HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-24 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact
650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members 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 September 24th, 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 August 27th, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
PRC Chair McDougall – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Amendment to the Park Improvement Ordinance for the Rinconada Park Improvement Project
–Peter Jensen – Action (60 min) ATTACHMENT
3. Park and Open Space Regulations Update – Daren Anderson – Action (60 min) ATTACHMENT
4.Foothills Park Access Pilot – Commission Ad Hoc Committee – Discussion (30 min)
ATTACHMENT
5.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min) ATTACHMENT
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 22nd, 2019 MEETING
VII.COMMENTS AND ANNOUCEMENTS
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC LETTERS
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING 7
August 27, 2019 8
CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), 13
Don McDougall, David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl (arrived at 7:46 14
p.m.) 15
Commissioners Absent: Jeff Greenfield 16
Others Present: Council Member Cormack 17
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Natalie Khwaja 18
I. ROLL CALL 19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 20
Chair McDougall: I'd like to ask if there are any Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions 21
from the published agenda. Do staff or Commissioners have anything that they'd like to 22
suggest? 23
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 24
Chair McDougall: I have no cards for Oral Communications for topics that are not on the 25 agenda. 26
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 27
Chair McDougall: I'd like to start with welcoming Daren Anderson and the Department 28
Report. 29
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson. Thanks so much. I'll give you a 30
couple of brief items. The first one's about the Black and White Ball. Just a reminder it's 31
Friday, October 4, 7:00 p.m. to midnight, at Lucie Stern. Tickets are still available. 32
They're $150 each and available online. There's an ice cream social at Hoover Park. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
This is the 25th annual Midtown Ice Cream Social on Sunday, September 15, from 1:00 1
to 4:00 at Hoover Park. So far, Chair McDougall and I are signed up to staff a table and 2
provide information on parks and open space and recreation. 3
Commissioner Cribbs: (inaudible) 4
Mr. Anderson: And Anne Cribbs, wonderful. I hadn't heard that yet. That's terrific. 5
Thank you. Commissioner Greenfield had asked about some lighting issues at two of our 6 parks. A couple of bulbs were out at El Camino Park and Stanford/Palo Alto. At El 7
Camino Park, they were replaced on Monday and today. We're back up and running. 8
We're getting a price quote for a little electrical fire we had on an outlet that powered a 9
few of the lights at Stanford/Palo Alto. We're getting a price quote on that, and we'll get 10
it fixed promptly. An update on the Cubberley track and field project. It's progressing 11
well, and we're still on track. About a third of the field has the new pad and the new 12
synthetic turf down. The turf crew that's working on this will be out next week to finish 13
the field installation. Anticipated total turf installation should be done by September 18, 14
and then they'll address the track, which should be completed by September 30, and 15
wrapping up the whole project on October 4. An update on the 3350 Birch Street or 16
AT&T property. On August 19, Council authorized the City Manager to finalize the 17
purchase of the vacant lot at 3350 Birch Street. The City Manager will provide the seller 18
with a written notice to proceed with the sale by August 30, and closing is scheduled to 19
take place 15 days after that. Subsequent steps I envision will be park dedication for the 20
property and community outreach to figure out what the community would like to do 21
with the land. Pickleball, I've got good news. We received our final permit for approval. 22
I think I notified the Commission via email. The work is underway, and the project is 23
anticipated to be completed by November 15. The Cubberley Master Plan, unfortunately 24
I don't have a lot of details. Kristen's planning to get more information and hopefully 25 update you either by email in the interim or perhaps at our next staff meeting. The draft 26 Master Plan is complete. It's under internal review right now. A Commissioner had 27 asked about review on behalf of the Commission, and Kristen says she's coordinating 28
with the City Manager and PAUSD on this issue to make sure we're in alignment about 29
the release of the plan. More information to come. Also good news on the Arastradero 30
Community Garden. This is our newest community garden. Staff's been putting in the 31
irrigation and clearing out a little debris and building the plots. That'll be about 35 plots, 32
which should be ready for gardeners to start using in about one month from now. We 33
already have nine people on our waiting list, which is exciting. People are geared up to 34
start moving in once we're ready. I also had a question about Bol Park and a project 35
Public Works had been looking at for GSI or underground water storage at that site. 36
Several months ago, they had investigated the possibility of putting an underground 37
reservoir there and GSI features. The community had weighed in not in favor by and 38
large. We asked about the current status, and Public Works informed me that that was 39
just the preliminary look, and they're not currently looking at it any longer. Their GSI 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
plan has other, higher-priority sites for GSI improvements. Bol Park's not on their 1
agenda or calendar. I also received a question about some recent surveys at the Baylands. 2
Save the Bay, who is our primary partner for restoration at that site, is out doing some 3
vegetation monitoring around the marsh along Byxbee. This is just part of their regular 4
efforts. They're out there removing invasive weeds and planting a tremendous number of 5
native plants. They monitor those areas regularly. We also had Team Spartina. This is a 6 team dedicated to one specific invasive plant called the invasive spartina plant. We have 7
it at the Baylands and have had it for quite some time. They've tracked it over the years, 8
and they did an annual pretreatment survey of it. The good news is our infestation is 9
down about 90 percent from its peak in 2006, and now we have approximately 0.14 acres. 10
We're just continually whittling it down with ongoing sustained efforts. I also had a 11
question about sea level rise, just kind of what's next, keeping that fresh and relevant. 12
The next step, I think, is going to be Public Works will be bringing the horizontal levee 13
project for the Commission to discuss in October, tentatively. That concludes the 14
Department Report. 15
Chair McDougall: Before I ask the Commission whether they have any questions for 16
staff, I would like to remind everybody to make sure you're using the mic and you're 17
speaking into the mic. Apparently, we've recently lost some of the extremely valuable 18
conversations that we've had, and they haven't been sufficiently recorded. That's just 19
disastrous. Please plan on speaking up. I will ask if anybody has any questions for staff 20
at this point. Anne. 21
Commissioner Cribbs: Just two comments. One, great news on the pickleball. I'm sure 22
that the community will be very excited about that, and I hope we're going to plan a 23
celebration. That's just great. I was so happy to see that come. For the track and for the 24
field at Cubberley, are you doing something to publicize all that? 25
Mr. Anderson: Yes, I think we'll probably get a ribbon cutting. 26
Chair McDougall: Does anybody else have any questions? I would like to echo the 27 pickleball excitement. On Bol Park, that was something that GSI decided was a good 28
project. Do we have any understanding of what citizen objections were to that project? 29
Mr. Anderson: I don't think they got a fair chance to hear a lot about it. I don't think 30
there was a public presentation on it. I'm probably not the right one to give all the details, 31
but I'll ask Public Works to come back at some point. I think they'll be here in 32
November, for sure, and maybe they give a litany of updates, and that could be one of 33
them, where we're at with GSI. 34
Chair McDougall: That would be good because they were pretty passionate about GSI 35
and the things they could do. It would be worth understanding what citizen objections 36
were. On the Baylands, spartina is a kind of cordgrass, right? 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 1
Chair McDougall: Does that mean that all cordgrass is bad or all the rest of the cordgrass 2
that we have there is good cordgrass? 3
Mr. Anderson: Very good question. It's really tricky, especially at our site. There's an 4
East Coast variety, spartina alterniflora, and it was introduced on accident in the East 5
Bay. It migrated all through San Francisco Bay. You could tell differences until it 6 hybridized. We've got a native spartina, native cordgrass, and now we've got this 7
alterniflora, the East Coast variety, and now we have a hybrid. It's really, really difficult 8
to discern the differences. You have to sometimes time it just right in terms of its 9
growth. Sometimes, you have to inspect the roots. It's very, very difficult, and hence this 10
team of specialists that are really, really good. Lots of times we'll take samples and send 11
them to Cornell to have them genetically tested to ensure we're going after the right ones. 12
Chair McDougall: It sounds exciting, but I'm not sure exciting is the right word. It 13
certainly sounds interesting and impressive. Thank you for that. Unless there are any 14
other questions—David. 15
Commissioner Moss: Regarding the horizontal levee, there's a demo for the 16
subcommittee this Friday. 17
Mr. Anderson: A tour to Oro Loma as I understand it. 18
Commissioner Moss: The AT&T property, that's fantastic news. I hope it proceeds well. 19
We've only had a couple of new additions over the past four years, so this is going to be a 20
big update. 21
V. BUSINESS 22
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the July 23, 2019 Parks and Recreation 23
Commission meeting. 24
Commissioner Moss: I wanted to acknowledge that my updates to the Minutes in the 25 form of a memo were added to the record for others to see. I hope we can talk about that 26 later. 27
Chair McDougall: The same for the comments and the written response from 28
Commissioner Greenfield. Would it be appropriate for us to somehow acknowledge that 29
in that we're approving the amended Minutes or is it just the Minutes as they've been 30
presented to us? Does that make any difference? Natalie, do you have a comment? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Natalie Khwaja: The memos aren't actually added to the Minutes. They're added to the 1
agenda from last meeting. There would be no change to the Minutes. The memos are 2
posted for public record on the agenda. 3
Approval of the draft July 23, 2019 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Moss and 4
seconded by Commissioner Cribbs. Passed 5-0, Greenfield and Reckdahl absent 5
Council Member Cormack: Chair McDougall, may I ask a question about the Minutes 6 now that they've been approved? 7
Chair McDougall: Yes, please. 8
Council Member Cormack: Mr. Anderson, I noted in the Minutes that there was going to 9
be outreach about Ramos Park in August. Has that been completed or started? 10
Mr. Anderson: I'm sorry, it has not yet. 11
Council Member Cormack: Just for my understanding, when you're doing outreach for a 12
park, how broadly do you do? A half-mile perimeter to notify people or how does that 13
work? 14
Mr. Anderson: Approximately, yeah. It depends sometimes on the layout of the park and 15
what the nearest surrounding neighborhood looks like. If it's residences, we'll try to 16
broaden it out a little bit more. If it's commercial, sometimes less in certain (crosstalk). 17
Council Member Cormack: The schools, you'll contact the schools, etc.? 18
Mr. Anderson: Schools and, for sure, the Commission is always sent an email. 19
2. Informational Presentation on Park Visitation Study 20
Chair McDougall: If there are no other questions, I'd like to welcome back Jazmin 21
LeBlanc, who has given us interesting presentations and so on before, and invite her to 22
give us an update on the park visitation study that was done in the summer. 23
Jazmin LeBlanc: Thank you very much. I'm Jazmin LeBlanc from the Community 24
Services Department. I'm here to present an urban park utilization study that our 25 department was able to conduct this summer. We hired a fantastic summer intern. We 26 would have really liked to have her here, but she's already gone back to college. It's 27 Megan Schmiesing. She's a local young person who is entering her senior year of Pitzer 28
College, studying environmental analysis. She was able to work with us on a variety of 29
projects. This was the biggest project that she worked on. The reason that we asked her 30
to do an urban park utilization study is we actually don't have a good sense of how many 31
people are using our urban parks. Open space is something that we've been able to track 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
because there are fewer entry points, but urban parks are a different animal. This was 1
something we thought would be valuable. It does come up. Both Daren and I will get 2
calls somewhat regularly asking how many people use our different types of parks and in 3
what ways. This is the reason behind doing the survey. Megan developed a survey 4
methodology that was—before I jump into the methodology, the point of this survey is to 5
have a better understanding of how people are using our parks and in what ways and not 6 to base it on anecdotes or other methods like how much trash is accumulating in one park 7
or another. That's a bit of the background for the survey. We only had one person who 8
was working on this survey, so we did have to narrow in on just a few parks. We chose 9
to look at eight parks. The list of parks was developed closely with Daren and his staff to 10
make sure we were getting a good variety of different types of parks, sizes, and locations 11
across the City. We used the survey methodology that was developed by San Diego State 12
University and the Rand Corporation to be able to get a relatively accurate picture of park 13
usage. This was systematic observations of parks just during the summer, so we're 14
looking at summer data only, throughout the day and throughout the week. In addition to 15
doing the surveys or observational study, we also asked Megan to ask a ten-question 16
survey, and she did get a relatively small sample, but it's still valuable information. I 17
wouldn't try to extrapolate it to the entire population of Palo Alto, but it gives us an 18
interesting picture. This is just a brief overview of how she gathered the data. Basically, 19
each park is broken into segments, and she's counting users in each part of the park. 20
There's a possibility that she's double counting people or miscounting people, but overall 21
we felt like this was going to give us a reasonably good data set. Some of the big 22
findings are here. You can look and see how many people are using the eight parks that 23
we surveyed in an average week in the summer. In terms of putting this into a bigger 24
picture, the national average is somewhere in between Eleanor Pardee Park and Juana 25 Briones Park. Pardee Park is about 10 percent more used, if you're looking at people per 26 acre, than the typical park at the national level. You can see some of our parks are 27 significantly above that. When you look at the average across all eight of these parks, we 28
have about twice as many users in Palo Alto parks as we do in the average park in 29
America. We have relatively even distribution of people in parks at different times of 30
day. Obviously, there are some peaks with the most people around the lunchtime hours, 31
but it's pretty even. There are more users on weekends than weekdays across the parks, 32
about 20 percent more on a weekend. It's pretty even distribution if you're looking at it 33
by gender. When you look at age, there are more noticeable differences with the most 34
people in our parks being children and a lot of adults, but when you pull out just adults 35
who appear to be there to observe kids in the park, you get a lot fewer adults. About half 36
of the adults that are in parks are there primarily to watch their children. As we compare 37
the usage of parks with the demographics in Palo Alto, you can see that children are over-38
represented in parks and seniors are under-represented in parks across Palo Alto. Again, 39
this is what the surveyor observed. She broke out essentially the three larger parks in the 40
survey as regional parks, so Mitchell Park, Greer—actually I think it was Peers and 41
Pardee as well, compared with the smaller parks to see if there were differences in usage. 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
You can see a little bit of difference. We also looked at how people were using the parks 1
and found that quite a few people are engaged in something that is either vigorous 2
exercise or walking or more. This was pretty different than other surveys found. For 3
instance, in LA when they did a similar park survey, they found that about two-thirds of 4
the people in parks were sedentary, relaxing at benches or picnicking, things like that. 5
We have sort of a flipped image here of people who are pretty active. This is something 6 that other park surveyors have really focused on because physical activity is so important. 7
Looking at particular activities, our surveyor actually separated Magical Bridge from 8
other playground use because it was such a popular activity on its own. Definitely when 9
you add playground use and Magical Bridge, you can see that is a hugely popular thing to 10
do in our urban parks. There's a variety of things that are happening. When you focus on 11
just what was observed among seniors, you get a bit of a different picture where there are 12
definitely more people doing things like walking, sitting, picnicking. Playing pickleball 13
was a very popular activity she observed among seniors, tai chi, etc. We also asked her 14
to focus on dogs at the parks and found that the new Peers Park dog park is very popular. 15
She saw a lot of people with dogs there. The Mitchell Park dog area seemed to also be 16
quite popular. She did observe some dogs in the Greer Park dog run, but a similar 17
number of dogs that were on the fields at Greer Park rather than actually in the dog run 18
and some other dogs off-leash in other parks. I've already said what's on this slide, so I'll 19
move on. We asked her to focus on specific parks in particular. As I've already 20
mentioned, the most common activity at Mitchell Park was using the Magical Bridge 21
playground, using the other playgrounds, picnicking, using the pickleball courts were 22
other popular activities. Because she spent so much of the summer in parks, part of what 23
we asked is, "Can you look for some other observations that you're just picking up by 24
being in our parks for hours and hours all summer and speaking with people?" She 25 identified some potential improvements we could make. I would say there's a consistent 26 pattern that people want to be in the shady spots no matter what. That was some of the 27 things that she heard and observed around dog parks and so on. In looking at Greer Park, 28
this park was more popular in terms of actually playing sports on the fields and then 29
playing at the park and walking or jogging. El Camino Park is a bit different because it is 30
primarily ball fields. What she saw during the summer speaks to that. What she saw 31
appeared to be people in summer camps for particular sports. In the particular time she 32
observed, there were some pretty dramatic differences amongst gender in that park, 33
which is worth noting and worth us keeping an eye on. This really may be a statistical 34
blip because of the nature of whatever the camps were in the given weeks she was there. 35
Peers Park was one that she noted was really utilized to the max, that every inch was well 36
used. That's particularly true now that the dog park is in. Dog park, picnicking, 37
playgrounds, and summer camps were all popular activities she observed. Pardee Park, 38
this is one that I mentioned is about 10 percent above the average in terms of use. What 39
she saw was similar, playgrounds, playing on the fields, walking, people gardening. This 40
was one that she noted had the highest use amongst teenagers, but it's hard to know 41
exactly what was driving that. In the cases where she saw teens there, it was more 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
playing on the fields in formal or informal sports. Juana Briones Park, the playgrounds 1
are popular, and she noted the playground with shade is much more popular than the 2
playground without shade. There's two playgrounds at that park. Scott Park, this is one 3
of the smaller parks. It had a lot more people who were using it as a place to walk 4
through. She did see that the bocce ball courts were used, especially on weekends. Sarah 5
Wallis Park might be the smallest park that we looked at; I think it is. She did see that 6 this park actually does get a decent amount of use, especially during the lunch hour for 7
people who just want to come for a place to relax. I'll go through the park visitor survey, 8
which does have a small sample size right now of about 40. This is something that we've 9
put up on our City website. We'd like to advertise it a little more to collect more data, 10
find out how people are using our parks a little more. For the people that she surveyed, 11
she found that people are in parks very frequently, daily or several times a week. People 12
are going to parks that are near their home, and they're generally walking or driving to the 13
park. The reason they're coming is kind of what she observed. They're coming to go to 14
the playground, to go for a walk, or to bring their dog somewhere. The reason they chose 15
the park is generally because it's the closest park, but sometimes there's some particular 16
amenity that's drawing them to that park. In general, they feel very safe in our parks and 17
feel that the parks are either very clean or fairly clean and attractive. We did find that 18
about three-fourths of the survey respondents were Palo Alto residents. The conclusions 19
that we drew from this were that Palo Alto parks are being well used, more than twice as 20
much use per acre as we saw in other national surveys. Attractions are a big draw, so 21
having a really great playground. You can see that with Mitchell Park. It's going to pull 22
a lot of people in. Other popular activities are having walking paths for walking or 23
jogging, nice dog parks. Open lawn space for people to play sports or just relax are 24
popular. Organized activities are drawing a lot of people. There was a bit of a bias to 25 having more males than females in the parks. We saw a lot of physical activity, as I 26 mentioned, higher than other surveys. Mitchell Park is very popular. Some of the next 27 steps, we thought it would be interesting to look at the same data at different times of the 28
year to see if we can get a better sense of our annual use in parks. It might be useful to 29
look at some of our other parks. As I mentioned, we still have the survey up. It would be 30
great to get more people to respond to the survey. If we are continuing to find, as we get 31
more data, that we do have some mismatches in terms of demographics, if we only have 32
about a third of our seniors coming into the parks, that's something we may want to really 33
look at as we develop new amenities or new programming. That is the conclusion of this 34
presentation. Thank you. 35
Chair McDougall: Jazmin, thank you. That was particularly interesting. I'm going to 36
start with Anne because she has her light on already, and then I will go in that direction. 37
I forgot. We do have one speaker card. It's Shani Kleinhaus. You have Item Number 2. 38
Would you like to speak on this? 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Shani Kleinhaus: Yes. I wrote some notes on this. Thank you. My name is Shani 1
Kleinhaus. I'm the environmental advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. I 2
also live in Palo Alto. I like the results of this. It's very informative, the survey, but 5:30 3
is too early in June and July to see the people who come out in the evening. Having the 4
survey done at 5:30, you're not going to see the seniors, the people that stroll around, the 5
people that walk with their dogs, the people that come out with their little kids. Sunset in 6 those months is after 8:00, and people don't show up until 7:30, 7:00. From my 7
experience, that's when I see people there. That's just a comment. A general comment is 8
that I really think this shows that we need to plant shade trees and that big shade trees are 9
important, especially oaks if possible. One thing about Mitchell. I saw that there is 10
comments there. One of the things at Mitchell that could be looked at is removing some 11
of those lights. If you drive there at night, there's no people, and there's a lot of light 12
pollution. Maybe dog drinking fountains if you're going to continue developing that 13
park. What was pretty clear is that the very little parks are not very functional. They 14
only have people walking through, 61 percent at Scott Park and 40 percent walking 15
through at Sarah Wallis. It's important to have people go through parks. It makes their 16
day better. The pocket parks should have some kind of attraction like a gathering place. 17
I don't think they're doing that. One of the things I hope you discuss is what makes a 18
gathering place, what's the minimum size for a functional park that actually provides 19
more than a walk-through opportunity. Again, it's not unimportant, but it would be good 20
to know what makes a gathering place. Shade would be good for seniors, but there are 21
other things. My usual pitch, add butterfly gardens, shade, and beauty. Thank you. 22
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I'll go back to you. 23
Commissioner Cribbs: I would hope that we would do something in the winter time or 24
the fall or the spring or if we could do it the four seasons. It would be interesting to see 25 the differences. I was interested in the way that maybe she counted. There were more 26 males than females using the park. That seemed different to me somehow. Maybe it's 27 just an assumption on my part. When I think about all the soccer teams and the baseball 28
teams and all of that, I don't know how those were factored in. Just something to think 29
about. On the whole idea of Sarah Wallis Park, that is like a little jewel in California 30
Avenue, and there are so many people in California Avenue right now. We probably 31
should put on some sort of fun promotion to get people to come and have lunch there, 32
take a break, or bring their lunch because it's a lovely place to go and spend some time 33
relaxing. 34
Commissioner Moss: Thank you very much for doing this survey. Who calls you to 35
know about these statistics and why? 36
Ms. LeBlanc: The Planning Department will definitely call trying to understand usage or 37
where we might want to put more amenities in some place because it's heavily used or 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
other places they could use more. I've gotten a few calls from planners. Daren could 1
probably add because he's been getting questions longer than I have. 2
Mr. Anderson: The only thing I would chime in is it's a very commonly tracked statistic 3
that parks should be tracking. We just haven't, and I'm very grateful for this intern and 4
her endeavors. I think it's really valuable. It's absolutely certain that we're going to 5
continue it. 6
Commissioner Moss: The Planning Department is internal. Do you also get other cities 7
who—do you feed into a national database, for instance? 8
Mr. Anderson: We get a lot of questions from other park districts. Statewide, I know 9
we've done—I don't recall getting a national survey, but I'm sure it's happened here and 10
there. Oftentimes, we put n/a, not available information. Looking forward to changing 11
that. 12
Commissioner Moss: As far as the total number, you put the total number estimated for 13
eight parks, but of course we have a lot more parks. That number is really big. I'm 14
amazed. I wanted to make sure that we could extrapolate that to the other parks, and not 15
only to the parks but to like Cubberley field and the field at Page Mill and El Camino, 16
which would skew the activity levels and also the teen percentages as well. I hope you're 17
doing that as well. 18
Ms. LeBlanc: Yes. We tried to have her consistently follow this methodology that's been 19
developed by academics and statisticians so that we can extrapolate. Our hope is that we 20
can bring her back in her winter break. She's already said she has some time to do winter 21
next. Since she knows what she's doing, she can jump right in without training so that we 22
can get year-round. Eventually, hopefully, we can add more of our parks. This is 23
definitely a good start for us. 24
Commissioner Moss: I echo the speaker about shaded playgrounds. If you can't grow a 25 tree fast enough, I would put gazebos over sections. I was wondering, if we did add 26 restrooms to the parks, would we track an increase in usage when we add a bathroom. 27 We talked last meeting about adding those super port-a-potties in the interim. I would 28
like to see some follow up along those lines. Also, we have special events at these parks, 29
and they will regularly add a couple hundred people, but they're one-offs. I don't know 30
how you can put that into a survey, but it would be nice to make a footnote for those 31
special events that we have. 32
Chair McDougall: Ryan, do you have any comments? 33
Commissioner McCauley: Jazmin, this is great. I share your caution about the 34
limitations on the survey responses because there are so few responses. Her 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
observational information that she has related here is really helpful. I look forward to the 1
next iteration. 2
Commissioner LaMere: Jazmin, thank you so much for making a preliminary stab at 3
gathering some data about our parks. With Megan coming back in the winter, are there 4
any thoughts to already reaching out and figuring out if we can get a volunteer or add 5
someone to her team to either gather more accurate data or survey additional parks? 6
Ms. LeBlanc: I hadn't thought about that, but that is an excellent idea. I think we could 7
definitely try to find … 8
Commissioner LaMere: I don't know if there's any partnerships. It seems like it could be 9
a valuable volunteer opportunity for somebody who's doing something that has to do with 10
research. I don't know if the junior college is or even some of the high schools. That 11
could be of interest. How have we advertised the survey? 12
Ms. LeBlanc: We haven't done much advertising yet. I'd like to push that in the next few 13
months. 14
Commissioner LaMere: Maybe posting something on Nextdoor or something like that 15
might generate some interest from some people in the community. It's great that we're 16
starting to gather some data to help see what we might be able to do or start to inform 17
some of our decisions. 18
Chair McDougall: Jazmin, when I talked to you briefly before, I said I'd probably follow 19
up with you separately. I too echo everything everybody said. This is fantastic that we're 20
doing it. Jeff's idea on volunteers, I would even suggest that we could contact 21
Environmental Volunteers. They might be a candidate. I also think this is the kind of 22
project where we should be talking to Friends of Palo Alto Recreation to see if they could 23
participate in providing funding for something that would expand this. I would be glad to 24
help with that. I'll run through a whole bunch of stuff, and I don't expect you to answer. 25 Maybe we can have a discussion later. I assume that the survey that was done previously 26 was done with kids and teens and adults and seniors or whatever. I'm not convinced. 27 What the Library did was use a survey method that defined personas. The personas were 28
people that were active. For example, I have friends that are almost my age that play 29
soccer with the teens. I'm not sure how that gets captured here in terms of the way this is 30
done. The idea of personas even within each of the categories as opposed to just simply 31
age groups would be really meaningful. That would better allow us to say, "What should 32
we do about it?" When it's just age groups, I'm not sure that it tells us what to do. You 33
said that our park usage was two times the national average. If you had said 30 percent 34
more or 20 percent more or whatever, that wouldn't have raised a flag. Double says 35
something. It either says we don't have enough parks and so our parks are crowded. I'm 36
not sure what it means, but if that's really a legitimate number, that deserves serious drill 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
down. When you talk about weekdays versus weekends being 20 percent different, that's 1
a little misleading because in fact it's 40/60 when you look at it. Yes, that's a 20-percent 2
difference, but the usage is 40/60. 40/60 isn't far away from 50/50. The numbers are 3
different. When it's presented as it's a huge difference, that's misleading. None of the 4
activities have anything to do with nature. One of the things that we explicitly know is 5
that if you can get people out in parks—the Japanese call it forest bathing, and they go to 6 a local park and forest bathe. That's good for people. We didn't capture any way of 7
saying that. What we tended to say was that person was sitting on a bench. Maybe they 8
were sitting on a bench soaking up nature, and that was not too bad. One of the other 9
things we need to do is survey, for example, Heritage Park. Tuesday night, there's 30 10
dogs off-leash. We need to know that in this survey. I've recently sent a thing about the 11
green dog program that's in Brookline, Massachusetts, where they have explicitly allowed 12
off-leash dogs in non-fenced park areas at particular times but only if the dog has a green 13
tag and the owner pays $50 if you're a resident or $100 if you're not a resident to get a 14
green tag. That sounds like an interesting program that could cover an awful lot of sins in 15
terms of costs and whatever else. We should pursue that. I would like to echo what 16
David said about bathrooms. To say we need more programs to get seniors out, I'm not 17
so sure we don't need more bathrooms to get seniors out. The gathering place, the 18
concept of gathering places, for the last ten years I've convinced myself that I need to 19
write a blog that's all about gatherings, whether it's animals or people or whatever. If we 20
want to talk about how do we encourage more, it's not so much the activities as 21
facilitating gatherings. It's a really, really good term. With that, I'll give you a call. 22
What you've done and had Meghan do is spectacular. Before we start doing an online 23
survey, think about what are the questions we want to ask to make them relevant. 24
Council Member Cormack, I didn't give you an opportunity before I jumped in. I will 25 now. 26
Council Member Cormack: Thank you, Chair McDougall. Ms. LeBlanc, thank you so 27 much for this. Please extend our thanks to Ms. Schmiesing. It occurs to me that we had a 28
number of interns this summer in the City. Perhaps the Mayor's message in the next 29
month might want to highlight interns. If you get there first, perhaps the Mayor's 30
message would highlight this particular intern and her work. This is the kind of thing that 31
a lot of people would be interested in. I'm grateful that Commissioner LaMere already 32
mentioned Nextdoor. That'd be helpful. This is more than just a survey. It was also a 33
work experience for someone who sounds like is a former student in our own community. 34
I just wanted to offer that suggestion. Curiosity. Where is the horseshoe area at Mitchell 35
Park? How is there something in Mitchell Park I don't know where it is? 36
Ms. LeBlanc: In between the bowl and the parking lot, there's a horseshoe area. 37
Council Member Cormack: Is that that thing that's covered with like wisteria? Is that 38
horseshoe? 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Mr. Anderson: Between that and the grass. 1
Council Member Cormack: I'll look more carefully the next time I walk my dog in 2
Mitchell Park, on-leash I might point out. I do want to emphasize the discussion around 3
more of our senior citizens being able to use our parks, whether it's programming or 4
bathrooms or what have you. I think it is a fruitful one. Please do extend our thanks to 5
Ms. Schmiesing. 6
Commissioner Moss: There was a specific recommendation about parking, especially at 7
Mitchell Park. There is just no way we're going to add more parking. That ought to be 8
noted that that may actually discourage additional attendance. There's a lot of other 9
things that we could do to mitigate that. I just want to make a note of that. What Anne 10
said about promotions to get special events in some of these smaller parks to get the 11
public to know that they're there is a really good idea that we should see if we can deal 12
with. 13
Chair McDougall: Keith, we've just had a very interesting presentation by Jazmin 14
relative to the survey. That was sent out ahead of time. If you have any observations or 15
questions you'd like to add, please feel free. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'll put in my two cents. I noticed in the write up you 17
mentioned about shade and how that's attractive. When I walk through Bol Park during 18
the lunch time, if it's a shady bench, it's full. If it's a sunny bench, it's not. Although, on 19
winter days, that's flipped. Most of the time, the shade is preferred. The other thing was 20
seniors walking. I had relatives in town, and they were walking through the park. They 21
were not very mobile, and it was hard for them to go from one bench to the next. If we 22
can add benches, that would be appropriate. Very interesting report. 23
Chair McDougall: If there are no other questions? Jazmin, thank you very much. I'm 24
always glad when you bring controversy and discussion and numbers to our meeting. It's 25 always, always enlightening. 26
3. Draft Plan for the 7.7-acre area at Foothills Park 27
Chair McDougall: The next item on the agenda is the draft plan for the 7.7 acres. 28
Mr. Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson with Community Services here tonight 29
to talk about this draft plan for the 7.7-acre area at Foothills Park. My presentation will 30
include a very brief background on the area and then walk through the draft plan. It's 31
important to note that this draft plan is really just a starting place in our conversation with 32
the community and stakeholders about how to use the land. Staff plans on hosting a 33
community meeting soon to discuss the draft plan and collect their feedback. A little on 34
the background. The 7.7-acre parcel was a gift from the Lee family to the City in 1981. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
The Lee family retained an estate on the property until 1996. Between 1996 and 2005, 1
the City leased the land to a private resident who owns the adjacent property. In 2014, 2
Council passed an ordinance dedicating the parcel as parkland and directed the 3
Commission to work with the community and develop ideas on how to use it. Staff 4
hosted a community meeting at the park to collect feedback on what to do with this and 5
gathered a variety of different feedback, some of which focused on recreational activities, 6 potentially a dog park, additional camping, picnic areas. The vast majority of the 7
feedback really focused on different restoration opportunities for the site and wanted to 8
see improved habitat. In January 2015, the issue came to the Commission, and we 9
discussed the possible uses for the 7.7-acre area. The Commission recommended at that 10
time that we complete the Buckeye Creek hydrology study before we program out and 11
decide how to use this land. Staff did complete the study, and it was reviewed by the 12
Commission in January 2018. The study incorporates recommendations for various 13
improvements to these key issues of Buckeye Creek, mainly erosion and sedimentation. 14
It had three options to consider. One was upstream in Wildhorse Valley. Another was in 15
the middle section in Las Trampas, and the third in the 7.7-acre area. The Commission 16
reviewed that along with staff and came up with a recommendation of focusing on the 17
upper section. This is the Wildhorse Valley section. That ultimately went as an 18
informational recommendation to City Council. With that said, I want to say the draft 19
we're going to discuss momentarily is not in conflict. If the City ever did want to pursue 20
that option of improving the 7.7-acre area of Buckeye Creek, what we're proposing in this 21
plan, this draft plan, would not be problematic or interfering with that if the City ever did 22
want to pursue it. I should note the 7.7 acres was open to the public on November 10, 23
2018. Since that time, the Rangers have not been closely monitoring but keeping an eye 24
on how many people are using it. It's fairly small, about ten people a day. Typically, it's 25 just a stroll through, in and out, with one of the key features being to stop and look at the 26 native plant nursery and expressing interest in that area. The Foothills Park ad hoc 27 committee and staff worked with Grassroots Ecology, the City's restoration stewardship 28
partner, to create this draft plan. I'm extremely grateful for Grassroots graciously sharing 29
their expertise and time to create the draft plan. They did a wonderful job. Grassroots 30
Ecology maintains the native plant nursery on the site and has been conducting 31
restoration in Foothill since 2013. They've engaged with thousands of volunteers to 32
remove invasive species and plant native plants and provide hands-on education for all 33
members of our community. Their staff and volunteers have worked on the 7.7-acre area 34
controlling invasive weeds and installing willow stakes in Buckeye Creek to help with 35
the erosion and to create habitat. They've also experimented with test plots in 36
anticipation of this day. When we started talking about what to do, we wanted to know 37
what's possible, and staff worked with Grassroots to say, "Let's try some." We know that 38
the soil medium is compromised. There's approximately 5 feet of over-burden, which is 39
material that came from the adjacent quarry. Prior to the City taking ownership, it had 40
been spread across the hillside and the valley floor of the 7.7-acre area. When we talked 41
to Mr. Arrillaga's caretaker, who had done planting on that area, he talked about how 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
challenging it was. He talked about the trees being difficult to establish, but it was 1
possible when he added lots of compost and mulch. Eventually, he was able to establish 2
some trees that did make it. Likewise, we learned from Grassroots' experiments on that 3
area, and those lessons were incorporated into this draft plan. While this plan does focus 4
on restoration, there are other elements, a very simple loop trail that carries people 5
through this little area, some basic park amenities, a park bench, an interpretive sign, a 6 drinking fountain, that are in keeping with the rest of Foothills Park. The plan's broken 7
into phases. It gets a little complex when we talk about how long each phase would be 8
because in truth when we get to restoration, some phases never end. If we talk about 9
addressing invasive weeds, in truth that will always be part just like it is for the rest of 10
Foothills Park. We continually have volunteers go out into the park and address invasive 11
weeds. I guess the one caveat is don't get too hung up with one specific item and one 12
specific phase because some of them will be carrying on indefinitely, if that makes sense. 13
The game plan would be to start with building on what Grassroots has already been 14
doing, which is controlling the invasive weeds in those areas. We would also propose to 15
remove eucalyptus trees and add compost and mulch to restoration area A. That's this 16
area over here. Here's Buckeye Creek. Let me quickly show you just a few of the major 17
features. This is the City's maintenance shop, the entrance to the 7.7-acre area, and a new 18
pollinator garden that Grassroots built. This is the Grassroots Ecology nursery. The 19
creek flows right through the property and out of the property. This red line is the 20
emergency evacuation route that we've got to maintain. We've created these different 21
habitat areas, restoration areas. Phase 1 prepares restoration area A by putting in those 22
soil amendments that we talked about. This area would get that compost put onto it 23
during that first phase to try to prep it and get it ready, hopefully soften up some of the 24
soil, control some of the weeds, and make for a happier place for these plants that we 25 intend on putting in there and the trees we intend on planting. Other things in phase 1 26 that we want to do is plant some native plants along the perimeter fencing—that's this 27 area—to try to screen a little bit. There's already a fairly established tree section in there 28
that the caretaker had planted or was already onsite. We want to supplement that with 29
just a little more shrubs to help screen and provide a little privacy for the neighbors. 30
Then, plant some groupings of native trees that would help mitigate that removal of 31
eucalyptus that we talked about. In addition to that, we would establish those park 32
benches, the interpretive sign, and that trail, a very simple loop trail that you can see 33
highlighted here that just goes around this section. Phase 2, we're going to plant native 34
plants in that restoration area. This area here. Now, it would have about a year or so 35
with that soil amendment in the ground, hopefully softening it up a little bit and preparing 36
it for these plants to come in. Area B would get the treatment. We'd put the compost and 37
mulch down there to prep that for the next year's planting, if that makes sense. And so on 38
for area C. We would use acorns, oaks, and shrubs to be planted in little natural 39
groupings and then do a second phase of eucalyptus removal. You can see on this map 40
we've got the first phase of eucalyptus removal and then the second phase. We take any 41
tree removal very seriously in Palo Alto. It should never be done—even when it's a non-42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
native tree, it should always be done cautiously and with thought and planning. Even the 1
invasive ones do cause harm. When we talked to our experts at Grassroots Ecology and 2
our Fire Safe Council that we work with on fire hazards, it's best to remove them for a 3
multitude of reasons. Fire safety and environmental benefit is one. We recognize even 4
invasive trees and plants sometimes serve as habitat, and we want to be sensitive to that. 5
They key would to (a) phase it and (b) make sure we're planting right away to try to help 6 make up for that. Hopefully that in addition to all the other native plantings would 7
supply a good balance of habitat improvement. Also, in speaking with Grassroots 8
Ecology, they've seen eucalyptus removals from areas like this, very similar, and 9
explained to me that oftentimes when you take out that eucalyptus, you'll see the 10
surrounding vegetation, often native oaks and other species, that is under the canopy 11
thrive and grow and bounce back. We're looking forward to that, but they also have 12
some restoration and planting plans up here as well, in those gaps where the eucalyptus 13
are removed. In phase 3, native plants, particularly pollinators, would be planted in 14
strategic spots to help create a little added beauty and lure in additional pollinators. We 15
could put in additional benches and a picnic table at that time and then finalize the 16
arrangement of where that trail is. I think we should look at the trail as being flexible 17
depending on how the restoration goes. If for some reason we hit a good patch of soil 18
and the plants are doing great, then let's move the trail out of that area, and we'll put 19
people to the side. We've been thinking of a very simple rope to delineate where those 20
sections are to keep people from trampling plants but able to walk next to them. Next 21
steps. Of course, we'll welcome your feedback and questions. The next step would be 22
for staff to hold that community meeting, meet with our stakeholders and community 23
members, and give them a chance to weigh in on the plan as well as maybe other ideas 24
that we haven't considered that may be even better. That concludes the staff presentation. 25 I want to recognize two representatives from Grassroots Ecology. I've got Alex von 26 Feldt, who's the Executive Director, and Kristen Williams, the Habitat Restoration 27 Director, here tonight to address any specific questions you might have for them. 28
Chair McDougall: Welcome, visitors. Do you have any comments that you would like 29
to make to add to what Daren has said before we go to questions? 30
Alex von Feldt: Maybe I'll say a few words. First of all, thank you very much, 31
Commissioners, for your time in reviewing this as well as the other work that you do. 32
Probably this has been at least four if not five years of discussions with the City and 33
Parks and Rec Commission and also residents about what could happen at this site and 34
getting lots of opinions and feedback. We're excited that there's actually some movement 35
forward. The only thing that I would add is that if you were to show us the whole 1,400 36
acres of Foothills Park and say, "Where's the one area you want to restore," this would 37
probably not be it because there are so many other areas of Foothills Park with just 38
amazing native vegetation and biodiversity and things like that. We understand just from 39
a usage standpoint the reason to improve what it looks like right now, which has really 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
been a neglected plot. What we went for is basically what was a really cost-effective way 1
to try to expand the natural assets of the site, such as the creek, and also use it as a way to 2
showcase some habitat restoration techniques. We already have the native plant nursery 3
there. When I asked them, "Who's coming by and looking at the site," they say it tends to 4
be elderly people that like to walk on the flat, and they like to stop by and visit with our 5
staff and volunteers working at the nursery. Building on that, we're hoping to have more 6 examples throughout this area to show habitat restoration, different techniques. Also as 7
things progress, hopefully people can see the long-term process of healing our land and 8
what that's like. 9
Commissioner McCauley: Could you comment quickly on the point that Daren was 10
discussing, on removal of the eucalyptus and the transition period to oaks and other 11
native vegetation? 12
Ms. von Feldt: For the reasons that Daren mentioned, eucalyptus are often suggested for 13
removal. Not only is it a fire concern, it's also a safety concern in that they do tend to 14
drop limbs. Kristen just informed me when we were talking about this that this past few 15
weeks we've seen two major limbs drop back there. It is a concern when you're having 16
volunteers and things like that, the safety aspect of it. For the most part, we're 17
recommending removal because of the habitat value. There are so many wonderful 18
native species and trees in there. It's not really a shading issue; it's that they drop all this 19
debris and leaves, and it actually kills other plants. Once you remove them, everything 20
that has been struggling can really come back quite strongly. It's not just our opinion 21
about that. It's a generally accepted restoration practice. The San Francisco Estuary 22
Institute has really been promoting more oaks in Silicon Valley. They keep talking about 23
re-oaking, re-oaking or planting new oaks. What's nice here is there are so many other 24
really strong ones that, once the eucalyptus are removed, you're going to see an amazing 25 growth of those trees. 26
Chair McDougall: Before I go to the rest of the Commission, I do have a card on this 27 topic. Shani, would you like to comment? 28
Ms. Kleinhaus: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon 29
Society and resident. First, I want to thank you, staff, for keeping low key and not 30
looking to put campgrounds and barbecues and dog parks and all these other things near 31
the creek in such a sensitive area. I hope that the community, which supported low key 32
and not a lot of strong, active crowds making noise and so on, will allow it to remain this 33
way. About the trees, I want to look more into that before I speak about it because 34
eucalyptus does have value for birds, specific species as well. I'm going to look a little 35
more into that before I form an opinion about this issue. It would be something we'll 36
probably come back to. Thank you. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Who were the ad hoc members who have worked on 1
this? Jeff and Ryan. I'll let you guys speak first then. 2
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you to Daren and the staff for preparing this and 3
Grassroots Ecology. It can be such a great space. The mention of it being flat and how 4
we have this great nature of Foothills Park, but not everything is accessible to everyone. 5
One of the things that we talked about on the trail were putting some benches, which also 6 seems to go with the theme of mobility and accessibility. To have that is a very good 7
idea. The explanation on the eucalyptus trees was also very helpful as we are sensitive to 8
the habitat removal as well as removal of trees. To know that other oaks and other native 9
species can come in there is exciting as well. Excited to see this plan, if we can get it 10
through, and the restoration. The increased use of that area is very exciting. Daren, 11
thank you very much. 12
Commissioner McCauley: I will echo Jeff's comments. Daren, thank you for 13
spearheading this. Thank you to our partners at Grassroots Ecology. Well done. Let me 14
make one quick clarification; I think it's a clarification on the Buckeye Creek hydrology 15
study. There definitely is a recommended course of action to do some additional 16
remediation of the creek in this area. As Daren was saying, number one, this plan is 17
consistent with the Buckeye Creek hydrology recommendation. In addition to that, as 18
you think about the bang for the buck in doing any of the work on Buckeye Creek, the 19
most significant impact is going to be on the upper reach of Buckeye Creek. Probably 20
the least significant impact is going to be on this portion of Buckeye Creek. It makes 21
total sense to move forward with a plan of the sort that Daren and Grassroots Ecology 22
have come up with here. It makes a lot of sense that this would be something we'd put 23
into action. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: It was a good report. Thank you for the help. We appreciate 25 that. With regard to the eucalyptus removal, can we front load the tree planting and get 26 them started now? When we eventually remove the trees, we'll have something there. 27
Mr. Anderson: Yes, we can. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: Are we planning to do that or is that … 29
Mr. Anderson: It's actually in the plan. It talks about the need to start right away. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: Alex mentioned the areas needing restoration, that there'd be 31
other places in the park. Can you name those off the top of your head? 32
Ms. von Feldt: I might be passing this on to Kristen because she's been overseeing what 33
we've been doing at the park. The biodiversity is quite phenomenal there. There's a 34
listed species, (inaudible) occidentale. There's some invasive species like yellow star 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
that's in the habitat. As you probably know, the Friends of Foothill have been working 1
for decades on that. We've been augmenting their help. When we're talking about 2
stewarding the whole park, that's where we spend a lot of our time to remove the 3
invasives and allow natural recruitment. If you wanted to keep getting volunteers out and 4
really have a habitat effect, that would probably be the best. There's a lot of reasons why 5
you do projects like this. A lot of it too is to make sure that the community is able to 6 engage with nature in a meaningful way so that they're more activated to protect it. This 7
project is still in line with that goal. 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Your areas of restoration are mostly invasive weed species 9
taken out. Were there any erosion areas or anything, plantings where we'd want to put 10
things? 11
Ms. von Feldt: This Buckeye Creek idea, we are fully behind. We started talking with 12
Daren about it years ago because that's what we see as really the big restoration impact 13
that you could have there because right now the creek is so channelized that if you could 14
reconnect it to its historic floodplain, that would be amazing. We really support that, but 15
it is a long and very expensive project. We realize that that's what would be great to have 16
in the future, but it's nice to have these interim steps along the way. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. Daren, with regard to restoration, do we keep a 18
wish list of places that, if we had money, in any of the open spaces we would do 19
restoration first and rank them? 20
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I should qualify this that we've got a list that are achievable with 21
existing resources. We address that with our operating budget as it is, with our capital 22
budget as it is, and with our volunteer base as it is. That partnership with Grassroots is an 23
excellent one. We've done amazing work at restoring large areas of Pearson-Arastradero 24
Preserve, in Foothills Park. We're talking 25 years of the Friends of Foothills Park 25 working up there and restoring it. We prioritize spots. Along with staff, those volunteers 26 have made good headway. I would say the same at the Baylands. We've had 20 years of 27 partnership with Save the Bay and restored significant sections of San Francisquito Creek 28
and other areas in the Baylands. There's that kind, and we prioritize areas. There's a 29
bigger kind like the new ITT marsh area. That's not going to be done or restored without 30
a big capital endeavor. I think Buckeye Creek falls into that same category. Those two 31
standout really high as important areas. Others are identified in the Baylands Master 32
Plan, and these are fill areas that were filled when they first established the park. They 33
are called out as areas that the fill should be removed and restored. One of those sites is 34
where we want to put the horizontal levee so it essentially meets that. Those are three 35
examples of those large capital expenditure waiting projects that are really important and 36
just waiting for the funding source. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: The willows, I like that idea of planting the willows in the 1
streams. Like 200 years ago, would the stream have had willows in it? 2
Mr. Anderson: Yes, very commonly. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about upper and middle, would we consider planting 4
willows there at all? Would that be useful at all? 5
Mr. Anderson: Luckily the Buckeye Creek study gave us a good recommendation for—6 the upper stretch they talk about rerouting it, so we put it through that meadow. In that 7
area, they call out a bunch of techniques, one of which is to plant some native trees that 8
would help slow the water and create a more natural flow. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: The Buckeye Creek plan did have some willows in it? 10
Mr. Anderson: Mm hmm. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: I did not remember that. That would be good both for habitat 12
and also slowing down the water. It's a win-win. That's it. 13
Commissioner Moss: This is a really terrific plan. When you look at the whole thing, it 14
seems daunting. When you break it up into smaller pieces, each one is somewhat 15
manageable. Also, it's a lower cost to deal with so you don't have these huge projects like 16
Buckeye Creek. You can bite off a little bit every year. That is a great way to go. One 17
thing I was trying to figure out is—maybe this is a question for you or for Grassroots. 18
The existing Buckeye Creek channel is very narrow. Is there a plan or a suggestion to 19
widen it like we were thinking of doing for Buckeye Creek? In other words, get some of 20
the benefit of the Buckeye Creek project, which is $9 million, do it here, widen it out, 21
take a little bit of those other two areas, and get some of the benefit short term. 22
Mr. Anderson: Great question. As I mentioned, there were three spots recommended in 23
the Buckeye Creek study. This was the third, the least impactful. If you went from the 24
creek's edge, it created a widened floodplain that stretches into this restoration area here, 25 which is why in our plan we don't call for planting any trees in that spot. If that day came 26 where we wanted to remove—what that looks like is at the base of the creek, you would 27 remove fill and widen the floodplain as you're talking about. We have a price estimate. I 28
want to say it was like $1.2 million to do the 7.7-acre stretch. What we're proposing is in 29
the third phase, the last phase. We would eventually plant that area too. If the plants had 30
to go, if we try the upper creek technique and for some reason it's not successful and we 31
have to do the middle and perhaps the lower stretch to really resolve the Buckeye Creek 32
problems, all you've had to do is get rid of some native plants. We wouldn't have oaks 33
there, that kind of thing. If we didn't do anything at all, you'd still have plants there. It 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
would just be grown in with weeds. All the better to have viable habitat in the interim. It 1
may not even be necessary once we address that upper stretch. 2
Commissioner Moss: What I was just suggesting is that maybe you think of phase 3 as 3
phase 1, switch them for a short-term benefit. I don't know if that's possible, but just 4
something to think about. One other thing is that the soil, you said, was of such a 5
consistency that the water would not pool very easily there. It would sink pretty quickly. 6 Are you thinking that you would want—in order to get willows, for instance, it has to be 7
wetter and it has to be cooler. You would have to do something to the soil to make it stay 8
wetter longer. I was wondering what would you do in that case. 9
Mr. Anderson: I probably didn't explain myself well. The majority of the 7.7 acres is 10
highly compacted over-burden, so it doesn't percolate well at all. The water would pool, 11
and it wouldn't absorb or soak in. The intent of that mulch and compost would be to 12
break down that soil and allow a little bit more penetration. The willow planting would 13
primarily be in the creek and on the banks of the creek where it does have access to water 14
and do well. 15
Ms. von Feldt: The first comment you had about doing phase 3 first, I asked the same 16
thing. I thought let's start down here if this is where the interest is, but then other people 17
with more expertise informed me that you typically want to start at the top of the 18
watershed and then go down because of the head cuts and things. You could do some 19
stuff down below, but it really wouldn't fix the problem because you still have this 20
constraint above. That was what the hydrologists said. I'm going to ask Kristen to come 21
up and talk about the willowing that we've been doing in the creek for the past few years 22
and some of the amazing things we've actually seen just in the current part of the creek on 23
this site. 24
Kristen Williams: We actually started doing some willow installation this past winter in 25 the 7.7. We did a mix of willow stakes as well as willow bundles to help catch sediment 26 as it's either coming down the creek bank or down the creek. It's a lot more successful 27 than we expected, which is really exciting. We have probably about 20-30 feet along the 28
creek that now has willows that are about 3-4 feet tall. They are collecting a lot of 29
sediment already. It is not a huge change to the floodplain area, but it is having some 30
impact already. Like how our nursery was doing test plots in the upland area, we're also 31
doing this little testing closer to the creek. We're figuring out what's the right technique 32
when we really put this project into play. 33
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. Daren, thank you for this report and the 34
staff. Thank you all from Grassroots. It's really fun to see the excitement about what's 35
going on down there. It sounds like we need to publicize the fact that people can make a 36
donation on behalf of their family for benches, both in the parks and also up at Foothills. 37
Maybe we could resurface that. I love the phasing. Are you able at this point, Daren, to 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
put a price tag? Where does this money come from to do this and how is it parceled out 1
over the years? 2
Mr. Anderson: Not yet. We started a preliminary look at a price estimate, and I thought, 3
"Let's do the public outreach first and find out a little bit more of what the scope really 4
might look like." Sometimes through that process, it alters so much that what I originally 5
propose doesn't always look the same. I figured we'd do the public outreach and then 6 start digging into this. We're keeping an eye on trying to keep the cost modest, working 7
with a lot of volunteers. For example, that compost and mulch might very well come 8
from City resources. All the mulch we'd need would come from the tree department for 9
free, for example. We've got a great partner that has a native plant nursery. We can work 10
together to get the plants and try to do this as cost effectively as possible. That said, 11
depending on how it shapes out, it might be a CIP request for a certain amount. I think 12
we'll play it by ear. As the scope develops, I'll put together a meaningful cost estimate 13
and share it with you at that time. 14
Council Member Cormack: I always love a staff report. I always learn a new word, and 15
allelopathic was one I had to look up earlier today. You always learn so much about 16
trees. If you haven't read The Overstory, I do recommend that by Richard Powers. The 17
only point I wanted to emphasize was the one that Commissioner LaMere made about 18
accessibility. I think it was introduced by the Executive Director as well. Am I right that 19
this is the only part of Foothills Park that's really flat in terms of a trail? 20
Mr. Anderson: I think that's fair to say. 21
Council Member Cormack: That's an important reason to make it accessible for our 22
increasing senior population and for the significant number of people in the community 23
who have temporary or permanent mobility disabilities. That's a benefit of working on 24
this area that I probably didn't appreciate it when we first started talking about it. 25
Chair McDougall: Alex and Kristen, thank you for being here. The fact that you guys 26 tend to agree that something could grow there—I think every time I've been there on any 27 of our things, all I got was there's 5 feet of over-burden here and nothing ever is going to 28
grow here. Some of those squared-off plots didn't look like—it looked like it was 29
proving that nothing was going to grow there. I'm glad to hear you're optimistic. That's 30
great. The thing we do say and the thing I've been hearing all along is we're saying native 31
plants. With climate change and whatnot, we know that where native plants are is 32
moving. I would be interested in if we looked at this as climate sensitive or climate 33
appropriate or whatever. What we do there doesn't have to be absolutely native if there's 34
something that's better. The railings that you talked about, I would really encourage that. 35
You've been talking about the trails and the fact that that's a flat area. I suggest we start 36
now talking about it being an ADA trail instead of just talking about, as this map shows, 37
the trail going around the 7.7 acres. The parking is the other side of the construction 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
shed. I would say that the trail needs to be planned right from the start to be an ADA trail 1
that goes from the parking lot as part of the whole process because it's no good if you 2
can't get to the trail. I would really like to encourage that. There was some conversation, 3
Alex said, about showcasing habitat. At some level, this is a research opportunity to see 4
what's going on. I would really encourage that we do everything we possibly can to 5
establish what the baseline is today. If this is going to be good for habitat, are there six 6 birds there today and, if we do this right, we'll have 12? Are there deer there or what 7
kind of plants are there or not there? Working between what you do and what the City 8
does to establish a baseline so that we would understand are we really making an 9
improvement, particularly relative to even the eucalyptus. I hate eucalyptus, but they're 10
there. Maybe they don't need to be removed in all of those spots. I was struck not by this 11
map but the other one that showed where the eucalyptus were, that they were circled in 12
different areas. It seemed to me that it might be an opportunity to, in one case, maybe 13
divide that off and that some of the eucalyptus might be left. We could measure what 14
happens there versus what happens where we take them out. Particularly if we're looking 15
at the opportunity to show what restoration can be, anything we can do to say, "We took 16
these trees out, and now look what's happening. Overnight, we have a 20-foot oak tree 17
that we didn't have before." Simply making sure that we understand that. I'm struck by 18
the number of times that volunteers get mentioned. We've had this conversation before 19
briefly relative to other activities. I doubt that, if I looked at the Palo Alto recreation 20
catalog, one of the potential recreation opportunities is to volunteer for the 7.7 acres or 21
any other part of Foothill or whatever. My guess is there's lots more clever ways that 22
we're not taking advantage of. Again, we've had this conversation about does the City 23
need a volunteer coordinator or even Parks and Rec. Do they deliberately need 24
somebody maybe not totally dedicated to it but actively interested in promoting 25 volunteers? The benches, I don't know if it's in the Park regulations part or whatever. I 26 did get stopped on Byxbee the other day. I guess you get a ten-year lease on a bench 27 naming or whatever. The question is at the end of the ten years, are you going to give me 28
a new bench or are you going to charge me again even though the bench is now 29
deteriorated. Will I get a new plaque? It was a reasonable question. I certainly don't 30
know the answer or don't even know where I could find the answer. It would seem to me 31
the regulations might be a place to look for that. Although I've said let's make sure it's an 32
ADA trail that goes through there, I would still be interested in the previous conversation, 33
was there a way, even if it was just a tail, to connect to at least one of the other paths in 34
the park. That's my rant for the moment on that subject. 35
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there a comprehensive list of all the volunteers who do all this 36
wonderful stuff? 37
Mr. Anderson: We do track all our volunteer hours. 38
Commissioner Cribbs: Not the hours but the names of people. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Mr. Anderson: Of every volunteer? 1
Commissioner Cribbs: Yeah, that are associated with all the Friends of this and the 2
Friends of that and Grassroots and all that. 3
Mr. Anderson: Our Friends, yes, we have all that. 4
Commissioner Cribbs; Maybe I don't know this, but wouldn't it be fun for the Recreation 5
Commission to have a big party to get everybody together and say thank you very much 6 for everything that you do? 7
Chair McDougall: Great idea. 8
Mr. Anderson: Sounds good. I'll reach out to the groups. 9
Ms. von Feldt: Just a few points of data that you might be interested to know about the 10
volunteers. I was just checking with Kristen, and I said, "How often are our volunteer 11
workdays full?" She said, "90-100 percent of the time." We have at least 30 workdays 12
per year at Foothills. We have another 75 workdays at Arastradero. About 80 percent of 13
the people that come to the workdays are teens. If they're not in the City parks, I guess 14
they're all out pulling weeds in the open spaces. It's great that we have so many people. 15
A volunteer appreciation party would be lovely. The list of names would be about 3,000 16
or so from our side, but a lot of them are teenagers. They repeat from Friends of Foothill, 17
and we have dedicated volunteers as well both at the nursery and other places. That's a 18
smaller number. 19
Commissioner Cribbs: That would be a great celebration and a great focus on how much 20
we have from volunteers. 21
Chair McDougall: I agree. 22
Commissioner Moss: Chair McDougall reminded me that just three weeks ago 23
Midpeninsula Open Space opened their brand new Bear Creek Open Space Preserve. 24
They completed an ADA-compliant pathway at the entrance. It's about the 7.5 acres that 25 we're dealing with. I encourage staff and the subcommittee to visit it. It's a beautiful 26 park, and it's just brand new. 27
Chair McDougall: Are there any other additional questions or comments? I see lights 28
on, but I suspect the lights don't mean anything. Alex or Kristen, would you like to add 29
any final comments? I would just like to thank you both for coming and spending the 30
time with us and answering the questions and giving us confidence that we're doing the 31
right thing here. Daren, thanks again for everything you're doing here. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
4. Update of the Parks and Open Space Regulations 1
Chair McDougall: Which allows us to move on to the next item, Item Number 4, which 2
is the Open Space and Parks Regulation discussion. 3
Mr. Anderson: Hello, Commissioners. Daren Anderson again, Community Services, 4
here now to discuss the updates to the Park and Open Space regulations. The 5
Commission's ad hoc committee and staff have reviewed the regulations and recommend 6 the Commission discuss the proposed changes that were in the staff report and the 7
attachment. The changes are suggested in order to keep the regulations relevant and 8
reflective of current City policies. Some of the revisions are new regulations to address 9
emerging issues, and it's designed to make the regulations a little easier to understand. 10
References to the Municipal Code show the connection between the regulations and the 11
Muni Code. Wording changes reflect that current City policy. In the staff report, I 12
highlighted several of the significant changes, and some of the updates are self-evident 13
and explanatory, but a few of them I'd like to go over now and explain just a little bit of 14
the context. Of course, if you have any questions along the way, we'll revisit any and all 15
of them. The first one I'd like to highlight is R1-21. This is the one about commercial 16
photography and filming. This was edited to allow an exception for small photo and film 17
events consisting of a single photographer or videographer with a group size of no more 18
than 24. The intent of this edit was to allow small photo or film activity that would have 19
little or no impact on park visitors or park resources to be able to come to the park and 20
take those photos. I did receive some feedback from one community member with some 21
suggested edits to this regulation. This gentleman sent an email to the Commission, so 22
you probably have seen some of the suggested edits to that. With a few minor edits, the 23
ad hoc committee and staff have reviewed his proposed change and find it acceptable. I 24
look forward to hearing your feedback on that. Another regulation that was updated is 25 R1-30(D). This one's about pets in parks. This was edited to require that pets must be 26 kept on a leash that can be extended no further than 6 feet while in open space lands. The 27 reason for this one is Park Rangers have observed people with long, extended leashes 28
where oftentimes dogs are going way off trail into areas where there is habitat, where 29
there is wildlife. You can see the wildlife get flushed out. It's been an issue. We didn't 30
feel it was necessary to do this in our urban parks. Notably, this just pertains to open 31
space. We thought in urban parks it is far more appropriate and less problematic. R1-31 32
is about nuisance dogs. It was edited to require people with leashed pets in playgrounds 33
to ensure that their pets don't impact children's use of the playground and to add a caveat 34
that they're required to remove the dog if someone else is using the playground and asks 35
them to. The reason we've edited this one is because park staff has received requests 36
from playground users to prohibit dogs in the playground. This edit is trying to balance 37
the need for people who come to a playground with their child and their dog and maybe 38
there are very few people in there and the dog causes no problem. They want both the 39
dog and the child to be in the playground with folks who just don't want to be around 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
dogs in playgrounds. That's an attempt to balance it. The ad hoc was very helpful in 1
trying to reach this compromise position. R1-39 was added to ensure people using 2
exercise equipment in playgrounds do not inhibit children from using the playgrounds or 3
damage the equipment. The reason for this one is we're increasingly seeing our 4
playgrounds in parks used as gyms. We talked a little bit earlier about how active our 5
community is in our park system, which is wonderful and something we want to 6 encourage, but we want to make sure it doesn't impinge on children using playgrounds or 7
harm the equipment. Oftentimes, people are working out with dumbbells or straps, and 8
they're slung over swings. R1-39 was an attempt to balance that without stopping people 9
from being active. R1-40 was the one that pertained to community gardens. The vast 10
majority of the bullet points in R1-40 were just merely about details of how the garden 11
program functions. The ad hoc and staff have created the draft of a new document, the 12
Community Garden Guidelines, that will house those kind of details about how the 13
program works. These guidelines would be sent to all participants in the City community 14
garden program as well as be part of the licensing process. They would all get essentially 15
these guidelines as they join the program. They are currently being reviewed by the City 16
Attorney's Office and will come to the Commission for review soon. The remaining 17
community garden regulations that end up in this update do pertain to the general public 18
and are far more appropriate for this one. That concludes the staff presentation. Thanks 19
again to the ad hoc who was so helpful in looking at so many iterations. 20
Chair McDougall: Would ad hoc members like to speak first? 21
Commissioner McCauley: Thank you to Daren for his patience. We definitely looked at 22
many, many iterations. Where we've ended up with this document is actually a pretty 23
good place. Don, I would wonder whether you had some specific comments. One of 24
them, I think, is a big organizational threshold question. It maybe would be beneficial if 25 you wanted to pose that so that Daren would be able to respond. It might actually inform 26 the conversation a little bit. I definitely look forward to the Commissioners' input on this 27 and letting us know if there are other things that we should be tweaking and revising. As 28
a general matter, the idea was not to wholesale revise these regulations but rather do a 29
fairly modest revision of things that needed some attention. Don had suggested an 30
organizational change, which may not be necessarily substantive in some respects but 31
definitely an organizational change that would be a more significant revision. Don, do 32
you maybe want to mention that and then other Commissioners would be able to weigh in 33
on it as we continue the discussion? 34
Chair McDougall: Is that okay, Daren? I went through and sent a bunch of notes back 35
more in the Comprehensive Plan approach than going through a list here. Before I start, 36
I'd like to say I really thank you, both you and the ad hoc, for what is really good work. I 37
found in many places it was confusing whether I was talking about dog parks or cattle or 38
Foothills or parks. I really felt that it might be useful if there were two documents, one 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
that dealt with the open space, both Foothills and Baylands, and one that dealt with the 1
parks. I feel that the users and the use cases are quite different. The kind of people that 2
go to those places are different. The document's become such that if somebody wanted to 3
object to somebody with dumbbells in the park, it would be very hard to find. Maybe an 4
officer could find it or maybe we could find it, but a general citizen wouldn't. I briefly 5
discussed that in the note that I sent. I did discuss it again with Daren as he walked in. 6 Daren's modification to that, I might as well mention, is maybe we could look at this as 7
one document but with a general section and then a parks and then a Foothills section in 8
some way that outlined it more briefly. I agree that this isn't substantive relative to any of 9
the particular rules and regulations. It is important relative to the usability of the rules 10
and regulations. Does that cover it? Is there anybody else on the ad hoc who would like 11
to comment? By the way, I appreciate that the goal here was to update it, not to totally 12
redo it. I would point out that this document was written in 2004, modified in '04, '05, 13
'06, '08, '11, '12, and '13. Basically every other year or every year, it has been modified 14
until, between '13 to '18, for five years it wasn't looked at. The other thing I would 15
encourage is that maybe it does deserve a more complete look and some commitment that 16
it not be another five years before it gets looked at again. My other thing is, if we're 17
having discussions about access to parks and if we're having discussion about dog parks 18
and other things like that, it would be much easier to deal with all of those things in 19
separate sections and the modifications that might ensue rather than in a single, total 20
document. With that, I'll start back on the far end. Jeff, do you have any comments? 21
Commissioner LaMere: Thank you so much both to the ad hoc committee and Daren for 22
looking at these rules and regulations and providing an update. As you went through this, 23
were there things you were able to pick up that may change the way we look at the parks 24
or change what is in the parks? One thing I'm looking at is R1-39, for example. Does 25 this mean that we need to look at—this is about people using the exercise equipment in 26 the playgrounds. Should we start thinking about can we put a separate pull-up bar that 27 can also be used to throw their TRX straps over, that they can use what they want to use 28
and make it more multiuse where it's not necessarily impacting the children but also 29
seeing that we do have a need? 30
Mr. Anderson: That's an excellent point, and something we have been talking about. 31
We're addressing it, for example, at Cubberley. With that track and field, we're trying to 32
put in a place for adult exercise or multigenerational exercise, where you'd have gym 33
equipment there. I envision that being extremely popular, seeing other communities with 34
those outdoor gyms. I see seniors active, I see kids active, and I see exercise groups 35
there. I think it has a lot of potential. To your other point, we can't have those 36
everywhere. We don't have space for that kind of thing everywhere, so it needs to be 37
perhaps incorporated in those playgrounds where we see that happening. We tried that at 38
the Magical Bridge, for example, where right on the periphery of the playground you'll 39
see adult exercise equipment like aerobic exercise, for example. I think you're right that 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
maybe we need to start addressing it. If we see people using the swing set for the TRX 1
cables, then maybe they need an appropriate piece of equipment to do that in that area. I 2
think it's wise. 3
Commissioner McCauley: Forgive me. I'm going to jump in again. Daren, I was 4
wondering if you had a response to Don's comment that you wanted to share with the 5
entire Commission. 6
Mr. Anderson: On that topic of separating the parks from the open space regulations, I 7
can certainly see what you mean, Chair McDougall. There's an opportunity to maybe 8
group them up. In my opinion, it just seems that the overlap is so significant it warrants 9
having one document to me. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm one of those people who see that 10
people who are going to go to open space are probably going to be at a park eventually 11
and vice versa. Having knowledge about what the rules are there would behoove them, 12
and have one place to go. I worry sometimes about having split documents. Somehow 13
they get confused and can't find the open space one; they can only find the parks one. 14
Lastly, it's consistent with the way we have structured our Palo Alto Municipal Code. 15
We have Section 22 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that has all our Muni Codes relating 16
to parks and open space, and it's housed in one area. It would be consistent with that. 17
That was my thoughts on separating out the two sections. 18
Commissioner McCauley: I will offer one other thought on this. Just as a practical 19
matter in terms of trying to track what the changes are that are being made, if we're 20
dramatically changing the organization, it would be a little more difficult to understand 21
and comprehend just what we're doing in terms of edits. The flip side of that is it may 22
make it more difficult for the City Council to comprehend and understand what we've 23
done here. Right now, these look like, at least from my perspective, relatively modest 24
edits. If we were to entirely rewrite this, even if we didn't change the substance much but 25 reorganized it significantly, understandably both members of the public and the City 26 Council Members might have a lot more questions about it. For whatever that's worth, 27 not to say that it shouldn't be done if it's the right thing to be done. I'm sure the ad hoc 28
would be excited to jump into that. We look forward to the rest of the group's direction 29
on that. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'd like to thank the ad hoc. This was a very tedious edit, I'm 31
sure. I appreciate you going through here with a fine-toothed comb. That's a lot of work, 32
but it has to be done. Echoing Jeff's comment, you get better compliance if, instead of 33
saying don't do this, you say do it here. I agree with that. On the swimming part, it said 34
dogs and cats and other animals not permitted on the pool deck, but we don't have an 35
exception for service dogs. Was that intentional? 36
Mr. Anderson: That might be an omission. Likewise, Chair McDougall caught one on 37
our restrooms, who could be there with children with special needs. He questioned 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
whether that should be updated. I think it should. It didn't rise to my attention as we 1
reviewed the document. Maybe the one you just mentioned about service dogs too. I'd 2
be glad to look into it. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would assume we don't get a lot of service dogs on the pool 4
deck, but it's conceivable. Let's just be consistent. The other thing was about Lytton 5
Plaza and the open flames. Can you refresh my memory? What is the regulation both in 6 City parks and open space for gas grills? If I want to bring my Weber to the park, if I 7
have a picnic area, can I bring my own gas grill and put it in there or can you only use the 8
built-in grills? 9
Mr. Anderson: We've got a no portable barbecue rule that was instituted in the parks. It 10
was because of what happens when people bring their own barbecues. All the other 11
amenities that need to come with a barbecue, like tables, chairs, trash cans, recycling, and 12
compost, aren't there to support because other people are already using the existing tables 13
and barbecues and have the right number of trash cans. That's why that rule got put in, 14
prohibiting that. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: The same with Foothills Park? 16
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Foothills Park, you can only use charcoal, right, no wood? 18
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 19
Commissioner McCauley: Again, forgive me for jumping in. We actually had a little bit 20
… 21
Chair McDougall: Sure, Ryan. Is there anything you'd like to say? 22
Commissioner McCauley: … of back and forth on the portable grill question. My 23
understanding is that propane grills are actually preferred, particularly in open space 24
areas, because they pose a far lower fire hazard than charcoal. Notwithstanding that, this 25 is not being changed at the moment, but this is something that Daren was checking with 26 his partners at the Fire Department on. Daren, was there any further feedback on that? 27
Mr. Anderson: The one part I didn't explain is it is allowed with camping. They are 28
allowed to use the propane grills when they're camping, but not for picnics. Again, it ties 29
back into that issue of are they going to exceed the capacity of our existing facilities. I'd 30
be glad to reach out to them and talk to the Fire Department about that option and see 31
what other alternatives we can work out. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: From a fire standpoint, we might want to consider allowing gas 1
grills at Foothills Park if it can be done some way where we don't stretch the facilities. I 2
don't know. 3
Commissioner Cribbs: What is the process after these rules get updated? How do people 4
know about them and what kind of community outreach? Is that necessary? Just as the 5
changes happen. 6
Mr. Anderson: Very good question. This would be a recommendation from the 7
Commission to Council to make the change. In terms of publicizing it, we don't do a lot 8
of outreach. The typical way it's done is for a special event or maybe a user group was 9
having some sort of gathering, we'll send them the revised and updated rules and 10
regulations. Oftentimes, we'll pull out salient pieces. If you're having a run event, maybe 11
I'll find two or three that are really important for them to be aware of. If there's a new 12
one, of course I'll add that to it. That's the predominant way. Our website and every once 13
in a while we'll get calls from folks, and that's when we share. 14
Commissioner Cribbs: How does the enforcement, if at all, happen? 15
Mr. Anderson: There's two ways. One is the Municipal Code, which has a lot of these 16
but not all of them. That has a mechanism for citations. The rules and regs also have it, 17
but typically at a far lower rate. The bail amount that you get cited for a regulation 18
violation is less. It's not very frequently cited. Most of these are the kind of thing 19
where—although not a current regulation now, if we saw people with leashes and they're 20
harassing wildlife, which is a separate regulation violation, a Municipal Code violation. I 21
was a Ranger for over a decade, and I don't think I cited a single person for it. Everyone 22
was usually compliant. It's almost always compliant-based, but for those who are repeat 23
offenders, it's very nice to have the tool to write a citation if you need to. 24
Commissioner Cribbs: The King Plaza has no alcohol allowed, is that right? 25
Mr. Anderson: I'd have to double check. I don't have it handy, but I'd get back to you on 26 that. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: A little history on that. Many years ago we had a concert series 28
on the Plaza that was the Friday night series. It served wine and beer. We, staff, didn't 29
realize that we needed to have a special something or other, so there was an ordinance 30
passed that we could do alcohol on King Plaza. It got probably changed around. That 31
was a gathering place kind of thing, Don. 32
Chair McDougall: Always an attractive way to arrange a gathering and to make a 33
gathering civil, of course. Jeff, would you like to make any comments? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Jeff Conrad: Hi. I'm Jeff Conrad. I'm from Palo Alto. Maybe I should start here by 1
saying that if you people have read my email, I think it covers everything that I would 2
have to say. If it's clearly conveyed in there, I'd just as soon save everybody's time and 3
not repeat it. If you wish, I'd also be glad to make a few comments here. 4
Chair McDougall: Jeff, I know that Daren has read the email, and I know the ad hoc has. 5
I believe that they've actually made some modifications to the regulation as it was 6 originally drafted based on your comments. We appreciate that very much. We also 7
appreciate your willingness not to repeat them here. Thank you. 8
Mr. Conrad: Thank you. 9
Chair McDougall: Thank you for getting involved in the process. We really appreciate 10
that kind of participation. 11
Mr. Conrad: I apologize for missing it in 2004. If I knew there was such a thing as 12
administrative regulations, I'd have commented, but I didn't (inaudible). 13
Chair McDougall: I have no real additional comments except to thank Daren and the ad 14
hoc. My proposal, by the way, is not to do anything different than what you've currently 15
done with this particular iteration. I would have left it alone except the use case that you 16
just responded to Anne with, which is how people find out about the regulation, is they're 17
going to do something in a park or they're going to do something in the Foothills, and 18
then you send them the document or whatever. Now, they have to go through the whole 19
document to find the relevant piece. I really like the idea that there's one document, but 20
maybe there's two separate headings where particularly relevant things specific to the 21
open space or specific to the parks can be pulled out. I know dogs are mentioned at least 22
three different places. It would be much easier if it was called—it was easy to find the 23
dog parks. I'm not proposing that for this ad hoc or this iteration. I am proposing that we 24
should encourage that it not be another five years, and the next iteration might benefit 25 from restructure. I'll give Council Member Cormack an opportunity to comment. 26
Council Member Cormack: Mr. Anderson, I'm just curious if you would characterize the 27 proposed changes as minor, moderate, or major. 28
Mr. Anderson: Relative to the previous changes, where they were really specific to—29
maybe it was a dog park change, so it was just one or two. I would say this is moderate 30
compared to the previous ones I've been involved with. 31
Chair McDougall: I think we've completed that discussion. I am going to suggest a 32
slight change in the agenda if everybody would agree. Number 7 on here is the Hike to 33
the Sea attachment, and I'd like to give David a few minutes to comment on that at this 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
point before we get into the rest of the ad hoc unless anybody's got any major objections. 1
David. 2
[The Commission moved to Agenda Item Number VII before proceeding with Agenda 3
Item V.5.] 4
5. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 5
Chair McDougall: This month we've had an extremely good job of people submitting all 6 of the reports, so we don't have to go through it in great detail. Personally, part of my 7
reaction to looking at this whole list is the 10.5 acres. It sounds to me like sometime in 8
the next couple of months we might want to bring that forward from the ad hoc to the full 9
Commission. The Foothills Park access, there's obviously work going on, on that. That's 10
sort of a continuing update. I don't know if David wanted to comment on his memo or if 11
Ryan wanted to make a comment. 12
Commissioner McCauley: We've got a pretty solid draft ready. I met with Jeff 13
Greenfield yesterday. I think we're anticipating that that will be back before the 14
Commission in September for discussion and further public input. Based on that 15
discussion, there would be an action item sometime later in the fall for the Commission to 16
consider. 17
Chair McDougall: I did see in some of the correspondence relative to the agenda, Daren, 18
that Kathleen is now starting to collect information on how many rolls of toilet paper are 19
used and various other ways of indirectly measuring the use of the park. I would 20
encourage other Commission members to think of things that ought to be measured. Too 21
often we don't think of what we want to measure, the same with the 7.7 acres. How will 22
we know when we've had success or we've had failure? One thing that wasn't on that list 23
was any kind of incident report. Was there an encounter with a guest or a visitor who had 24
a problem or an issue? We need to make sure we're recording that too because that could 25 be one of the things that becomes—as it was noted, one of the potential issues is safety. 26 If we're not recording that now, then we won't have a benchmark for it. Is there any other 27 comments on any of the ad hocs? David. 28
Commissioner Moss: Going back to the one about Foothills Park, I will not be at the 29
meeting in September. Without violating the Brown Act, is there some way that you 30
would give me feedback on some of the items that I mentioned in the memo that I sent 31
afterwards, things that may or may not jive with what you're planning to do? I don't 32
know how to address that. Was there anything that was particularly an issue, primarily to 33
do with limits, primarily to do with student groups, primarily to do with volunteer groups, 34
primarily to do with barbecues in the wrong place, and fire protection and maintenance 35
with a larger volume of people? 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Commissioner McCauley: The draft that we have is fairly detailed, and it will probably 1
answer a lot of the questions. Without going into too much detail about what that draft is, 2
your comments are consistent with that draft generally. We're incorporating that 3
feedback. 4
Chair McDougall: Is it fair to say that you have a different draft today than the one that 5
was floated at the last meeting? There is a potential update from what Commissioner 6 Moss would have referred to? 7
Commissioner McCauley: Absolutely. The draft is much more detailed. Previously, it 8
was sort of a menu of options. Now, it's one particular proposal. 9
Commissioner Moss: I had a comment about the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation 10
Plan. I mentioned earlier that they are reviewing the horizontal levee project this coming 11
Friday. That will be a very important impact on the Baylands and the City. I will be 12
coming up with a response after I've seen that presentation. That has to do with a smooth 13
transition, not a sheer drop-off. No matter what the sea level rise is, it'll still be a smooth 14
transition. 15
Chair McDougall: When you say presentation, you mean the tour that's being offered? 16
Commissioner Moss: That's right, a tour. Daren and I have talked with Commissioner 17
Greenfield about, with all of the projects being worked on north of us by SFPUC and the 18
Dumbarton Rail project and also the Ravenswood Open Space District working on the 19
San Francisco Bay Trail, there will be increased pressure on Palo Alto to make 20
improvements on our portion of the Bay Trail north of the Baylands in what's called the 21
Faber-Laumeister Tract. Right now, there's one intransigent homeowner/landowner who 22
the City is trying to work with to allow us to make improvements to that trail. It's not 23
going well. Hopefully, you can continue to push forward with that, but that is an open 24
issue. 25
Chair McDougall: We can ask that in a future staff report that we get an update on that. 26 Would that be fair? 27
Mr. Anderson: I think so. We'll just have to be cautious that it doesn't turn into an 28
agendized kind of discussion. 29
Chair McDougall: That's why I'm suggesting a future staff report. If there are no other 30
comments … 31
Commissioner Moss: I'm so excited about the pickleball court development and the 32
tremendous response that the City made to the pickleball community to move them 33
during this fairly long break in the action. It's at least six to eight weeks, something like 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
that. You were able to move them to another part of Mitchell Park. I think some of the 1
tennis players who were there are moving over to Cubberley. I'm not sure how that 2
worked. Thank you so much for accommodating that very large and very vocal 3
community during this upheaval. One other thing about the pickleball. I don't think that 4
they contribute a dime to the City for anything we're doing for them. I'm a little 5
concerned about that. I wonder if we're able to charge fees to groups to help with 6 maintenance and some of the upgrades. This is coming out of CIP, I think. No, I think 7
it's coming out of maintenance. 8
Mr. Anderson: It was CIP funding to build the new courts. 9
Commissioner Moss: I don't know what staff can do about that. 10
Chair McDougall: Commissioner Moss, I would think the ad hoc involved in recreation 11
should probably take that up, and we don't discuss that further. 12
Commissioner Moss: That would be great. 13
Chair McDougall: Do you have something else you want to add? 14
Commissioner Moss: On the turf management with the Cubberley field, they needed to 15
remove at least six or so redwood trees. I was surprised at that, but they were not in good 16
health. Will those be replaced or anything like that? 17
Mr. Anderson: I believe six were removed. Three were already dead, and three were still 18
living. Yes, we will have replacements, not necessarily redwoods but perhaps a different 19
species that may be more appropriate and might do better there. 20
Chair McDougall: Council Member Cormack, do you have any last questions or 21
comments that you'd like to add? 22
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 MEETING 23
Chair McDougall: Is there any topics that Commission members would like to 24
recommend for future meetings? 25
Commissioner Moss: I don't know if it's parks and facility use or park rules, but I notice 26 a proliferation of advertising signs where the soccer teams play and tennis classes are 27 given, big, big, big signs and multiple ones. They stay up a lot longer than the event 28
they're advertising. Is that advertising something they pay for? 29
Chair McDougall: Once again, I'll submit that to staff as an update on that at the next 30
meeting. It sounds like a reasonable question. Rather than discussing it now, we'll put it 31
as a request for a staff update at the next meeting. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Commissioner Reckdahl: I received an email today about the recycled water plan for the 1
north county. Are we going to get a purple session? Is that in the works? 2
Chair McDougall: That's a good idea. We did have that as an agenda item sometime. 3
I'm not sure it showed up, but let's put that on the list as a potential topic. 4
Mr. Anderson: Commissioner Reckdahl had forwarded me a number of those kinds of 5
things. I sent it to Public Works, and they said they'd be interested in coming in 6 November to talk about that and maybe a couple of other items, GSI, etc. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don't see any particular rush, but we should get it. 8
Commissioner McCauley: Don, I was just going to echo your comment. It'd be great to 9
have an update on the 10.5 acres at Baylands in the not too distant future. 10
Chair McDougall: Specifically for the September meeting, we do have an update on the 11
Foothills access. Anybody have anything else? 12
Commissioner Cribbs: The timing might be off on this for our meetings. I wondered if 13
we should have any kind of information about what's going on with the Stanford GUP. 14
We mentioned it last meeting. There's some implications for recreation possibly and that 15
kind of thing. Maybe it's just enough to get information off the website and listen to the 16
Council meeting. 17
Chair McDougall: Council Member Cormack might have a comment on that. 18
Council Member Cormack: Council Member DuBois and I are the ad hoc committee for 19
the Stanford GUP. We provided an update at the end of last week's meeting, could have 20
been the week before, just indicating that we anticipate there being a series of meetings 21
starting in the fall in San Jose and potentially one up here. Attendance at that will be 22
welcome. There's no other additional information that we have to share. I'm not quite 23
sure what an action item or a discussion would look like. At this point, that's where we 24
are. 25
Commissioner Cribbs: It's good to know that you have that ad hoc committee. I was 26 thinking, "Wouldn't it be great for you to make a presentation from Palo Alto's 27 perspective?" If there's nothing to share … 28
Council Member Cormack: There isn't really anything. The Planning Commission has 29
recommended its (inaudible). Everything is out in the public. We're waiting until the 30
next series of meetings. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl: With Rancho San Antonio closed because of mountain lions, 32
do we have any evidence of mountain lions in Foothills Park? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Mr. Anderson: We've always had evidence of them. We have wildlife cameras that 1
occasionally pick them up. We take notes on where they're at and monitor behaviors 2
when we observe them or have park visitors' observations. Right now, we don't have any 3
threats or concerns. 4
Commissioner LaMere: I have one question about setting dates for November and 5
December meetings. Just wondering if there's any discussion of that in the near future. 6
Chair McDougall: We haven't had discussion. We'll make sure that we have that 7
discussion in preparation. For the September meeting, we'll lay out the rest of the year 8
appropriately. 9
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 10
Commissioner Moss: On August 14, the Midpeninsula Open Space District Board of 11
Directors had a very unusual meeting that I was allowed to be part of. I did not represent 12
the City of Palo Alto, but I did talk about the inspiration of the Parks Master Plan to 13
finding routes from our open spaces to other open spaces, other regional trails from Palo 14
Alto to the sea. It was very well received. The amazing thing was the meeting itself. 15
There were seven other organizations that had something to do with regional trails 16
through Midpeninsula Open Space lands. What was amazing is that many of them 17
touched Palo Alto. That was not lost on the Board nor was it lost on the other 18
participants. For instance, one of the partners was San Francisco Bay Trail, which 19
certainly runs through our Baylands, and they have major changes that they're making. 20
The Bay Area Ridge Trail, which we connect to at the top, and the SFPUC and the 21
Dumbarton Rail Corridor, which are going to be integral to moving people and 22
commuters and recreational bike riders and walkers from Dumbarton Bridge and from all 23
points north to all points south. They are doing major changes. They also talked about 24
San Mateo County parks is creating the Ohlone-Portola Historical Trail, which ends up at 25 El Palo Alto, which I didn't know. It's going to span all the way north almost to San 26 Mateo. All of these regional trails touch Palo Alto in some way. They were very 27 receptive to changing their priorities to help this Palo Alto to the Sea Trail because they 28
have one major project that they need to do with the Cloverdale Ranch, which is at the 29
very end of the trail, that they would like to move up to allow this regional trail to be 30
more useful. That's all I really want to say right now. It was very well received. 31
Chair McDougall: In the planning meeting we had for this meeting, when we talked 32
about it, Commissioner Greenfield, who went to the meeting with you, was extremely 33
complimentary about the presentation that you did, the reaction you got. Although you 34
weren't representing the City, as you say, you did do a good job of representing the City. 35
Thank you very much. I don't know if anybody has any particular questions for David on 36
that. With that, I'd like to go to the ad hoc committee update. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 1
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 2
Cribbs at 9:15 p.m. 3
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Public Works
DATE: 9/24/19
SUBJECT: Rinconada Park Improvement Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide a recommendation to City Council to adopt the revised Parks Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the
Rinconada Park Improvement Project with the added fire pit area.
BACKGROUND
Capital improvement funding of $1.7 million was approved by City Council to address
current park improvement needs for fiscal year 2020. The improvements include
infrastructure, accessibility and maintenance needs of the park. The proposed improvements were identified and supported by the community as part of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, which was adopted by City Council in the summer of
2017. The improvements of the existing two playgrounds and replacement of the
existing asphalt walkways with concrete comprise the major budget items being
addressed by the project scope. Park improvements are anticipated to begin in the fall of 2019 to coincide with the construction of the new Junior Museum and Zoo, which is anticipated to open in the summer of 2020.
Improvement Items Proposed for Rinconada Park Include (Attachment A):
•Playground & Tot Lot Renovation•Relocate Tot Lot Closer to Main Playground
•All New Playground Equipment, Fencing, Rubber surfacing
•New Pathways
•12’ wide main connection pathway
•8’ wide connection pathways•Site Furnishing Replacement•Picnic Tables, Benches, Water Fountain, BBQ’s, Trash/Recycle
Receptacles
•Picnic Areas
•Renovate existing group picnic area•Create new picnic area at rear of JMZ at Playground•Expansion of main turf area
•New irrigation
•Install drainage
•Renovate planting areas•Reduce small turf areas
•Native/Habitat Planting
•Pollinator Garden
•Directional Signage
•Bid Alternate Scope
•Restroom•Fire pit area
For more information regarding the current Rinconada Park Improvement project please
visit the project web page at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/rinconadaplan
For more information regarding the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and process
please visit the project web page at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/rinconadaplan.asp
DISCUSSION
As one of the early community facilities in the Rinconada campus the Lou Henry
Hoover Girl Scout House has provided a location for troops to meet since 1926. As part
of the Rinconada Long Range Plan a fire pit at the rear of the Hoover House was an adopted site feature. Unfortunately, funding for the park improvements did not include
the fire pit in the scope of work for the upcoming park project. In response the Girl
Scouts have approached the city with a current donation of $5,000 and continue to
seek further funding to add the fire pit into the scope of the upcoming improvement
project. To assist with this process the city has worked with the Girl Scout Representatives to draft a fire pit area plan. The fire pit area scope of work would include: The removal of existing shrubs, regrading of the area, installation of a
perimeter fence & gates, installation of prefabricated gas fire pit, gas safety shut off
valve, concrete paving, decomposed granite paving and seating. The city recommends
adding the fire pit area to the bid package as a bid alternate item and including it in the Parks Improvement Ordinance. If current project funding is unable to cover the remaining amount of work not covered by the amount donated by the Girl Scouts the
fire pit area would not be included as an aspect of the project scope.
The fire pit would be primarily for Girl Scout use, with the city having the option of renting out the space to other groups or the community. The fire pit would not be for
general everyday use, and will be in a locked gated area.
NEXT STEPS
•Bid Document Preparation: Fall 2019
•Council to Adopt (PIO) and Approve Contract: Fall 2019
•Bidding of Project: Summer/Fall 2019•Construction Begins: Fall 2019
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park
facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new
community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An initial CEQA Study was prepared as an aspect of the Rinconada Park Long Range
Plan. None of the proposed new improvement require further study and are exempt from a
full CEQA review.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed Fire Pit Area Exhibit Attachment B: Fire Pit Cost Analysis
Attachment C: Revised Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO)
PREPARED BY
Peter Jensen Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2019
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT OF THE PARK AND OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) recommend that
Council adopt 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
On August 27, 2019, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed updating the Park and Open
Space Regulations. The proposed update includes 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”.
During the August 27 meeting, there were two comments from the Commission and one from a community member that resulted in changes to the proposed update of the regulations. A
Commissioner suggested reorganizing the regulations to make the document easier to search. A
table of contents with bookmarks has been added to the proposed update to address this issue. The
Ad Hoc Committee agreed a table of contents is a helpful tool for searching the regulations.
Another Commission suggestion was to amend R1-16 (I), which prohibits animals from being on
the pool deck, to allow service animals at the pool. The regulation has been edited to allow service
animals as defined by state and federal law.
2
A community member wrote to the Commission and spoke during the public comment period at
the August 27 meeting about a suggestion for changing R1-21A, which restricts commercial
photography and filming. The community member’s suggestion was to provide a description of
“commercial” photography and film. The Ad Hoc Committee is supportive of the proposed edit.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Amendment of the Park and Open Space Regulations
1
To: Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission
From: Foothills Park Ad Hoc Committee (Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley)
Re: Foothills Park Admission Policy / Pilot Program Discussion
Overview
The Parks & Recreation Commission (the “PRC”), the Foothills Park Ad Hoc Committee
(the “Committee”) and, most importantly, the community, recognize that Foothills Park is a special
place. Options for providing non-residents with access to the Park were discussed at the July PRC
meeting. The Committee has further discussed those options and developed the following pilot program proposal. This memo outlines a focused pilot program proposal for discussion and
comment by the PRC and the public:
• One year pilot program to test the concept of providing (1) a limited and adjustable number
of Park passes for non-residents, and (2) broader availability for school field trips.
• Non-resident passes would be available on the City’s new online reservation portal. This
system will allow us to gather more information about those seeking to visit the Park.
• Staff will use robust daily visitation data to adjust the number of non-resident passes available per day. Maximum cap of 50 passes for any given day.
• Encourage and formalize a school field trip program and reservation process, which is not
presently anticipated by the Municipal Code.
• Potential to recover expenses associated with existing cost of staffing the entry gate.
• Continue to prioritize resident access—no changes to current access policy for residents.
• At conclusion of pilot, staff and PRC would review Park visitation and impact data, and
recommend how to move forward, including potentially either reverting back to the current
policy or making the pilot program permanent.
The Committee has considered numerous alternatives (discussed below) and recommends this pilot
program because it ensures close control of total visitation to the Park and allows the option to
assess fees for non-resident passes to recover at least some of the significant personnel costs related
to staffing the entry gate.
Background
The approximately 1,400-acre parcel comprising Foothills Park was acquired by the City in
a favorably-priced acquisition from the Lee family in the late 1950s. The Park opened to Palo Alto
residents in the 1965-66 fiscal year. Visitation when the Park opened was significantly higher than
it has been in the past 30 years (peaking at approximately 372,000 visitors for two consecutive years
in the early 1970s).1 In the past 17 years, visitation has been steady at approximately 152,000 persons visiting each year. One recent exception was 2011-2012 when the Park saw 202,000
visitors. Based on staff observation, the Park was a bit busier in 2011-2012, but that number of
visitors did not negatively impact the Park’s resources and infrastructure.
1 A more complete discussion of the background and detailed history of the Park is set forth in the Committee’s memo to the PRC in advance of the July 2019 PRC meeting.
2
Enacted in 1969, the Municipal Code makes it a misdemeanor for any non-resident to enter
the Park unless they are a guest of a City resident or employee, or are traversing the Bay-to-
Foothills Trail on foot. (PAMC § 22.04.150 (a)-(b).) In addition to the residency restriction, the
Municipal Code imposes a cap of 1,000 persons in the Park at any time. (P.A.M.C. § 22.04.150.) This limit has not been approached except in the case of a special event many years ago.
During most weekends and holidays, the single point of entry on Page Mill Road is staffed
regularly and persons not able to demonstrate Palo Alto residency are turned away from the Park.
The exception is that during winter weekends and holidays, when staff is constrained and park
visitation rates are lower, entry gate enforcement of the residency requirement is less frequent. In the last five years, approximately 2,800 non-residents have been turned away on weekends each
year, which is an increase from the last decade. Enforcement of the residents-only restriction
requires that the Page Mill gate be staffed, with associated costs. As written, the Municipal Code
provides no discretion for the City Manager or staff to allow unaccompanied non-residents,
including school or volunteer groups.
The PRC received public comment before, at and following the PRC’s July 2019 meeting.
Comments were fairly evenly split between persons expressing support for the existing policy and
those supporting expanded public access studied through a pilot program. Public comments largely
did not relate to the menu of options discussed for a pilot. The comments from persons speaking
against expanding access expressed a more general concern about overuse of the Park and potential impacts to the Park’s ecology, and changes to the existing Park experience, with some commenters
citing concerns about their personal safety if non-residents are allowed access. Persons speaking in
favor of a pilot mentioned their desire for inclusiveness and a sense of being good neighbors,
concern about “elitism” and being “embarrassed” by the current policy’s exclusion of non-residents,
that the City has lost economic diversity from the time when the residents-only policy was implemented such that the policy has negative effects not present when first implemented, and that
a more effective policy could be crafted to ensure preservation of the Park while also allowing
broader public access.
As discussed at the August PRC meeting, in addition to studying visitation data and other
quantitative measures, staff have begun documenting a baseline for qualitative measurements to aid an assessment of the pilot program.2
Details on the Pilot Program Proposal
The following pilot program proposal is made in light of the principal comments from the
public and staff feedback on implementation and operational considerations:
1. One-year pilot program using extensive historic visitation data to dynamically adjust the number of unaccompanied non-residents able to visit the Park. Non-resident passes would
be required on all days, with continued staffing of the entry gate on weekends and holidays.
2 The qualitative measures include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) level of and
frequency of restocking restroom supplies, (2) usage of parking and picnic areas during typical
summer weekends and holidays (including photos), (3) any impacts to the landscape, such as social
trails (including photos), (4) notes on any impacts to staff resources, (5) frequency of barbeque cleaning and maintenance, (6) frequency of Greenwaste refuse and recycling pickups, etc.
3
2. Purpose for pilot is to assess quantitative and qualitative impacts to the Park’s ecology,
infrastructure and maintenance. As noted above, staff have begun documenting a baseline
for qualitative measurements. Staff will measure and assist in analysis of visitor impact
data.
3. Establish a pass system for non-resident visitors. Up to 50 vehicle/bicycle passes available
per day, with staff adjusting number of passes available based on visitation patterns.3 (E.g.,
busy weekends would have 0-10 non-resident passes available.)
a. Non-resident visitors accompanying a Palo Alto resident would still be allowed and
would not need to obtain an online pass, pursuant to current policy.
b. An option for discussion is dividing the total number of passes available among
student/volunteer populations and the general public (e.g., 10 passes reserved
specifically for non-resident students, 10 for non-resident volunteers and the
remainder for the general public).
c. “Students” means preK-12 students, which is a key population to target for access as identified through academic research and community feedback. “Volunteer groups”
means those organized volunteer groups that are strategic partners with the
Community Services Department (as determined by staff), including but not limited
to Grassroots Ecology, Canopy, Environmental Volunteers, etc.
4. All passes would be available online through the City’s new Parks & Recreation reservation system. The Committee has been advised that staff at Mitchell Park and
Lucie Stern Community Centers would be available to assist people with the online
reservation system. (If we recommend a prioritization for students or volunteers,
those persons would also need to use the online portal for tracking purposes.)
5. Formalize and promote City-authorized school field trip programs to the Park, which are presently not anticipated by Municipal Code. The Committee has been advised that staff
would develop a system to centrally coordinate school/co-curricular and volunteer group
reservations to optimize the educational experience.
6. The existing 1,000 visitor cap would remain in place. Current restrictions on reservation of
group spaces would also remain in place (i.e., restricted to residents).
7. Option to charge for non-resident access passes (e.g., $10), which would aid recovery of
costs related to current need to staff the entry gate on weekends and holidays. If a fee is
assessed, Committee recommends prioritizing access for students and persons volunteering
with City-supported programs by way of a fee waiver through the online portal.
Factors Supporting Pilot
a) Effectively mitigates principal concern about overcrowding/overuse of the park.
3 For administrative ease, passes would be for each passenger vehicle or bicycle group. Using
the historical average of ~2.7 visitors per vehicle on weekends, 25 passes would equate to
approximately 68 visitors and 50 passes would equate to approximately 135 visitors. A passenger
vehicle would be defined as one carrying up to eight people. For persons entering by bicycle or other non-motorized means, one pass would cover a maximum of eight people.
4
b) Incorporates focus for students and volunteers.
c) Addresses public input that policy should be revised to allow reasonable non-resident
access.
d) Allows for experimentation during pilot program on the number of passes available (up to 50 but often fewer), means for distributing passes, and potentially the cost of visiting the
Park.
e) If a fee is charged for non-resident passes, the pilot would generate modest revenue that
would help offset the cost of staffing the entry gate.
f) Good policy: uses robust data to inform the policy and adjust its implementation, with that quantitative information reinforced by the more qualitative information that ranger staff is
developing for a baseline comparison.
Potential Risks
As noted previously, the principal risk is that additional visitation will negatively impact
Foothills Park’s natural resources and improvements, or otherwise tax park resources. This risk is viewed as a limited one in light of past experience with significantly higher visitation than is
anticipated in connection with a pilot program and the effective controls on total visitation that are
the core of this pilot. For a pilot program, no capital expenditure is anticipated. Incremental costs
are likely to be incurred, including CSD and Foothills Park staff time which may result in reduced
staff attention to other projects. Finally, there are certain existing infrastructure needs within the Park (e.g., restrooms that need to be replaced in the next five years), but staff views those as pre-
existing needs regardless of this pilot program.
For any pilot program, staff have agreed to monitor both overall visitation and pilot-specific
visitation to Foothills Park and the Commission will prepare a report and recommendation
concerning the pilot program and associated impacts after one year.
Options for Specific Discussion
1. Fees: Whether to charge a non-resident fee on weekends and weekdays, and the amount(s)
of the fee.
a. One option would be to study visitation and online portal user feedback through
phases relating to the implementation of a fee for part of the pilot program. (E.g., Phase 1 for the first six months would not include a fee and Phase 2 would include a
fee, to allow staff and the PRC to study demand and inform a final recommendation.)
As noted above, the Committee recommends a fee waiver for students and
volunteers.
b. If fees are charged, should fees be different for weekends/holidays and weekdays?
2. Further Prioritization for Students and Volunteers: Whether to create a further prioritization
of access by dividing the number of available non-resident passes among students,
volunteers, and the general public. Again, one option would be to study this as part of the
pilot program to gauge student and volunteer interest versus general public interest.
However, dividing the number of available passes by group will likely create complexity for administration of the online portal. Or is there something else we can do to better prioritize
student and volunteer access?
5
3. Geographic Limitations on Prioritized Student Groups: Whether to limit student preference
to those students attending the Palo Alto Unified and Ravenswood School Districts, or to
allow prioritization for any preK-12 students regardless of their place of residence.
4. Weekdays: Should the pilot pass program for non-resident visitor include weekdays as well as weekends? If so, should the same maximum pass limit apply? If the program does not
include weekdays, then should the current Municipal Code provision that makes it a
misdemeanor for non-residents to enter the Park unaccompanied be changed?
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS STAFF
LIAISON 9/19 STATUS UPDATE
Baylands 10.5 Acres Cribbs LaMere
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson Meeting 9/10 to discuss updates,mitigation costs, potential consultant and timelines. Preference is for consultant
to supply plan for entire area of available land, not just 10.5. Recommended to begin community outreach as
soon as possible.
Baylands Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (BCCP)
Moss
McDougall
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson
Attended the Horizontal Levee project tour at Oro Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in Hayward with our
Wastewater Treatment and Parks staff and other partners like Audubon, EV, Citizens to complete the refuge, and
Save the Bay. Our staff is working to merge the successful results with the results of the SAFER levee project to
come up with a solution for PA.
CIP Input Moss
McDougall
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Cubberley Master Plan Moss
McDougall
Greenfield
Kristen
O'Kane The ad hoc met with Kristen to review in-progress sites plans and discuss some of the moving pieces. CEQA
environmental assessment continues to move forward.
Foothills Park Greenfield
LaMere
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Park & Facility Use Policy Cribbs Adam
Park Amenities Cribbs
McDougall
Daren
Anderson
Anxious to begin commuity outreach regarding pilot program for off leash dogs at specifict times.Continue to
receive requets for restrooms in parks.
Park Dedication Greenfield
McCauley
Kristen
O'Kane Staff is working towards an assessment update of identified potential sites in November/December.
Park Rules & Regulations Greenfield
McCauley
Daren
Anderson The ad hoc met to review final iterations which will return to PRC for action this month.
Recreation Opportunities Cribbs LaMere
Reckdahl
Kristen
O'Kane
UTREACH – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
LIAISON & OUTREACH MEMBERS STAFF /
CONTACT 9/19 STATUS UPDATE
Aquatics Cribbs Jazmin
LeBlanc
Rink Masters interviewing for head coach, pending Carol's retirement after 40 plus years. Fundraising continues.
Community Gardens Greenfield Catherine
Bourquin
The new proposed Community Gardens Guidelines and Responsibilities (for gardeners) are under review by the
City Attorney. These rules will not require City Council approval, so PRC will advise staff as a discussion
item, likely at the September PRC meeting.
Friends of Foothills Park McDougall
Friends of PA Parks McDougall
Funding McDougall Kristen
O'Kane
Discussed the possibilities for receiving donations from the Pickleball community at the conclusion of the new
Pickleball court construction to be completed in October.
GSI Moss Met with Public Works representative to discuss their prioritization process for projects affecting Parks and Open
Space, for the inclusion of GSI features in our new projects going forward. Pam Boyle Rodriguez is ready to
present a summary to the commission in the next couple months.
Health and Wellness McCauley
PA Recreation Foundation McDougall Jack Morton
PAUSD / City Reckdahl Kristen
O'Kane
PAUSD Projects Greenfield
McDougall
Miguel
Chacon
Safe Routes Greenfield Rosie
Mesterhazy
Stanford LaMere
McCauley
Turf Management Greenfield Daren
Anderson
Work continues on schedule for the Cubberley turf field and track renovation. construction work is in progress
and on schedule for completion in October. Burned out lights have been replaced at El Camino Park and the
previously dark corner is now well illuminated. Staff is working to schedule (1) artificial turf in-fill replacement at
El Camino Park, and (2) electrical repair of the failed light stanchion at Mayfield-North soccer field.
Ventura Coordinated Area
Plan
Reckdahl
Youth Council Cribbs
2019 AD HOC COMMITTEES – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION