the people who live in Los Altos 4
Hills or Los Altos or Menlo Park. It's just that I live in a town where the government 5
purchased the park, and they developed the park, and they provided a staff to create a 6 beautiful place. The park has limited parking facilities. Would you want to cut down the 7
trees and spread gravel in the meadows so that we could accommodate more cars in the 8
park? It follows that if the park is overused, the magical experience of coming upon a 9
flock of quail or 30 or 40 young turkeys or seeing a coyote or any of the experiences of 10
the birds and the beasts and the flowers in the park could be lost. There's also a need for 11
a bit of quiet. People in the community need a place for, say, a mental health day, where 12
they can walk for 15 minutes and enjoy a very, very quiet place. I encourage you to 13
continue to limit access to the park. Thank you very much. 14
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Barbara will be followed by Kristine Zavoli. 15
Barbara Millen: I'm Barbara Millen. I'm glad to have this opportunity to thank Mr. and 16
Mrs. Roth for all their work that they've done. I go to the park quite a bit, and I see these 17
two. They're in there when it's 90 degrees, and they're pulling out the weeds. I admire 18
them so much I feel very guilty because I just go there to hike. I do other things to help 19
the community, but they're special. I hate to go against him, his ideas, but I'm not really 20
against his ideas. Also, I hope my husband's not listening because he won't let me in the 21
house tonight. I'm just going to read this. Foothills Park is an open space preserve. 22
According to the City's website, it's mission is to protect and interpret the resources and 23
wildlife entrusted Palo Alto for enjoyment and the future generations. Being a public 24
open space means it needs to be open to the public. Palo Alto is a city, not a gated 25 community or a country club. Keeping people out because they don't have the right ZIP 26 Code goes against the principles of many if not most of the City residents. There are real 27 concerns that the park would be overused. One way to deter usage is to take out the 28
picnic tables and the grills and the group picnic area. That does not seem to me to be part 29
of the mission of the open space. The last time I had a little picnic there with a couple of 30
friends about a month ago, there was a party of about 50 people or more from a company, 31
not in the group area but in the main picnic area. I don't really see that as valid usage for 32
the park. There are many parks and open space preserves with wonderful hiking trails 33
near local cities. In general, people go where it is convenient. If the usage of the park 34
matched the mission of the open space preserve, the park would be less desirable, and 35
overuse would be less of an issue. Upkeep costs of paths and facilities may increase. Is 36
it possible and/or desirable for the park to become part of POST, Peninsula Open Space 37
Trust? Would that lessen the financial burden on the City? Would it be useful in some 38
way? Daily usage could increase beyond capacity, especially on weekends. Other cities 39
have found ways to control crowds, and you've mentioned some ideas. As much as I 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
enjoy the solitude and grumble with the crowds when they're there, exclusivity of this 1
wonderful resource is undemocratic and unjust. 2
Chair McDougall: Barbara, thank you, and thank you for the comment about the Roths 3
and all of their work. It should have been on us to thank them very much for them and all 4
of the other Friends for the work they've done. Barbara, I'm sure we can find you a place 5
to stay tonight. Kristine followed by Ralph Levine. 6
Kristine Zavoli: Good evening. My name's Kristine Zavoli, and I have lived in Palo Alto 7
for 47 years in the same house, having been raised in the military where I went to 17 8
schools. I've been very happy to live here. My husband I both love hiking very much, 9
and we love Foothill Park, and we love hiking there. I understand the history that we've 10
been reminded of. A gentlemen who was alive at that time told me what happened. He 11
said the City asked Los Altos and Los Altos Hills to help pay. They said no. The 12
response was this will be for Palo Alto residents only. That seems like tit for tat, when 13
you consider we have 1,400 acres in Palo Alto. I think back to 1959, when Palo Alto was 14
much more diverse economically. It certainly was more diverse economically when we 15
moved here in 1972. It is no longer economically diverse. To me, this policy is one that 16
makes me embarrassed to be a resident of Palo Alto. I agree with the prior speaker as far 17
as equity issues. We go there often. I know people can come in during the week, so 18
that's already been settled. I've been stymied for so long by this exclusive policy. In Palo 19
Alto, it's one I cannot defend. I thought the first speaker was very eloquent when he said 20
what other City park won't let nonresidents in. We say that they're welcome during the 21
week, but that isn't what the sign says. It says Palo Alto only. I am aware of the guards, 22
and I understand that we don't want it overrun. The stats suggest it won't be overrun. 23
There are ways to control that, and it looks like the Commission is working on that. Set a 24
limit to the number of cars, maybe charge a fee to nonresidents. If you've been around 25 long enough, you might remember the humorous columnist Herb Caen with the San 26 Francisco Chronicle, who wrote in one of his columns one day I finally figured out why 27 Foothills Park is Palo Alto residents only. They don't want the riff raff from Los Altos 28
Hills to get in. It seems like that really was the policy, but what about the—what I hear 29
about are the people—most of us do have a garden. We have many parks, but we do 30
have nearby residents who do not have that. We have this beautiful space, and even with 31
the proposal to let children come, why wouldn't we want adults to come also? They 32
probably need the mental quiet more than we do. Most of us can afford to go somewhere 33
where there's a lot of peace and quiet. A lot of the people near our community cannot do 34
that. As a resident, I'd especially like to share our parks with those who live nearby, who 35
don't have everything we have. I fully accept increasing access to Foothills Park. 36
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Christine. Ralph Levine followed by Herb Borock. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
Ralph Levine: Foothills Park is one of the great perks of living in Palo Alto. I love to go 1
up there, the serenity, the safety. I notice there's no one checking IDs on weekdays. I 2
hope that doesn't get too publicized, that it's open to the world. Palo Alto has 37 parks. 3
We shouldn't have to feel embarrassed that we're discriminating, that only 36 of them are 4
open to everyone. All the parks are open to everyone's dogs. Los Alto and Los Altos 5
Hills were invited to join with Palo Alto and not other places, not out of any bigotry but 6 because those two cities are even closer to Foothills Park than Palo Alto is. Palo Alto 7
[sic] is in a remote area. It's different from all our other parks. There are safety issues. 8
There are fire issues even though there's a fire station up there. It's a big expense for the 9
City. I love to go up there with guests and go as high as we can and have a picnic or 10
watch a sunset and not worry about my car, not worry about my safety. It's a fabulous 11
resource. I hope it continues to be one. We have a lot of free concerts; there's four this 12
summer. I don't think we have to feel like other places are doing things that we're not 13
doing. Stanford doesn't, even with the misconception of so many people that Stanford 14
isn't Palo Alto. Let Palo Alto residents have the same access as Stanford people. To use 15
any of the Stanford facilities, a Stanford person has to go to one of two places on campus 16
and pay $10 for a daily pass, and then a guest can come into the building. Lots of places 17
have restrictions on entry. I hope that the restrictions on entry to Foothills Park remain as 18
they are. Thank you. 19
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Herb Borock followed by Rita. 20
Mr. Borock: When I visited a relative in Great Neck on Long Island in New York, there 21
was a sign that said the park was for residents only, so it's not just here. The various 22
proposals that have been suggested all violate the Municipal Code. Therefore, if any of 23
them are implemented, even if it's called a trial or if it's just for students or it's for the 24
environment, it requires an ordinance to amend the Municipal Code that is subject to 25 referendum. One of these suggestions about students may already have been 26 implemented or ready to be implemented because there was a Request for Proposal 27 issued for a contractor to provide three buses to leave in the mornings during the summer 28
to take students to the park to spend the day there. There's no indication that was limited 29
to Palo Alto residents. Perhaps staff knows about that Request for Proposal or what kinds 30
of programs there have been this summer. The current rules are that one car can bring in 31
two more cars for a total of 15 people. You can get more than 15 people on one bus. 32
Former Mayor Levy mentioned a number of the parks he's gone to. I've gone to some of 33
them as well, ones in the Open Space District such as Rancho San Antonio, Montebello, 34
Los Trancos, Earthquake Trail Preserve, also parks in San Mateo County, Huddart and 35
Wunderlich and Edgewood. The one thing I note is that Foothills Park is not the same 36
Foothills Park it was in 1965. Since then, the Open Space District has been founded with 37
63,000 acres in three counties. Not too far away from Foothills Park is the exact same 38
habitat in the Open Space District. What is so special—who is it that feels they're being 39
discriminated against that really wants to go into Foothills Park? I suspect it's the faculty 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
and staff housing at Stanford. They could have had a direct trail up to Foothills Park if 1
Stanford, during the previous Use Permit, was willing to put a required trail straight 2
through the Dish to connect with the Arastradero Preserve, and they refused to do that. In 3
past years—it may have changed by now—looking at census data, the median income in 4
the Stanford faculty housing was higher than the median income in any Palo Alto census 5
tract. It occurred to me that the people who live there think it's unfair that they can't go 6 into Foothills Park, but there is clearly the exact same habitat and the exact same 7
opportunities to go to places nearby. It's astonishing why this keeps coming back. In the 8
past it came back from Council Members with direct connections to Stanford, which was 9
what my suspicion was about. Over time, the number of Rangers has been reduced over 10
the decades at Foothills Park, which accounts for the fact of not checking on entry during 11
the weekdays and also accounts for the neglect of maintenance in the park. Right now, it 12
is a safe place, but it could be better maintained. Opening it up, I think, would be a 13
mistake. If it's necessary to address the issue, the only way it could be addressed is with 14
a change to an ordinance. Thank you. 15
Ms. Vrhel: I wanted to apologize. I think I put Judge La Doris Cordell's quotes for the 16
bathrooms rather than Foothills Park. Now, I'm going to disagree with her. Foothills 17
Park to me is a very special place. It's a fragile environment, and too many people going 18
up there could have irreparable harm. I didn't realize we had 37 parks in Palo Alto, but 19
36 of them, I'm sure, are open to the public. I know the Eleanor Pardee Park and the 20
Rinconada Park have many, many visitors from other cities than Palo Alto and are 21
heavily used. It's okay to have someplace special for people. Palo Altans paid for the 22
park and are continuing to pay for the park. I think it's okay if they take their friends to 23
the park. To open it to anyone and everyone every day, all the time would be a mistake. 24
It again is a very fragile environment. We all know that people can cause damage to 25 fragile environments. I'm against opening it up to everyone. I'm glad that Herb has 26 reminded us all that if you are going to recommend that, there would have to be a 27 referendum. Maybe that is the fairest way to settle the issue. If the residents of Palo Alto 28
voted to open the park up, then I would go with that. This issue continuing to come up 29
and getting various levels of support and then being discussed, I'm not sure why it has to 30
keep continuing. If Stanford wants to open their beautiful museums to the people of Palo 31
Alto, that's very gracious of them, but I don't think life has to be a quid pro quo. Thank 32
you. 33
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Jerry Underdal followed by Mike Lee. Several of these 34
cards that I'm now getting were submitted after the discussion started, and so I am going 35
to start keeping track of 3 minutes. 36
Jerry Underdal: Good evening. My name's Jerry Underdal. I'd like to say how happy I 37
am that it looks like you're going to address this finally and remove something that I feel 38
is an embarrassment for the City. When I became aware of this regulation—I've been 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
living here for over 40 years, and I use Foothill Park and Hidden Villa and a number of 1
things. The context for me was Palo Alto has something special that no matter what 2
somebody else wants to do, if they're not a resident of Palo Alto, you don't get to. 3
Membership is there. It's not economic. At the time I first came here, it wasn't exclusive 4
economically because there were a lot of pockets of people here in Palo Alto who would 5
not qualify as being or be considered in an economically advantaged position. That's not 6 the case now by and large; there are exceptions. I want to second what Lee Levy said. 7
It's time to make this change. It is an embarrassment. I remember in 1991 when Ron 8
Anderson first brought this up, it doesn't smell good. It doesn't look good. My sense is 9
that awareness of the details of 50 years ago of "you didn't kick in your money back then 10
and so we keep this absolute privilege." How many people, who are currently residents 11
in this town now and were here 50 years ago, have any idea of that particular back-and-12
forth between those communities? It's there, but it's trivial in the overall picture. You 13
look at how Palo Alto is seen and represented now. It does not look good. It's time to 14
drop it. You guys go and explore the most effective way to do it that doesn't harm the 15
environment, that doesn't harm the park, that works, all of those things. A rule, even if 16
not enforced, is still there. During the week, is it policy that they can't get in or just that 17
we don't enforce it? That's a real question I don't know. 18
Commissioner McCauley: The latter. 19
Mr. Underdal: You don't enforce it. That's terrible. The rule is there, but what's the big 20
deal? You can get around it; just come during the week. It doesn't work. It's time to 21
drop it and do it well so the park is maintained. Improve those bathrooms. There's a lot 22
of maintenance that needs to be done out there. It's not the shiniest place in the area for 23
going as a park experience. 24
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Mike. Karen Holman. Did I miss Mike Lee? I'm sorry. 25 Mike Lee followed by Karen Holman. 26
Mike Lee: My name is Mike Lee. I've been living in Palo Alto for 20 years. My wife 27 and I in the past 10 years go to Foothills for hiking. The reason we go there is—we 28
actually explore the many hiking area in the neighborhood, Cupertino, Saratoga, things 29
like that. We end up here realizing that it's only for Palo Alto. You have to drive over 30
there. One of the major reason we like it is the beauty of the nature. We try all these 31
place and feel that that's probably the best thing we found. We utilize that every week. 32
Also, you feel safe. The structure is (inaudible) in design and will accommodate a lot of 33
people. We also realize that you can get a friend to visit. I don't know how many people 34
go there. Every weekend I go there, they have to check your ID, whether you're a 35
resident or not. After that, I feel safe because we're living—recently it's even more 36
concern because that's the only place you're checked, a list of who you are. You feel safe 37
there. The friends come here and give the feedback and wish their city can have 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
something like that so they can feel safe. With the limited control, it never feels 1
crowded. Now, I learned the history and learned (inaudible) many years ago. This is 2
good heritage to leave to the current generation. It's perfectly okay. We maintain it that 3
way because they paid it. You don't have the open water park. I urge do not change that 4
because whenever you change it to open, there'll be more people. It will be an impact. In 5
the past 5 years, we're also realizing, seeing a pattern, it's not as good as before. I urge 6 you maintain it as is. I urge the City and Council spend the energy on other (crosstalk). 7
Thank you. 8
Chair McDougall: Karen Holman followed by Winter Dellenbach. 9
Karen Holman: Good evening and thank you. Foothills Park compared to Rancho San 10
Antonio, they're very adjacent to each other. Rancho San Antonio on an annual basis has 11
700,000 visitors. The Open Space District visitorship is growing every year, especially 12
as we increase our population. Be careful what you ask for. I refer to Herb Borock's 13
comments about ordinances and that sort of thing. East Palo Alto and the school groups 14
there, I absolutely agree with access, education, and experience. I wonder if you'd 15
consider a volunteerism program, and maybe you can earn a pass with a volunteerism 16
program. I charge the Commission to create and foster a new generation of Friends of 17
Foothills Park as the Roths have been. It's a definite need that has to happen. If there are 18
going to be tours and shuttles to the park, there needs to be a rule that dictates what the—19
I hate the word dictate. There needs to be a restriction on the size of buses. I've been out 20
there and seen very large tourist buses out there. They're jarring visually in that setting, 21
and also they can't make the turn from the vista point to the meadow even though they try 22
to. It's very dangerous. There needs to be a size restriction. To me, it's also a matter of 23
prioritization. There are costs associated with anything you do that is different, trails 24
management, staffing costs especially during the week, waste management, restrooms. 25 No one is being denied access to parks in Palo Alto. No one is saying, "We can't get into 26 a park." What I think the priority should be is creating dog parks where there is demand, 27 creating restrooms in parks where there is demand, creating new community gardens 28
where there's demand. There's actual demand because there's lack of those kinds of 29
things. That's where I think the priority should lie. I want and have wanted for quite 30
some time, probably 3 years—several people in the community have wanted this 31
Commission to look at the dedication of several areas in town. There's a list that exists. I 32
think staff has it. I think you all have it, at least most of you have it. A list of places that 33
are used as parkland in Palo Alto but are not dedicated as parkland. They are vulnerable 34
to other functions, other uses, being developed. I hope you will prioritize that. That's 35
charge number two. Thank you very much. If you don't know how Foothills Park 36
actually came to be, it's just a quick, short story. Russell Lee was going to sell the lands 37
that are now Foothill Park to development. Some of you know this, I can see. Dorothy 38
Lee, his wife, said, "No. This is going to be open space. I own half of that land." He 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
said, "Which half?" She goes, "Every other acre." That set the tone for it not being 1
developed. Thank you. 2
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Winter Dellenbach followed by Peter Biffer. 3
Ms. Dellenbach: I want to associate myself with Karen's comments and Herb's 4
comments. Nobody's mentioned what actually distinguishes this park from others in that 5
there's a 1,000-person cap. We've mentioned the 1,000-person cap but not with enough 6 importance. Whatever is being thought about being done, there's a 1,000-person cap. 7
We're talking about excluding Palo Altans ultimately. I usually go into forums at City 8
Council where we're talking about development, much more development, much more 9
population coming to Palo Alto. There's going to be more need for places such as 10
Foothill Park and all of our other parks by Palo Altans, much more use. Also, the 11
population is expanding everywhere. We have a 1,000-person cap. That's important to 12
keep in mind. It's also important to keep in place because this is what it is. It's unique in 13
Palo Alto, Foothills Park. I'm in favor of keeping it as it is, no changes, as it is. The first 14
time that a Palo Altan is kept out of Foothill Park because we've reached the 1,000-15
person cap, that's too bad. That's a shame. That is wrong. It's not a matter of racism. 16
That is not what this is about. There has been race-baiting about this issue currently, 17
which is terrible on the internet. It's stupid. I've lived up in those hills for 23 years of my 18
life. I know it like the back of my hand. I know Foothill Park like the back of my hand. 19
There is one place in Palo Alto that we can go that is really quiet. That's not hyperbole. I 20
don't feel guilty about that. I don't feel bad about that. I spent my entire professional life 21
as a civil rights attorney. I dealt with issues of discrimination all the time. I do not feel 22
bad about this. To have one place that is peaceful in a place that is going to get more and 23
more crammed with people, more and more frenetic, and more and more stressed out, this 24
is a jewel we should be stewards of and that we should preserve. We should share 25 everything else. This we should just keep as it is. We have 45 percent—we worked 26 really hard to set aside a good piece of Palo Alto. About 45 percent is protected Baylands 27 open space and all of the parks that we have. We didn't just do it. We took really big 28
risks. We went to the U.S. Supreme Court twice when we downzoned our Foothills, 29
twice before they said it's constitutional, so that we don't have a lot of houses in our 30
Foothills and preserved most of that habitat. We decided to get rid of our boat harbor at 31
the Baylands and preserve most of our Baylands. We have taken risks, we have 32
committed money, we have worked at preserving it. It wasn't easy. We did this with 33
great intention over 70 years. I'm hoping and depending that you are not going to think 34
let's just do this because it's going to feel good. We have some sort of abstract ideal. It's 35
a wrongly thought out and easy, feel good thought. Thank you. 36
Chair McDougall: Peter. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Peter Biffer: My name is Peter Biffer. I'm actually from Los Altos Hills. I appreciate 1
very much that you do have the discussion. I understand that Palo Alto was upset 50 or 2
60 years ago because Los Altos Hills made the mistake not to participate. In today's 3
time, it's a potential negative PR timebomb you potentially may be sitting on. I also 4
appreciate very much the way you look at the data. There may be one level of data one 5
can look at. It's also how many people actually go hiking, how many people do just the 6 barbecue. I like the approach to say there are certain peak times there need to be limits. 7
First dibs go to the residents before it goes to other people, which may be the reservation 8
system you're talking about. I don't think it necessarily needs to be the time of week, 9
basically on the weekends only residents. There could be a layer of hours because very 10
often early in the morning there are very few people. They come out for barbecue later in 11
the day. The months are very different. I know all this because I hike through 12
Arastradero into the park many times, and very many times there's not a single person 13
there, especially more in the winter months. There's one other point, which I was 14
surprised. Palo Alto divided it by residents, but there are a lot of people who contribute 15
to Palo Alto. For example, as Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto School District, we do pay 16
money for the schools, which is beneficial to Palo Alto, maybe not of this group but 17
certainly for the Palo Alto School District. I'm also a part owner of a business which is 18
run and operated out of Palo Alto, so that brings commercial value to Palo Alto. Even 19
with all these restrictions, I feel I'm a resident of Los Altos Hills, which is correct, but I 20
contribute at least as much as someone who rents an apartment in Palo Alto and lives 21
here. I think it's a great idea to look at it. There are good solutions you can find to give 22
the peak times preference to Palo Alto citizens, and at the same time, as I said, to 23
potentially solve some longer-term PR issues. Thank you. 24
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Finally, Linda LaCount. 25
Linda LaCount: I've lived here for 30 years. I think no one is denied access to this 26 sensitive part, and I say that because I want it to stay the way it is. I say that because I'm 27 part of the San Jose dowsers. I've just arranged for us to have our every-other-year picnic 28
up at Foothills Park. Out of the people that we wanted to invite, only three people were 29
Palo Alto residents. That means that we could get 45 people into the park just because 30
there are three of us from Palo Alto. I have people coming from Sacramento, the Sierra 31
Nevada dowsers organization, and I have people from Marin, and I have people from 32
Monterey. People are coming from all over because this is a day they get to get in. 33
There's plenty of access, but how you get access is because people in Palo Alto want to 34
invite or make arrangements so people can come in. You have to turn in a list of all these 35
people you've invited, who are going to come, one week before your event. I'm just 36
going on and on. This is different from the way anybody else has talked. It's very 37
personal how it's been for me. I have found the Rangers and the people who can fax the 38
Rangers for me can fax all the people's names that I want to bring in. I keep finding them 39
willing to update my list of who they're going to let in the park. I think Palo Alto is 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
extremely friendly. We're very generous about letting people in during the week. That's 1
just the way it is. All people have to do is know Palo Alto residents who can get them in 2
the park. It's very simple. Thank you. 3
Chair McDougall: Thank you. With that, I think we've covered all of the community 4
speakers on that subject. I'll turn it back to Ryan. 5
Commissioner McCauley: Let me highlight a few statistics. Daren can go into much 6 more detail on these sorts of numbers if needed. When the park was founded, based on 7
the historic records we have, the visitation was much higher, two times as high as it is 8
today or it may have been more than two times. In 1969, the visitation was about 9
292,000 people. A few years later in the early 1970s, it was 372,000 visitors per year. 10
Our current visitation level is much lower than it was previously. I thought that was 11
worth note. Based on staff's observation in more recent years, in the 2011 year, staff 12
definitely observed a little bit of an uptick when we had approximately 50,000 more 13
people in the park than we do on an average year, but they didn't note any negative 14
effects on the park other than it was a bit busier. A couple of the speakers mentioned that 15
the City Code also has the cap of 1,000 persons in the park at any time. Again, the 16
feedback from the Ranger staff is that that cap was only reached once in the last 20 years 17
during a special event, which I believe was a concert in the park. We have not come 18
close to reaching the 1,000-person cap in the park at any time in the recent history. The 19
two busiest days—this is noted in the memo—are Father's Day and Mother's Day, which 20
is great. I love that fact. As we start thinking about the different potential options for a 21
pilot, I wanted to note with what we're calling this dynamic advanced pass option, this 22
provides a perfect example. On a weekend day in October, when it's relatively low 23
visitation, you might have 50 passes available, but on Mother's Day you might not have 24
any. That's the beauty of that particular option; you can dial it in based on this trove of 25 data that Daren and his team have. A couple of last comments, then I will shut up. I look 26 forward to comments from everyone else. A couple of people spoke about safety issues. 27 It is entirely fair to think about the balance between the preservation of the park's 28
resources and affording an opportunity for members of the public to enjoy the park. I get 29
very concerned when folks start to say that they're worried about people from outside of 30
Palo Alto creating a safety risk of some sort. We have to be pretty clear in saying there 31
are a lot of good reasons for why the current policy might be in place, but saying that 32
people from outside of Palo Alto will either pollute more in the park, leave more trash in 33
the park, or that they somehow create a safety risk should be an argument that's off limits. 34
Last, all of the commenters uniformly, both those who spoke in favor and against, noted 35
that they want to try to maintain the character of the place. All of the pilot options 36
actually are directed to exactly that. We're not opening the gates and having hundreds of 37
thousands of people. We're talking about probably a few dozen extra visitors on any 38
given day. With that, I will turn it over to others. Let me also say if the Commission 39
would like to weigh in, it would be helpful to know your preference for any of these 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
potential options and other options that you might have in mind. With respect to the 1
student-focused proposal, I think it's the view of the ad hoc committee members that 2
students are a group we definitely want to reach. If there are other communities that you 3
have in mind and would be appropriate to target in a way with this sort of policy, that 4
would be good to know as well. Last, if we were to advance a proposal for the dynamic 5
pass program, would we want to charge a fee? My personal view is we probably would. 6 We could generate some income, and there would be benefits to generating that type of 7
income. It's something I'd be interested to hear feedback on. That way the committee 8
would have a little bit more direction on that point as well. 9
Chair McDougall: Jeff LaMere was the other ad hoc member. Would the rest of the ad 10
hoc committee like to comment? 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, please. A lot has gone into this. As a member of the ad 12
hoc, I've spent a number of hours researching and discussing ideas and assessing ideas to 13
increase Foothills Park access. It's a very complex, multifaceted issue. It's a conundrum. 14
No surprise many residents support increased access, and no surprise many residents 15
prefer to keep things as it is. It's a hot-button issue within the community. I'd like to 16
share some of my thoughts on various aspects and nuances of the process and potential 17
pilot plan that I've gone back and forth on, frankly. Just to re-summarize the goals. The 18
first thing we're trying to do is clarify what problem it is we're trying to solve. We want 19
to identify a straightforward, palatable, ideally noncontroversial pilot plan, and then we 20
want to minimize financial impact including staff time. We want to minimize 21
environmental impact, and we want to maintain a quality visitor experience. All of this is 22
a step towards potentially developing a compelling plan to recommend to City Council 23
for consideration. Let's start with the problem analysis. This is important. First, we need 24
to decide and articulate what is the problem we're trying to solve. This is ultimately 25 going to drive a policy change recommendation. Is this a social justice issue? Is this 26 increased access to natural environments for underserved communities that we're trying 27 to address? Are we looking for equitable access to Palo Alto resources for Palo Alto 28
school children? Is this a common sense, good neighbor to surrounding communities 29
concern? Can multiple problems be addressed without confusing the focus and diluting 30
the solution? As far as a pilot program consideration, we want to identify a plan to 31
address the prioritized problem. This is ultimately going to become an implementation 32
recommendation of a proposed policy change. We want to keep things as simple as 33
possible. We want it to be easy for the public to understand. We want it to be easy for 34
staff to implement and manage, including entrance gate staff. We want it to be easy to 35
monitor and assess impacts of. We need to look at the risk and impacts and assess them. 36
We're striving for a net zero cost impact, likely required for near-term acceptance. We 37
want to consider requirements to maintain and protect natural environment and park 38
improvements. Let me go through the pilot program options in a little more detail, the 39
pros and cons as I see them. Here's where it gets complicated for me. The first proposal 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
to formally permit nonresidents on non-holiday weekdays. This formalizes the de facto 1
current practice. That's a good thing. It removes a typically unenforced misdemeanor. 2
That's a good thing. It potentially compromises future compensation from neighboring 3
cities by formally opening it up to the neighboring communities. That's a potential issue. 4
It potentially removes a useful Code enforcement mechanism that's not used frequently. I 5
see this like the alcohol codes in parks regarding consuming alcohol. Go out to a concert 6 in the park, and you're likely to find a lot of people consuming alcohol. It's against the 7
Code of the City. It's not enforced, but the Code exists there to enforce at the discretion 8
as needed. That's something to consider. Also, we need to recognize if we do formally 9
permit nonresidents on non-holiday weekends, we are going to gradually increase 10
weekday visitation rates as word gets around. It's something that's going to ramp up. 11
The second proposal is to allow access to PAUSD and Ravenswood students. The pro is 12
providing access to students and families from local underserved communities and the 13
Palo Alto School District. It's generally consistent with Community Services Department 14
policy to treat Palo Alto students the same as Palo Alto residents. Consistent with that, 15
we would want to have no entrance fee associated with entrance for these groups. On the 16
downside, there are operational complexities associated with this. Not all schools issue 17
IDs, so student verification is very complicated. This becomes problematic at the 18
entrance station where quick through-put is desired, and we want to have it simple for the 19
entry-station staff. Passes at libraries is a possibility we talked about. This is also 20
complicated and not simple in terms of how many there are, how do they get back from 21
Foothills Park to the library. It's something that's possible, but it's not simple. This 22
solution also excludes private schools in East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. This would 23
exclude Eastside College Prep and the Chan Primary School in East Palo Alto as well as 24
multiple Palo Alto private schools. In talking about the online reservation system, an 25 advantage is this is definitely the easiest from an operational standpoint, as the staff has 26 commented. It's an adjustable system. That's great. It's simple at the entrance station 27 with no cash involved in the event that we do charge nonresidents using this. I would be 28
in favor of that. It's also easy for strong, trial program data collection. That's a definite 29
plus. The downside is permitting access to all communities is not well aligned with the 30
goal of increasing access to underserved communities as it's likely to be more highly 31
utilized by the affluent neighboring communities. Also, the online reservation system 32
could set an access bar, which would be an issue for some. It could potentially 33
complicate offering free admission to PAUSD and Ravenswood student families versus 34
nonresidents from other communities. I consider the potential impact of the incremental 35
cost for CSD and Foothills Park staff time that are going to be incurred. The overall 36
impact depends on pilot program scope. There's going to be new, associated staff work. 37
Either additional staff resources would be required or staff focus on other projects is 38
going to be reduced. There are potential capital expenses. For example, a new entrance 39
gate or exit gate monitoring equipment depending if it's needed to figure out how many 40
cars we have in the park at a given time. We may need to improve marking or securing 41
of parking spots. We may need to further secure fencing at the maintenance shop. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
Considering the natural resources impact. For habitat, as we increase the usage in the 1
park, there's going to be increased impact on the habitat. Hopefully this is moderated. As 2
far as wildlife sightings, these are likely to decrease as we increase the population of 3
people in the park. Trails should have fairly minimal impact; although, there have been 4
some concerns about more bikes on trails. That's something staff should be able to keep 5
in check. 6
Commissioner Moss: Time out. He has several more pages. I don't think this is fair. 7
This topic, as you mentioned, is very complex. We probably should have three … 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: With all due respect, I'm trying to provide input for the 9
Commission to consider. I have another page to go through. 10
Chair McDougall: Jeff is an ad hoc … 11
Commissioner Moss: I'm overwhelmed. 12
Chair McDougall: … member, and I'm willing to allow him to continue. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: As far as the overall experience for the park, I don't think we 14
want to be approaching 1,000 visitors in the park very often. We need to be careful about 15
that. I don't think the pilot programs proposed will address that, and that's a good thing. 16
As we get to that size of group, parking management for large crowds becomes difficult 17
since parking is spread out through the park and not necessarily where people want to be. 18
We want to avoid turning cars away, resulting in parking on Page Mill Road. There will 19
be increased operational and maintenance environmental stress. To summarize, in 20
addition to the assessment of potential risk, there's are some big-picture financial 21
considerations. We're all aware that the neighboring communities did not contribute to 22
the purchase of Foothills Park, and that's contributed to how we got to where we are 23
today. If or when Palo Alto increases access to Foothills Park, it's an opportunity for our 24
neighbors to contribute to Foothills Park. There are lots of different ways this could play 25 out. For example, we have an unfunded $10 million Buckeye Creek restoration project. 26 This certainly won't be lost on City Council. We need to make sure we don't compromise 27 our position for these financial considerations by how we approach a pilot program and 28
opening up the park. Timing is an issue. Council is busy, but one could observe they're 29
always busy. This isn't a primary concern. For me, providing access to PAUSD families 30
is a core goal of this project. I really appreciate that aspect as well as the Ravenswood 31
School District families. Stanford families are likely to be the largest group to take 32
advantage of allowing PAUSD access. I'm concerned about our timing with the Stanford 33
GUP currently under negotiation. The City is on record disagreeing with the GUP's 34
impact assessment on open space preserves including Foothills Park and park and 35
recreational facilities. I'm concerned that offering increased access to Stanford during the 36
GUP negotiation is highly problematic. As far as the Master Plan, there's no question 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
that we support the high-quality, accessible facilities and services and integrate nature, 1
etc. The Master Plan doesn't specifically delineate it's target scope. Is this Palo Alto 2
residents or is it all local communities? It's not addressed. We do have a new 20-year 3
Master Plan. Increasing access to Foothills Park was considered by the Parks and Rec 4
Commission for inclusion in this Master Plan. It's noteworthy that increased Foothills 5
Park access was not included as a Master Plan goal, policy, or program. This discussion 6 comes down to priorities. Realistically, pursuing a plan to increase access to Foothills 7
Park is going to consume significant political capital for the Commission. We must 8
decide as a Commission is this a top priority to pursue, given that it's outside our Master 9
Plan. We may decide that we do want to do this. We may decide not. We need to 10
consider this. I appreciate the public's interest in increasing access, and I appreciate the 11
concerns about the impacts of doing so. I'm interested in identifying how to 12
incrementally increase access without creating more problems than we solve. We have 13
lots of ideas. I'm struggling to find a balanced solution to pursue. Whether it's a hybrid 14
or alternative pilot plan or another approach altogether, I'm interested in hearing what my 15
colleagues have to say. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: With respect to the Friends of Foothills Park, the people who 17
are not Palo Alto residents, they can't enter the park on their own? 18
Mr. Anderson: If they were to come in with the Friends, which occasionally happens, 19
that has happened, nonresidents. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: If they just want to go hiking on an off day, they can't access it. 21
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: To me, that's the most compelling reason to change this. The 23
people who spending hours and hours digging out weeds and invasive species can't go up 24
there on their own on their off days and hike. If I were to open Palo Alto Foothills Park 25 to one group, it's the volunteers. What Mayor Holman said was if you volunteer, you can 26 get in. That would be a compelling way of making people earn the ability to go there. If 27 you're either a student or an adult and you don't live in Palo Alto but you go to the Palo 28
Alto library and spend hours shelving books, you should on your off days be able to go 29
up on your own and access Foothills Park. I'm not eager to expand Foothills Park access, 30
but that would be a good way of doing it. That would be a self-selection. If you want to 31
do it, if it meant a lot to you, you have a way of doing it. With respect to the whole 60 32
years ago you didn't pay for it, we have to let that grudge go. To me, the most 33
compelling reason to limit it at all is environmental. We don't want to ruin—I think the 34
first speaker was saying, if you let too many people in, you'd ruin the experience. We 35
have to worry about the environment and also the experience for the people who go in it. 36
That's a really legitimate concern. If we open it up to anyone going in, we could lose the 37
recipe to Foothills Park. The most compelling need to me would be incorporate it for 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
volunteers. The second most compelling would be for the students. When Jeff was 1
mentioning about losing leverage with the Stanford GUP, Stanford says, "We don't need 2
to build parks because we can use Palo Alto parks." During the GUP negotiations, I don't 3
think we should be doing anything that's going to undermine our negotiations. I would 4
take it slow on that aspect. 5
Commissioner Moss: I have comments on pretty much everything that Jeff went through. 6 As far as the limits of cars and limits of people and limits of shuttles and limits of not 7
buses and number of barbecues and people per party and weekday versus weekend versus 8
holiday, I want to know from staff how do we work through these issues? I don't think 9
we can work through these issues in one meeting. I also don't believe it's right that the 10
subcommittee has to do all the work and come up with the exact way we're going to deal 11
with this. I would like an opportunity as well. How do we do this over the next six 12
months? 13
Mr. Anderson: My perspective, Commissioner Moss, is this is a Commission-led 14
endeavor and initiative. The ad hoc's leading this, and the Commission will support it. 15
I'm here as a staff person to support the ad hoc, to provide them good information, to 16
provide realistic impacts that would—for each proposal, I've tried to analyze it and reach 17
out to staff who used to manage Foothills Park going back 30 years and say, "What do 18
you think of these proposals? What do you think would be some of the implications?" 19
and share that with the ad hoc, share that with the Commission. That's what I've tried to 20
do. 21
Chair McDougall: Excuse me, David. The purpose of this session is for us to give some 22
direction. The only appropriate way, because of the Brown Act, is to send it back to the 23
ad hoc with comments from the Commission about what they might want to look at to 24
come back to us. This may come back a couple of times. The Commission's opportunity 25 is to comment on what the ad hoc brings back the next time and to give them direction of 26 what to do now. The only way structurally that we can do this is send it back to an ad 27 hoc. Otherwise, we're violating the Brown Act. 28
Commissioner Moss: There is one other way. You have another breakout session like 29
we have once a year—the public is invited—where we spend a morning going through 30
this. It's that big and that complex. 31
Chair McDougall: That's a good thought. Let me work with staff to give that some 32
consideration. I don't know that we can decide that now, but that's a reasonable idea. 33
Commissioner Moss: The only other way is—I probably have half-an-hour's worth of 34
comments. Do you want them now or can I give them to you in writing or can we have a 35
session? What would you suggest? Or we come back for three months in a row and I 36
give 20 minutes, 20 minutes, 20 minutes. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Chair McDougall: At this point, if it's legitimately half an hour, it needs to be given real 1
consideration. I would suggest give it to us in writing. If you'd like to give some 2
directional comments now … If your comments are that deep and meaningful, which I'm 3
willing to accept, I would prefer that you submit them in writing. 4
Commissioner Moss: I do have comments about limits. I do believe with Commissioner 5
Reckdahl that environmental impact is huge, and safety is a big consideration not because 6 of different people from different cities. If we regularly have 1,000 people—I've never 7
been in the park where there's been more than maybe 300 people. I don't come on 8
Father's Day. Do we have 1,000 people on Father's Day? Maybe we have 500 or 400. I 9
have a significant issue with limits. When I look at barbecues, the number of places that 10
have barbecues, and I see them in far-flung places that have no business having a 11
barbecue, I feel that we should be taking barbecues away. There are silly things like that, 12
fire danger, not because of the type of people that would come here, but the sheer volume 13
of 1,000 people coming here weekend after weekend after weekend. What Karen 14
Holman said about Rancho San Antonio, it's unbelievable the number of people. These 15
are just the tip of the iceberg. 16
Commissioner McCauley: I don't mean to interject, but I do want to provide a little bit of 17
comfort. 18
Chair McDougall: Let him finish, and I'll let you come back. 19
Commissioner Moss: The other issues that I want more clarity on are costs, Rangers, fire 20
protection, trail maintenance, invasive species, restroom redos, dealing with people who 21
want to bring in dogs, dealing with people who want to bring in bikes, reservation and fee 22
collection systems, many more volunteers and the costs of managing volunteers and 23
attracting volunteers, maintenance of facilities, poison oak. All these things have to be 24
paid for. How do you deal with that? The other thing is what Herb Borock said about 25 requiring a referendum. That's a big deal to require a referendum, even to do a pilot. The 26 other thing is that Palo Alto is growing. If we put a limit of 1,000 people, the mix of Palo 27 Alto versus non-Palo Alto is an issue that's going to bite us soon. That's good enough for 28
now. 29
Commissioner McCauley: I don't think anything we're talking about—to be more 30
concrete, we're talking about on the lowest visitation day, weekend day, you might have 31
50 passes available. We're not talking about hundreds of additional people in the park on 32
a given day. I don't think. It's important to note that we're talking, I think, about very 33
low impact in terms of number of people in the park on any given day from a pilot like 34
this. 35
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm really glad the ad hoc put together the discussion and the 36
report. I appreciate everybody's really thoughtful comments. I've been around this place 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
for a long time and have been through the comments about Foothill Park opening, 1
closing, and all of that over the years and the history and that kind of thing. It's 2
appropriate we're having this discussion once again. It's a really important community 3
discussion. So many questions raised by people, so many definitely complex issues, I 4
would love to see it go back to the ad hoc and have some really long and serious 5
discussions about it, especially in view of including school children from disadvantaged 6 and underserved areas and also Palo Alto School District and our private schools and how 7
we really could serve the future generation while keeping control and really 8
understanding what the ecosystem can embrace. 9
Council Member Cormack: I'll touch on each of the options that have been suggested. 10
The first is the update to the Municipal Code. It does concern me if our Code does not 11
match our practice. Not just here, everywhere. It's worth learning more about that and 12
getting the advice of our City Attorney if appropriate. With respect to the student-13
focused program, Commissioner Greenfield may be unaware that the PAUSD cards are 14
issued to everyone, and they actually function as a Palo Alto library card. Every single 15
student has that available. With respect to number 3, the passes at the libraries was an 16
idea that came up during the interviews for the Library Advisory Commission from a 17
person who had lived in Chicago. It was a way that the museums in Chicago, which are 18
quite pricey, would be available to everyone. That's interesting. It's always helpful to 19
learn from other places. Those are my comments on the three suggestions. 20
Chair McDougall: The $1.3 million and even the operating expenses since then. Over 21
the last 50 years, any depreciation table would tell you that it's been depreciated. 22
Reminding everybody that we paid for it, so nobody else should come, which is what 23
some of the letters that we were sent do, I just don't think that's right. Daren, is this a 24
park or a preserve? What's the difference? 25
Mr. Anderson: It's all dedicated parkland. We've qualified it as open space. Our four 26 open space preserves, the Baylands Nature Preserve, Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, 27 Esther Clark Park, and Foothills Park, all qualify under that open space category, but 28
really it's all dedicated parkland with the same protections. 29
Chair McDougall: It's dedicated park, but it's not within the State definition of a reserve 30
versus a park. 31
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 32
Chair McDougall: The State has parks, go have a good time, do what you want, don't 33
worry about the trails, climb the trees, throw your Frisbee. Go to a reserve, stay on the 34
trails, don't throw your Frisbee. That's not the differentiation? 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Mr. Anderson: Correct. I would look towards the Comp Plan and to our Municipal Code 1
where we're got specific rules for specific areas. 2
Chair McDougall: I understand that. In terms of what problem we're solving, I have a 3
personal belief that giving particularly school children the opportunity to be in nature is 4
going to result in—you can't expect people to become stewards of nature, if they don't 5
care about nature. They can't care about nature, if they've never been in nature. So many 6 of the particularly Ravenswood School District kids haven't had that opportunity. 7
Everybody agrees this is a special place. You can say, "What about Arastradero or 8
whatever else?" These other parks don't have the quail, the flat space, and whatever. 9
Giving those kids the opportunity to experience nature, maybe you can get them to 10
understand nature, maybe you can get them to then love nature and become stewards. In 11
fact, that's what Environmental Volunteers is all about, and you shouldn't be surprised 12
that I'm saying that. Relative to Karen's challenge to the Board, Elliott Wright, who's the 13
executive director, when asked has already said they would be happy to lead the effort to 14
become the stewards, to look after the kids, to do the education. In fact, you could 15
probably go further and ask them to be the equivalent of a mini Ranger so that they do 16
have some ability to be stewards of the park. They want kids to be stewards. I think they 17
would act as stewards. There's the basis of that. The current Friends of Palo Alto Parks 18
does pull weeds. It is incredibly admirable. The things they've done to look after the 19
park is just great. Increasing that particular organization or enveloping that organization 20
into something bigger needs to be done, and it needs to be done in the context of what 21
we're doing. I think it can be. The thing about exposing kids, it's also a question of 22
exposing adults as well. There are lots of studies. This guy, Peter Wohlleben, wrote The 23 Hidden Life of Trees. The Hidden Life of Trees goes through a whole series of things 24
including what the Japanese call forest bathing. They deliberately make sure that they 25 get into parks and then they experience the forest. In fact, it's come to the States. You 26 can go the University of Santa Cruz and take courses in forest bathing because of the 27 belief that that's valuable. We owe it as a generous community. We talk about generous 28
community. The Mayor talked about outreach and being good neighbors. We ought to 29
be good neighbors and provide that opportunity to our neighbors. In terms of the 1,000-30
person cap, I'm sorry that that got mentioned, and every conversation since then has been 31
we can't allow 1,000 people in the park. What was the quote? We can't allow everyone 32
every day and all the time. I don't think any of Ryan's proposals go anywhere near 33
proposing that this should be 1,000 people every day. The issue about the Stanford GUP 34
negotiation is beyond this Commission. We should come up with our recommendation. 35
That doesn't mean anybody else should execute our recommendation if, in fact, it's 36
damaging something else. That's a legitimate concern. The comments about can we 37
reduce the number of barbecues, can we move the barbecues somewhere else, it occurred 38
to me if we're still trying to find a use for the 7.7 acres, maybe that should become the 39
group stuff. In terms of logistics like IDs and stuff, I truly believe in this day age a 40
community like this can solve the logistics problems of IDs and so on. I encourage the ad 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
hoc to see what they can do to distill what they heard tonight, but to continue to be 1
aggressive to move forward with a proposal of some sort, whether it's simply to fix the 2
fact—Council Members today listen to this and say, "What do you mean it's not open? 3
It's open. Anybody can go there on any day of the week." The answer is no, they can't. 4
It's against the law. Either that needs to be fixed and nothing else, or we need to find a 5
way through Environmental Volunteers and some other organizations as long as they're 6 not conflicting with our City plans and the Junior Museum plans and whatever, their 7
plans would be during the school year. Junior Museum does things there in the summer. 8
As long as that's not conflicting, that's a possibility. Beyond that, we should move 9
forward with every possibility we can. That would be the conclusion of my charge to the 10
ad hoc. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: I want to apologize if I went into too much detail. I recognize 12
this process is constraining and awkward. There were a lot of details that I felt compelled 13
to share. There's no other forum or method to share these. That was just trying to get 14
them out. I was really trying to encourage Commissioner input on the ideas and get your 15
feedback because this is the way that you can give feedback to us. There was a question 16
about volunteers entering the park. We had some discussion about vouchers being issued 17
to volunteers who participate in some process. Daren, do you recall that? 18
Mr. Anderson: That was more of a one-off … 19
Chair McDougall: I'm going to suggest that we not at this point go into details like that. 20
I am going to ask Commissioner Greenfield to make his notes available. That might help 21
Commissioner Moss in writing his comments. It looked to me like it was particularly 22
well done and shared. Within that context, some of the other specifics we can address. I 23
did say I'd try to end by 10:00. We've taken almost 2 hours on this particular topic. The 24
individual questions, like the one you were just suggesting, could go back to the ad hoc 25 before they come back here. 26
Commissioner McCauley: Do you mind if I ask for—I'm a little bit reluctant to do this, 27 but nonetheless I'll do it—a little bit of a straw vote amongst the Commission members? 28
I'm interested to know if we think … 29
Chair McDougall: I'm going to ask you to distill what you heard. 30
Commissioner McCauley: Fair enough. 31
Chair McDougall: Each of the Commissioners was explicit. I'm going to guess that your 32
straw vote was which of the alternatives. I suggest that's an interesting topic the next 33
time this comes up after the alternatives have been more distilled. Commissioner 34
Greenfield has adequately described the complications of each. David will add further 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
complications to each. A straw vote at this point I would not recommend. With that, I 1
would like to move to other ad hoc committee and liaison updates. 2
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 3
Chair McDougall: Anything beyond what the handout has for us? 4
Commissioner Cribbs: Chair, I'm going to say goodnight. 5
Chair McDougall: Thank you very much for being here. We wish you continued 6 recovery. The fact that you're still here with that tonight is—we're impressed. 7
[Commissioner Cribbs left the meeting at 10:03 p.m.] 8
Chair McDougall: Are there any other additions or comments relative to any of the ad 9
hocs? 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: I wanted to note that I did meet with Sylvia Star-Lack, the 11
Transportation Manager, regarding a Safe Routes liaison role. A couple of quick things 12
that came out of that. She's very interested in working with us to develop a Safe Routes 13
to Parks map, also integrating potentially libraries and schools and referring to this as 14
Safe Routes in general. More specifically, we talked about the Mercedes development, 15
which Daren mentioned in his report. We were talking about the additional bike lane 16
that's being put in and how this is helpful, but it's something Parks and Rec is interested 17
in as it is directly Safe Routes to Parks. A question was raised about the connection 18
between the Embarcadero bike overpass connecting across the street. This is something 19
that Sylvia considered a significant issue. This is on the Transportation Department, but 20
she's very interested in this becoming a priority that we could raise. It would be some 21
sort of signal, whether it's flashing lights across the highway or an actual signal of some 22
sort that got put in. I'd like to request that staff pursue this. 23
Chair McDougall: Excuse me. Karen, as you're walking out, I'd like to point out your 24
comment about dedicating various park spaces. You should know that we have an active 25 ad hoc committee that's addressing that issue. Trying to be responsive to our important 26 citizens. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: If staff could pursue that, that'd be really helpful. 28
Chair McDougall: I would add a comment particularly relative to the Mercedes situation 29
and the bike path and everything else. That went through the ARB but didn't come in our 30
direction in any way that allowed us to comment before it was too late, where we were 31
commenting outside of the committee. Your comments and interaction with 32
Transportation people is totally appropriate. Does anybody else have any incremental 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
comments on any of these things? If not, I'll move on to whether there are comments and 1
announcements or tentative agenda items for the next meeting. 2
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR AUGUST 27, 2019 MEETING 3
Chair McDougall: I believe Kristen has a laid-out agenda over the next couple of 4
months. We'll circulate that rather than trying to address it here and have everybody 5
scratch their heads about what ought to come next. 6
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 7
None. 8
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Moss and second by Commissioner 10
Reckdahl at 10:07 p.m. 11
1
Palo Alto Parks Survey:
Full Report
Megan Schmiesing
August 2019
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Palo Alto’s Community Services Department conducted a survey of their
public parks in order to better understand how many people use the parks and the different ways
people are engaging with them. This information can be used to help improve parks and the role
they play in facilitating physical activity, population health, and well-being. The data comes
from surveys done with park users as well as systematic observations of parks four times a day
for three days of the week. The eight city parks included in this survey only represent a
percentage of all the facilities managed by the Community Services Department.
MAIN FINDINGS
• Park size is not necessarily correlated with more park visitors. Parks with more amenities
and attractions had the most visitors regardless of their size. Surveyors noticed that males
used surveyed parks more heavily than females. Children and adults used surveyed parks
more than teens and seniors.
• Organized and supervised activities such as sports practices, soccer games, and camps
tend to draw more people to the parks than informal activities.
• The most common informal activities observed in Palo Alto parks were passive
relaxation (sitting), using a playground, and walking through and around parks.
• When asked, the most common responses to why park users chose to visit a particular
park were: proximity to where they lived, favorite playgrounds, and having dog parks.
• More park users were engaged in a physically active activity than passive relaxation.
• Parks were observed to be more heavily used during midday hours and evenings than
other times of the day. They were also observed to be more heavily used on weekends
than on weekdays.
• The Magical Bridge Playground at Mitchell Park was observed to be the most popular
individual attraction of any attraction at the surveyed parks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Offer more program services to seniors to increase their presence in parks. Parks are
underutilized particularly in the mornings and on some weekdays. This provides an
opportunity to develop programming to attract residents who are not at work, including
retired seniors.
• Consider adding restrooms to Eleanor Pardee Park and a better designated dog park area
at Greer, Pardee, or Juana Briones Park.
3
INTRODUCTION
Outdoor recreation in urban parks plays a fundamental role in the lives of families and
individuals across California. In Palo Alto, urban parks provide green spaces for people to
engage in sports, recreation and social activities, as well as provide essential play spaces for
children. The City of Palo Alto has thirty-two different urban parks spread throughout its
neighborhoods. In order to gain a better understanding of how many people use those parks
during the summer season, a survey of eight Palo Alto parks was carried out during the months
of June and July in 2019. The survey sought to quantify park use and gain greater insight into the
role parks play in people’s lives and what draws people to visit those parks. The survey also
aimed to provide a starting place for future studies on park visitor use since there has been
limited research on the topic in the past. The two elements of the survey, park observation and
survey responses from park users, were designed to provide a deeper understanding of how
people engage with their city parks.
Of the thirty-two urban parks in Palo Alto, eight parks were selected for study. These
eight parks varied in size, features, and characteristics from small pocket parks to skate parks to
large regional parks in order to cover the wide variety of urban parks represented in Palo Alto.
The goal was to choose parks representative of a majority of the thirty-two parks across the city.
A list of all the parks included in the survey and their descriptions is shown in the chart below.
Parks Surveyed
Park Name Size Description
Mitchell Park 21.4 acres Regional park with lots of amenities
John Lucas Greer Park 22 acres Regional park with skate bowl
El Camino Park 12.19 acres Sports facilities park
Alexander Peers Park 4.7 acres Park with dog park
Eleanor Pardee Park 9.6 acres Park with community gardens
Juana Briones Park 4.1 acres Neighborhood park
Sarah Wallis Park 0.3 acres Park with few amenities
Scott Park 0.04 acres Pocket park
4
5
HOW DATA WAS GATHERED
The survey focused on park visitor use during the peak summer season of June and July, 2019.
Over a total of 24 days across a period of 6 weeks, park data was gathered at each of the eight
different urban parks. The survey methodology used was based on the System for Observing
Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC) protocols and guidelines. This method was
developed by the RAND Corporation in conjunction with the Department of Exercise and
Nutritional Sciences San Diego State University and has been used by several park surveys in
cities throughout the U.S.
SOPARC is based on a momentary time sampling technique. As outlined in the SOPARC model
(McKenzie et al., 2006), four observation periods were selected to capture park visitor use at
different times of the day. Based upon a previous study indicating that 12 observations were
sufficient to reliably estimate weekly park use (Cohen et al., 2011), each park was observed
according to the following schedule:
Two different weekdays (i.e. Monday & Wednesday or Tuesday & Thursday) and one weekend
day (Sunday) to capture differences in use during different days of the week. The observation
times on each day included:
• 9:30am morning observation
• 12:30pm midday observation
• 3:30pm afternoon observation
• 5:30 evening observation
Using the SOPARC protocols as guidance, each park was divided into Target Areas, or different
regions of the park with different attractions such as playgrounds, soccer fields, or picnic tables.
During the observation times, each region was scanned for the number of people, their age
group, gender, physical activity level, and whether or not they had a dog on or off leash. Physical
activity was categorized as either sedentary (passive activities such as lying down, sitting, or standing
in place), walking (casual pace), or vigorous (greater than an ordinary walk). All of this data was
recorded on paper charts during the observation times and later entered into to Microsoft Excel for
analysis and comparison. In the case of the two smallest parks, Scott and Sarah Wallis, both were
observed for 15 minute periods during the observation times to replicate the momentary time
sampling technique used in the other larger parks.
This survey had several limitations. It was conducted by one person, so the scope was limited in
terms of the number of parks surveyed and number of days each park could be observed. Since
there was just one person collecting data, it was not possible to cross reference data, so each
count may not have been 100% accurate. Similarly, on days when the parks were very crowded
with lots of people moving from one place to another, double counting’s may have occurred, or a
few people may have been missed. Despite these limitations, some important and interesting
findings about Palo Alto parks were observed.
6
KEY SURVEY FINDINGS – AN OVERVIEW
Park Observed Park Users
(N=4,517)
Estimated Weekly Park
Use*
Mitchell Park 2,334 10,535
Alexander Peers Park 632 2,968
John Lucas Greer Park 514 2,325
Eleanor Pardee Park 331 1,519
Juana Briones Park 311 1,428
El Camino Park 298 1,424
Scott Park 59 279
Sarah Wallis Park 38 178
Park size varied greatly between the different parks. Below is a chart of hourly park use and park
size (in acres). Nationwide, the average neighborhood park of 8.8 acres averaged 23 users/hour
in a comprehensive study comparing over thirty SOPARC studies across the United States. This
translates to about 2.61 hourly visitors per park acre. Below are the hourly visitors per park acre
for each observed Palo Alto park and how it compares to the national average. The comparison
did not work well for small parks like Sarah Wallis and Scott Park since they are both less than
one acre in size so they were not included in this analysis.
Park
Avg. Hourly Visitors
Per Park Acre
Comparison to National
Avg.
Alexander Peers Park 11.20 329% more use
Mitchell Park 9.09 248% more use
Juana Briones Park 6.32 142% more use
Eleanor Pardee Park 2.87 10% more use
El Camino Park** 2.04 22% less use
John Lucas Greer Park 1.95 25% less use
* Estimated weekly use was determined by multiplying average hourly weekday use by 8 hours (there were 8 hours
between the first and last survey time) times 5 weekdays and then adding that to number of average hourly weekend
users times 8 hours times 2 weekend days. 8 hours of park use is a conservative estimate since most Palo Alto parks
are open sunrise to sundown. (Estimated weekly park use = 8*5*avg. hourly weekly use + 8*2* avg. hourly
weekend use).
** El Camino Park is a sports facilities park so its use does differ from that of a traditional neighborhood park.
A total of 4,517 people were observed in eight parks, with park use ranging
from 2,334 people to 38 people observed in a single park.
7
Figure 1. Percent of Park Users by Time Period
Figure 2. Weekday vs. Weekend Park Use
Parks were observed to be used more on weekends than on weekdays. An average
weekday had about 20% less park visitors than the number of visitors on a Sunday.
Parks were observed to be used most during midday and evening time (12:30 pm and
5:30pm) and used slightly less during the morning (9:30am) and the afternoon (3:30pm).
8
Figure 3. Percent of Park Users by Gender
For this study, children were categorized as infants to children 12 years of age, teens were
adolescents from 13 to 20 years of age, adults were people from 21 to 64 years of age and seniors
were people 65 years and older.
Adults use parks the most, but they also make up the up the widest age range and are slightly
underrepresented demographically in parks. Additionally, 30% of adults appeared to be at parks
mainly to watch children at the playgrounds. This is an important use of parks and adults are
often there to socialize and engage with their children, but it is also a more sedentary use than
adults who come to the parks to engage in a sport or activity themselves.
Seniors were the most underrepresented group in Palo Alto parks. Overall, seniors make up
18.5% of the population in Palo Alto but only 6% of park users. Teenagers also do not use parks
as much as children or adults, but they make up a smaller portion of the overall population in
Palo Alto.
Slightly more males than females were observed in the parks.
Adults and children were observed to use parks the most. Seniors were observed to use
parks the least and were the most underrepresented group in parks.
9
Figure 4. Percent of Park Users by Age Group
*The number of adults watching kids was determined by adding the number of sedentary adults observed at
attractions such as playgrounds, Magical Bridge Playground, and water features from each park observed. While
these adults are still using the park, it is a different more passive use than adults who come to the park to exercise or
engage in activities themselves.
Figure 5. Park User Age Demographics vs. Palo Alto Age Demographics
10
Regional parks were grouped as Mitchell and Greer Park and neighborhood parks were grouped
as Peers, Pardee and Juana Briones Park.
Figure 6. Percent of Park Users by Age Group and Park Type
Physical activity is one of the most important routine behaviors that reduces chronic diseases and
improves health outcomes for all age groups (Cohen, 2016). Parks are an excellent place to help
facilitate physical activity and improve the health and well-being of residents.
A little less than half of park users (45%) were engaged in vigorous activity including children
playing on the playgrounds, soccer games and sports practices, summer sports camps, and people
jogging and biking around the park. Areas of the parks that were most associated with high
levels of physical activity were playgrounds (for kids), soccer fields, tennis courts, pickleball
courts, park paths and tracks, and basketball courts.
More teens and children were observed using neighborhood parks and
more adults were observed using regional parks.
Nearly half of park users observed were engaged in vigorous physical
activity.
11
The second largest group (39%) of people were sedentary and doing activities that involved
either sitting or standing such as sitting on the grass, having an event or a picnic, or watching
kids play.
The rest of the people were observed walking (16%). Typically, people were engaged in
activities such as walking around the park paths, walking dogs, or walking from one area of the
park to another.
This is a high percentage of physical activity in Palo Alto parks compared to other studies that
have been done. Another large-scale study done in Los Angeles using similar methodology
found that 62% of people were sedentary and only 16% were engaged in vigorous physical
activity, significantly less than in Palo Alto.
Figure 7. Percent of Park Users by Activity Level
12
Figure 8. Most Common Activities Across all Parks
Figure 9. Most Common Activities for Seniors Across all Parks
The most common activities observed across all parks were sitting, playing at the
Magical Bridge Playground area, and other playground use. For seniors, the most
common activities were walking and relaxing at benches and picnic tables.
13
Three parks that have different kinds of designated dog areas were included in the survey. Peers
Park has a large dog park with areas for seating and shade. Mitchell Park also has a large dog
park with some seating and shade available, and Greer Park has a dog run with little seating or
shade. At all eight of the parks combined, 182 off-leash dogs were counted throughout the
survey and the majority (87%) of those were at one of the above three parks. There was also a
combined total of 138 dogs being walked on-leash throughout the parks.
Peers' dog park was the most popular area for off-leash dogs out of the eight parks that were
surveyed, followed by the dog park at Mitchell. At those two parks nearly all the off-leash dogs
were in the designated dog park areas. The dog park at Peers also appeared to be the most social
of any of the dog parks with people talking and interacting frequently. The dog run at Greer Park
was less popular with several people observed choosing to use open fields for off-leash dog play
instead of the dog run.
The park that had the most off-leash dogs that did not already have a designated area for dogs
was Eleanor Pardee Park. There were 19 off-leash dogs observed during observation periods,
mainly on the large field, and 23 on-leash dogs being walked throughout the park.
The most popular area for off-leash dog play was Peers’ Dog Park
followed by Mitchell Dog Park.
14
Figure 10. Percent of Off-Leash Dogs Per Park
15
KEY SURVEY FINDINGS – INDIVIDUAL PARKS
Mitchell Park: Regional Park
Mitchell Park was the largest park surveyed and it also had the most visitors. It was utilized
heavily at all times of day, both on weekdays and on weekends. Park uses varied widely from
soccer practices, summer camps, yoga, jogging and biking, picnics and birthday parties, to
hammocking and morning tai chi.
40% of survey respondents who answered the question “Which Palo Alto park is
your favorite?” included Mitchell Park in their response.
Most common activities:
• Magical Bridge playground use (34%)
• Sitting or picnicking at the Arbor Group Area Tables & surrounding lawn (13%)
• Other playground use (excluding Magical Bridge) (12%)
• Gatherings at East Meadow Grove (9%)
• Pickleball (6%)
Areas of the park that were most frequently
empty:
• Horseshoe area
• Handball courts
• East Meadow Grove (on weekdays)
Dogs at Mitchell park:
• 44 on-leash dogs being walked
• 55 off-leash dogs in the dog park
General Park Observations:
• Pickleball was a very social activity particularly with older adults and seniors who often
have multiple games going on the tennis courts. This was also the most active activity
that seniors engaged in at any of the parks.
• The Magical Bridge playground was also a social area for groups of parents and lots of
children play together and share the space and structures. It was not uncommon to count
50-100 people at Magical Bridge in one observation period.
• The shaded seating areas by all the playgrounds and the dog park are very popular
16
Figure 11. Percent of Mitchell Park Users by Age Group
Park Area
Total number of users
Magical Bridge Playground 823
Playgrounds 291
Picnic tables & lawn 254
Large field 153
Summer camps 141
Pickleball 138
Park path 136
East Meadow Grove 105
Tennis courts 93
Concrete bowl 65
Water feature 62
Dog park 45
Handball courts 15
Horseshoe 13
Total Park Users 2,334
Recommendations for improvements from park user surveys:
• Replace the umbrellas on the tables in the dog park- they
provide great shade on hot days (1 person)
• Add more parking – it can be very difficult to find parking on
busy weekend afternoons (2 people)
17
Greer Park: Regional Park with Skate Park
Greer Park is also a large regional park and it was the only park surveyed that had a skate bowl.
It was not as heavily used as Mitchell Park, but it was more popular for organized sports,
especially soccer and softball. The skate bowl sometimes had a few skateboarders, but during
most of the observation times it was empty. The path that loops around the park was heavily used
by people walking their dogs, biking, and jogging. The park got the most use (40%) during
midday hours.
Most common activities:
• Playing soccer on Fields 1 & 2 (52%)
• Playground use (21%)
• Walking/jogging/biking around the park path (13%)
Park Area
Total number of users
Soccer fields 270
Playground 109
Park path 66
Basketball courts 28
Softball fields 13
Picnic tables & benches 13
Dog run 9
Tri bowl (skate park) 6
Total Park Users 514
Recommendations for improvements
from park user surveys:
• Add more benches along the
park path for seniors (2
people)
• Put more trash cans by the
basketball courts for trash
from group events to keep it
from overflowing (1 person)
18
El Camino: Sports Facilities Park
El Camino Park is primarily used for sports practices, soccer games, and sports camps. The turf
soccer field was the most heavily utilized area of the park. During the observation times, the
baseball diamond was not as frequently used. The picnic tables on the far end of the park were
also not utilized very often. The open grass area on the opposite far end of the park was used
more for activities such as playing with dogs, batting practice, and playing catch.
Most common activities:
• Playing soccer (60%)
• Baseball summer camps (27%)
• Walking and biking through (8%)
Figure 12. Observed El Camino Park Users by Gender
Unlike most other parks surveyed, there was a significant difference in park use by gender at El
Camino Park. This can be attributed to the fact that on days when the park was surveyed, a
primarily boy’s baseball camp and soccer practices and games of mainly teen and adult male
groups were happening. This inequity may be a result of only surveying for three days. However,
if it is a larger trend at this park, it could be beneficial to encourage programming or sports
events that are targeted more towards women. El Camino Park also had a very high activity level
with most users engaged in active sports such as soccer,
baseball, or batting practice.
Park Area Total number of
users
Soccer field 230
Passing through 34
Baseball field 31
Grass area & picnic tables 13
Total Park Visitors 298
Figure 13. Percent of El Camino Park
Users by Activity Level
19
Alexander Peers Park: Neighborhood Park with Dog Park
Peers Park was an example of a park that maximized all of its space to the fullest. While it was
one of the smaller parks that was surveyed, it had the second highest number of people observed
after Mitchell Park. There was a wide variety of uses and activities at Peers park including
biking, picnicking, relaxing in lawn chairs, basketball, tennis, soccer, family events, and parent
and child get togethers.
Most common activities:
• Playground use (31%)
• Sitting or picnicking on the field or lawn (19%)
• Summer camps (19%)
• Playing with or watching dogs at the dog park (12%)
• A total of 77 dogs were observed in
the dog park
Areas of the park that were most frequently
empty were:
• Tennis courts
• Basketball court
Park Area
Total number of users
Playground 173
Soccer field 109
Summer camps 108
Dog park 67
Passing through on park path 47
Picnic area & benches 30
Tennis courts 16
Basketball court 12
Total Park Users 562
20
Eleanor Pardee Park: Neighborhood Park with Community Gardens
Pardee Park was heavily used on some days and at certain times of the day, but not consistently.
There were usually 1-3 people gardening in the Community Gardens during each observation
period but usually not more than that. The park was observed to be used most in the evening with
37% of park users counted during the evening observation periods around 5:30pm.
Most common activities:
• Playground use (45%)
• Walking or biking around the park path (20%)
• Sitting on the soccer field (10%)
• Sitting at the picnic tables (7%)
Figure 14. Percent of Pardee Park Users by Age
Group – Highest Teen Percentage of Any Park
Popular activities for teens:
• Biking through the park
• Skating/biking in the concrete
bowl
• Spikeball
• Relaxing on the field
Park Area
Total number of users
Playgrounds 149
Park path 67
Soccer field 55
Picnic tables 24
Community garden 22
Concrete bowl 14
Total Park Users 331
Recommendations for improvements
from park user surveys:
• Add bathrooms– lack of available
restrooms causes people to have
to use the bathroom in natural
areas of the park (2 people)
• Add a designated area for dogs (1
person)
21
Juana Briones Park: Neighborhood Park
Juana Briones is a neighborhood park that is used primarily by its close by residents. It is a
popular place for seniors to meet in the mornings as well as a place to walk dogs. Other activities
observed included basketball, frisbee, volleyball, card games, and group events and parties.
Most common activities:
• Playground use (47%)
• Picnicking or gatherings at the picnic tables (19%)
• Sitting on the soccer field (14%)
• Walking or walking a dog around the park path (11%)
Park Area
Total number of users
Playgrounds 146
Large field 63
Picnic tables 59
Park paths 35
Basketball court 8
Total Park Users 311
General Park Observations:
• The more shaded playground with
the train got significantly more
use (~85% of all playground
users) compared with the other
playground. This could be due to
nicer/more playground features
and more seating and shade
available.
• The most popular feature of the
2nd playground was the mini
climbing wall
22
Scott Park: Pocket Park
Scott park is a small pocket park that has several smaller parks features in it. Each of those
features was used during at least one of the observation times, but none were heavily used. The
most common use of the park was walking through it, often with dogs or with children in
strollers.
Most common activities:
• Walking through (61%)
• Sitting on the lawn (13%)
• Bocce ball (8%)
• Sitting at the picnic tables (8%)
Park Area Total number of users
Passing through 36
Lawn 8
Bocce ball 5
Picnic tables 5
Basketball court 3
Swing set 2
Total Park Users 59
General Park Observations:
• Highest percentage of senior users at
any of the surveyed parks (27%) –
Bocce ball was a popular sport with
seniors on the weekends
• Used by residents of the senior care
center next door
• Three people were observed
smoking (the most out of any park)
• Used most in the morning and in the
evening
23
Sarah Wallis Park: Small Park with Few Amenities
Sarah Wallis is a very small park with beautiful landscaping and benches. People primarily used
this park to sit on the benches for lunch or talk on the phone, as well as using it to walk through
with their dogs.
Most common activities:
• Sitting on the benches (60%)
• Walking through (40%)
Park Area Total number of users
Park benches 22
Passing through 16
Grass areas 0
Total Park Users 38
General Park Observations:
• Used primarily by adults (80%)
and seniors (15%)
• The park was used most around
midday when people eat their
lunch in the park or walk through
it
• No one was observed using the
grass areas of the park
24
SURVEY OF PARK USERS & RESIDENTS
In addition to park observations, a ten-question survey about park use and preferences was
conducted through two different methods. The survey was carried out in-person with park users
in seven different parks. Additionally, a link to the survey was posted online on the Palo Alto
Community Services Department website and was also emailed out to residents. Because the in-
person survey was carried out by one individual, the scope was limited (n=39). The online
survey had only one response to date (n=1).
The responses shown in the graphs below are a combination of both the in-person surveys and
online survey response. Parks where the survey was conducted in-person include Mitchell, El
Camino, Eleanor Pardee, Greer, Juana Briones, Peers, and Rinconada park. People were chosen
at random in those parks and only adults, teens 18 years and older, and seniors were surveyed.
Questions were phrased to ask about the current park they were visiting or in the case of the
online version, the most recent park they had visited (including any of the 32 urban parks in Palo
Alto).
Figure 15. Frequency of Park Visits
Most surveyed park goers said they visit that park routinely.
25
Figure 16. Distance Traveled to Reach the Park
Figure 17. Mode of Transportation to the Park
Most park visitors surveyed lived close by the park they are visiting.
Most park visitors surveyed walked or drove to the park.
26
Figure 18. Common Activities in the Park
Figure 19. Reasons for Choosing a Particular Park
The most common activities reported were bringing kids to play and
walking/playing with dogs.
The most common reasons people chose a particular park were proximity to
where they lived and access to playgrounds and dog parks.
27
Figure 20. Perceptions of Park Safety
Figure 21. Perceptions of Cleanliness and Attractiveness of Parks
85% of respondents considered the park they were in to be “very safe”.
75% of respondents considered the park they were in to be “very clean and attractive”.
28
Figure 22. Palo Alto Residence of Park Users
CONCLUSION
Parks in Palo Alto are a valued and relied on community resource. There is a wide variety
of city parks in Palo Alto, both that were included in the survey and that we were not. Across
Palo Alto’s parks, people engage in a range of activities, particularly social activities and
activities that are physically active. Palo Alto, compared to other cities, has particularly engaged
park users. On average, parks in Palo Alto were observed to get more than two times as much
use compared with parks in similar studies done in cities across the U.S.* Attractions such as
playgrounds, park paths for walking or jogging, dog parks, and open lawn space for recreation or
group gatherings were particularly popular with people. Palo Alto also maintains high standards
of quality within their parks with the majority of park users surveyed reporting them to be safe
and clean and attractive to be in.
*Average hourly park users per acre in surveyed parks was 5.55 people compared to the average from the
comparative study which was 2.61 people.
75% of park users surveyed were Palo Alto residents and 25% were non-
residents.
29
Not all groups were equally represented in parks. Fewer seniors used the parks that we
observed compared with their overall senior population in Palo Alto. This suggests that seniors
may desire different programs or amenities in Palo Alto’s parks than what are currently
available.
Ways to maximize park usage in the future could include developing additional park
attractions that draw large numbers of visitors, such as innovative playgrounds like the Magical
Bridge Playground, attractive park paths, and structured open areas for dogs that include
amenities like seating, shade, and water.
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
• Continue to implement programming and activities that will bring new and
underrepresented populations into parks
• Consider looking further into the feedback from park users such as bathrooms at Pardee
park and new or improved designated dog areas in parks like Pardee and Greer
• Work towards getting a higher survey response rate in order to get more significant
results and more feedback as this iteration’s survey sample size was very small (n=40).
Offering an incentive to fill out the survey such as being entered to win a gift card or a
discounted class may boost the response rate.
• Consider conducting another similar observational survey during a different time of year
(ex. winter) to compare results across seasons
30
Citations
Cohen, Deborah A et al. “The First National Study of Neighborhood Parks: Implications
for Physical Activity.” American journal of preventive medicine vol. 51,4 (2016): 419-26.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.03.021
Cohen, Deborah A et al. “Quantifying the Contribution of Public Parks to Physical
Activity and Health.” National Recreation and Park Association (2014).
Cohen, Deborah A et al. “How much observation is enough? Refining the administration
of SOPARC.” Journal of physical activity & health vol. 8,8 (2011): 1117-23.
McKenzie, Thomas L. Ph.D. and Deborah A. Cohen, MD. “System for Observing Play
and Recreation in Communities Description and Procedures Manual”. (2006).
Images
“Palo Alto Parks.” https://julianalee.com/palo-alto/palo-alto-parks.htm
“Briones Park.” http://www.ecklection.com/2014/09/parenthood-briones-park.html
“City of Palo Alto.” City of Palo Alto News,
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2538&TargetID=145
“Dog Park.” Palo Alto Online, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/06/13/long-awaited-
dog-park-to-open-in-north-palo-alto
“Scott Park” Catching Sunshine, http://www.catchingsunshine.com/scott-park/
“Sarah Wallis Park Palo Alto” Alamy, https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-sarah-wallis-park-
palo-alto-ca-56879281.html
31
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Jazmin LeBlanc and Daren Anderson for all their help and support in creating and
implementing this first park survey.
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2019
SUBJECT: DRAFT PLAN FOR THE 7.7-ACRE AREA OF FOOTHILLS PARK
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss the draft
plan for the 7.7-acre area of Foothills Park (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The 7.7-acre parcel was a gift to the City of Palo Alto in 1981 by the Lee family. The Lee family
retained an estate on the property until 1996 when it reverted to the City. From 1996 to 2005 the
City leased the land to a private resident who owns the land adjacent to the 7.7-acre parcel.
On August 18, 2014, Council passed an ordinance dedicating the 7.7-acre parcel as park land.
Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to facilitate the development of ideas for
specific land use options of the newly dedicated 7.7 acres in Foothills Park. A Commission Ad
Hoc committee was formed to help direct the process of collecting public input on the issue.
In October 2014, there were several Ranger-led tours of the 7.7 acres, and a public meeting was
held at Foothills Park to collect suggestions and comments from the public on ideas for how to
best use the newly acquired park land. Some participants suggested building a campground,
picnic area, and dog park. However, the majority of participants recommended that the site be
restored to improve the habitat.
On January 27, 2015, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the possible uses for the
7.7 acres at Foothills Park. The Commission recommended that staff complete the Buckeye
Creek Hydrology Study (Study) prior to developing plans for the use of the 7.7-acre area. The
Commission reviewed the Study on January 23, 2018. While the Study includes an option for
creek improvements on the 7.7-acre parcel, the Commission recommendation for resolving
Buckeye Creek’s erosion and sedimentation issues does not include implementing the creek
improvements in the 7.7-acre parcel. For more information on the study please refer to the May
29, 2018 Council staff report on the Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65118.
The 7.7-acre area was opened to the public on November 10, 2018. Park Rangers have observed
that the area averages approximately 10 park visitors per day. The Rangers noted that the visitors
typically enjoy a brief walk through the property, and often express interest in the native plant
nursery.
DISCUSSION
2
The Commission Ad Hoc Committee on Foothills Park, Grassroots Ecology (the City’s
restoration stewardship partner), and staff worked together to create a draft plan for the 7.7-acre
area (Attachment A). The draft plan focuses on restoration, but also includes a simple loop trail
and some basic park amenities (park benches, drinking fountain, and interpretive signage) that
are in-keeping with other areas of Foothills Park. The draft plan allows for the improvement and
preservation of habitat, as well as the enjoyment and education of park visitors. The draft plan is
not in conflict with potential creek improvement flood plain area listed as an option in the
Buckeye Creek Hydrology Study.
The proposed restoration activities would be accomplished in coordination with Grassroots
Ecology (GRE). GRE maintains a native plant nursery on the 7.7-acre parcel and has been
conducting restoration in Foothills Park since 2013. They have engaged thousands of volunteers
to remove invasive species, plant locally native species, and provide hands-on education for
community members of all ages. GRE staff and volunteers have worked in the 7.7-acre area on
controlling invasive species and installing willow stakes in Buckeye Creek to help with erosion
control along the banks and create valuable habitat for insects and birds. GRE staff have also
experimented with test plots to determine which soil amendments and plants can be successful in
the compacted soils in the 7.7-acre area. The lessons learned from these experiments have been
incorporated into the draft plan.
Next Steps
Staff will conduct community outreach to collect feedback on the draft plan, as well as other
ideas the community may have for the use of the 7.7-acre area.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Plan for the 7.7-acre area of Foothills Park
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2019 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE
REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) discuss the proposed
amendments to the Park and Open Space Regulations (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND An interdepartmental Building Regulations Committee was created by the City Manager in August
1997. The charge of this committee was to develop regulations for the use of City facilities by the
public. These regulations were deemed necessary since facilities were at times being used by some members of the public in ways that interfered with the mission and function of City programs and services, resulting in complaints from the public at large. A set of defined and enforceable
regulations has helped City staff respond to complaints and work with facility visitors to encourage
appropriate conduct and use of City facilities.
On June 24, 2002, regulations were adopted governing the appropriate use of park and open space facilities. Staff committed to keeping these rules and regulations current and relevant to park use
patterns and emerging recreational needs. The rules have been periodically updated as needed.
DISCUSSION
The Commission Ad Hoc Committee and staff recommend updating the Park and Open Space
Regulations in order to keep them relevant and reflective of City policies. The revisions proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee and staff include new regulations to address emerging issues, edits
designed to make regulations easier to understand, references to the municipal code so that readers
can see how the regulations are connected to the municipal code, and wording changes to reflect
current City policy. Attachment A contains the regulations with the changes marked in “Track
Changes”.
R1-10A (F) was edited to require that canopies used at Lytton, Cogswell, and King Plaza be
weighted or anchored to prevent them from blowing over and potentially harming visitors.
R1-10A (M) was added to require a permit to have open flames at Lytton, Cogswell, and King
Plaza. This regulation will assist staff in keeping the plazas clean and safe. Staff have found food grease and coals (from portable stoves and BBQs), candle wax, and other related debris at the
plazas.
2
R1-11 (A – G) was edited to change tennis court usage regulations to be inclusive of pickleball,
which reflect recent policy changes.
R1-11 (H) was added to designate dual-use court use hours and dedicated priority hours for tennis play and pickleball play, which reflect recent policy changes.
R1-18 (A) was edited to include scooters in the list of prohibited coasting devices on unpaved trails
in Foothills Park. Park Rangers have experienced a rise in scooters being used on unpaved trails at Foothills Park.
R1-21 was edited to require permit holders for either commercial activities or solicitation to comply with applicable laws and City municipal code.
R1-21(A) was edited to allow an exemption for small photo and film events, consisting of a single
photographer or videographer with a group size of no more than 24 persons. The intent of this
change is to allow small photo or film activity that will have little to no impact on other park visitors or park resources.
R1-26 was edited to expand the litter ban to include garbage generated outside of parks and open
space and restrict litter to only be deposited in designated receptacles. Parks staff has experienced
an increase in people bringing household waste to parks. R1-30 (D) was edited to require that pets must be kept on leash that can be extended no further
than six feet while in open space lands. Park Rangers have experienced a rise in dogs on long,
extended leashes allowing them to wander significantly off trail and impact wildlife.
R1-31 was edited to require people with leashed pets in playgrounds to ensure that their pets do not impact children’s use of the playground and to remove their pets from the playground if
requested by other playground users. Parks staff have received requests from playground users to
prohibit dogs from playgrounds. The proposed edit is intended to balance the concerns of people
who don’t want dogs in playgrounds with people who would like to take their child and dog on leash to a playground, as long as the dog isn’t disturbing other playground users.
R1-37 (E) was edited to include hoverboards and skateboards in the regulations of motor vehicle
operations.
R1-39 was added to ensure that people using exercise equipment in playgrounds do not inhibit children from using the playgrounds or damaging the playground equipment or surfacing. Parks
staff have observed an increase in people exercising in playgrounds.
R1-40 was edited to remove the community garden regulations that merely provided details of the community garden program. The Ad Hoc Committee and staff have created a draft of a new document, the Community Garden Guidelines, which include the details of the community garden
program. The guideline will be sent to all participants in the City’s community garden program
and included in the community garden license agreement. The draft guidelines are currently being
reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and will come to the Commission for review at a
3
subsequent Commission meeting. The community garden regulations that pertain to the general
public have been included in this revision of the Park and Open Space Regulations.
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Revised Park and Open Space Regulations
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS STAFF
LIAISON 8/19 STATUS UPDATE
Baylands 10.5 Acres Cribbs
LaMere
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson
Discussed environmental mitigation if pond covered. when I left, I thought it was decided to ask consultants to
consider just the 10.5 acres - with pond and with mitigated pond (and cost of mitigation) but also the additional
land that could be utilized to increase the amount of land.
Baylands Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (BCCP)
Moss
McDougall
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson
CIP Input Moss
McDougall
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Cubberley Master Plan Moss
McDougall
Greenfield
Kristen
O'Kane
Foothills Park Greenfield
LaMere
McCauley
Daren
Anderson The Committee has progressed work and drafted a detailed pilot program proposal for discussion with the
broader PRC and public. Staff has provided helpful input and edits. Commissioner Greenfield does not support
returning this matter to PRC until further outreach and research is completed."
Park & Facility Use Policy Cribbs
Greenfield
Reckdahl
Adam
Howard Daren will provide a status update regarding the new Pickleball Court construction schedule and outreach to the
Pickleball community re: court closure during construction.
Park Amenities Cribbs
McDougall
McCauley
Daren
Anderson Good meeting with Darren and Ryan.. Moving forward with community outreach and conversation with dog
community. Especially interested in “off Leash” pilot at Heritage.
Park Dedication Greenfield
McCauley
Kristen
O'Kane
The ad hoc met with staff to review a staff report re: two potential sites which were assessed as not appropriate
candidates for immediate park dedication. A list of other sites for staff to assess was agreed upon. In addition,
creation of a list of Planned Community (PC) benefit sites which could eventually be made public was discussed.
After the staff assessment of the full list of potential sites is available, a PRC agenda discussion item will be
scheduled to share the results.
Park Rules & Regulations Greenfield
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Updated Park Rules & Regs will be discussed at the August PRC meeting, New Community Garden Rules, which
have been separated from the Park Rules & Regulations, were discussed and updated via in-person and phone
conference meetings.
Recreation Opportunities Cribbs
LaMere
Reckdahl
Kristen
O'Kane
LIAISON & OUTREACH MEMBERS STAFF /
CONTACT 8/19 STATUS UPDATE
Aquatics Cribbs Jazmin
LeBlanc
Community Gardens Greenfield Catherine
Bourquin
New proposed Community Gardens Guidelines and Responsibilities will be discussed at the August or September
PRC meeting, depending on City Attorney advice.
Friends of Foothills Park McDougall
Friends of PA Parks McDougall
Funding McDougall Kristen
O'Kane
GSI Moss
Health and Wellness McCauley
PA Recreation Foundation McDougall Jack Morton
PAUSD / City Reckdahl Kristen
O'Kane (Notes from 8/15 meeting submitted by Greenfield, covering for Reckdahl). Cubberley Master Plan draft is
under City departmental review and will eventually be opened for public comment. The School Board has had
no recent activity re: Cubberley and timelines for development have not been discussed. The Cubberley Master
Plan was agendized for the 8/16 PAUSD retreat, which will be the first time the School Board will be discussing
many Cubberley development issues. City lease renewal of Cubberley is a topic of interest and some contention.
Potential future meeting agendas may include discussions about afterschool sports and services for the
developmentally disabled.
PAUSD Projects Greenfield
McDougall
Miguel
Chacon
Safe Routes Greenfield Rosie
Mesterhazy
Stanford LaMere
McCauley
Turf Management Greenfield Daren
Anderson New Cubberley turf field and track renovation construction work is in progress and on schedule for completion
in October. The problem at El Camino Park with rubber pellets melting has been assessed. The vendor specified
an improper hollow fill TPE type, based on our geographic location. The infill will be replaced under warranty, at
no charge to the City, likley in mid-November. Failing field lines will also be replaced at this time. The field will
be closed for 1-2 for this work. A light stanchion electrical failure occurred last week at the Mayfield-North
soccer field, resulting in a loss of 1/4 of the lighting for the field. Staff is working to address this.
Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan
Reckdahl
Youth Council Cribbs
2019 AD HOC COMMITTEES – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
2019 LIAISON & OUTREACH – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION