HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-10 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting.
AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION December 10, 2019 SPECIAL 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 time
restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral
communications period to 3 minutes. IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT
V. BUSINESS 1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 22, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – PRC Chair McDougall – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November 12, 2019 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
PRC Chair McDougall – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT 3. Aquatics Performance Update – Jazmin LeBlanc – Discussion (20 min) ATTACHMENT 4. Golf Course Performance Update – Lam Do – Discussion (20 min) ATTACHMENT 5. Update on Cubberley items, including: Draft Cubberley Concept Plan; and Lease Agreement with Palo
Alto Unified School District – Kristen O’Kane – Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
6. Recommendation to approve a letter from the Parks and Recreation Commission to recognize completion of the Draft Cubberley Concept Plan – Chair Don McDougall – Action (20 min) 7. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Plan – Lam Do/Daren Anderson – Discussion (45 min) ATTACHMENT
8. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min) ATTACHMENT
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 28, 2020 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 October 22, 2018 8 Downtown Library 9 270 Forest Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, Don 13 McDougall, David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: None 15
Others Present: None 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Natalie Khwaja 17
I. ROLL CALL 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19
Chair McDougall: I'll ask if there are any Agenda Changes, Requests, Deletions from the 20
agenda that we have. Thank you to staff for once again great preparation of the agenda. If 21
not, I'll go to Oral Communications. 22
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23
Chair McDougall: This is members of the public that can speak on topics that are not on 24
the agenda. I have no cards, so I'll assume that I have no Oral Communications. I will 25
offer Commission members at this point an opportunity for Oral Communications on 26
subjects that are not on the agenda. David. 27
Commissioner Moss: The last meeting, they had a discussion about banners and what to 28 put up in parks. One of my neighbors said, "Make it clear to soccer groups and baseball 29 groups that along"—we're just taking the Cubberley site as an example—"Nelson Drive 30 fences, behind the track, around the tennis courts, on Cubberley buildings are not one of 31 the official sites for banners. They get plastered all over these." We do need to either 32 enforce it or come up with a different way to address the banners. One other neighbor said 33 if we could get it so that they have one banner with a strip on the bottom that tells about an 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
upcoming tryout. One week after the tryout is over, that banner either goes away or that 1
strip goes away. 2
Chair McDougall: Consistent with public Oral Communications, I'm not going to ask staff 3
to respond to that. 4
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 5
Chair McDougall: I'll go on to Department Report. 6
Daren Anderson: Good evening, Commissioners. Daren Andersen, Community Services 7
Department. I wanted to get back to you on the Boulware addition. That's the 3350 Birch 8 Street property the City recently purchased. The next step on that property is community 9 outreach. It's tentatively set for Saturday, November 9, at 10:00 a.m. to noon. Peter Jensen 10 will confirm that, and I'll make sure to email the Commission once that's finalized. 11 Feedback on the Black & White Ball. The event went really well. We sold 1,002 tickets, 12 made $111,000 in revenue, and utilized over 25 Palo Alto vendors. The Moonlight Run 13 was a great event, went smoothly, There were 2,303 registered participants in that one. A 14 follow-up on the field lighting issues at Stanford-Palo Alto. The repair to the northwest 15 light pole, which had caught on fire, was completed last Thursday. The repair tech 16
explained that the fire was most likely caused by a resistor that overheated. While testing 17
the system, the technician noticed that there were two bulbs out on the north field close to 18
the restroom building. We're working on having those repaired. The Cubberley track and 19
field project was completed. We had the ribbon ceremony last Friday. It was a successful 20
and well-received ribbon cutting. Peter Jensen did a great job on that project. A lot of 21
praise from the community members who attended it. The Cubberley field seasonal 22
lighting, we've been doing this for a couple of years. That's going to start again. This is 23
set for Monday, November 4, through December 13 and then again January 6 through 24
March 6. These lights will go off at 8:30 p.m. It's just to extend the use of the field a little 25
bit during the darker months. The neighbors will receive a postcard notifying them of the 26 seasonal lighting. Adam will hand deliver these after the Commission meeting tonight. 27 During last year's trial, we had one light with some problems. It was continuously running 28 on the generator. We're going to relocate that particular spot so it's in the sun better, so it 29 won't have to turn on the generator. It'll just run on solar as it was designed. We also had 30 some issues with the company who ran the program last year. They've gone out of 31 business. They actually went out of business during the pilot last year, which made it very 32 complicated. We've got a new company. The techs with the company are available from 33 phone and internet, and they can dial into the unit remotely. We're anticipating much better 34 service and far fewer issues. Pickleball, the project was scheduled to be completed by 35 November 15. The good news is the contractor is ahead of schedule right now. I anticipate 36 they will be completed before that. Again, I'll notify you by email. We'll have a ribbon 37
cutting for that event as well. The Hoover dog park fence. You might remember during 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
our dog park conversations we've talked about some of the challenges with the existing 1
dog parks. The problem with Hoover is the existing fence is only 3 feet tall. It went in 2
before my time, and I have no idea why it was put in at that height. We're correcting it 3
starting tomorrow. It'll be 5 feet. The project will run from tomorrow through Saturday. 4
The dog park will be closed during that project. The El Camino Park synthetic turf infield, 5
something I mentioned at the last Commission meeting. We had an issue with that infield. 6
It's being replaced. It's being done right now. That project will be completed Friday, 7
October 25. That is, the old infield was removed, and a new infield appropriate for the site 8 was installed. An update on the Junior Museum and Zoo project. That's on schedule to 9 open October 3, 2020. Right now, they're working on completing exhibits for the meerkat, 10 raccoon, and turtle and fish. It's going well. An update on the 101 Pedestrian Bike Bridge 11 schedule. That project will go out to bid on October 2 and to Council on November 15 for 12 award of contract. It's moving forward. The construction window is still set for the fall of 13 2019. They anticipate an 18-month construction window with completion somewhere 14 around March 2021. The 7.7 acres community meeting is set for Saturday, November 16, 15 at 11:00 a.m. at Foothills Park Interpretive Center. This will be the outreach to the 16
community to find out what they'd like to do in using the land. As you recall, we presented 17
the draft restoration plan for how to use it to the Commission. We'll be presenting that to 18
the community and getting their feedback. An update on the Cubberley lease. On 19
October 7, City Council directed staff to negotiate an agreement with PAUSD to continue 20
leasing Cubberley Community Center for a term of five years. The current lease expires 21
in December of this year. City and School District staff developed draft lease terms that 22
were presented to both Council and the Board of Education. The draft terms include 23
specific milestones related to the Cubberley Master Plan as well as a draft least payment 24
schedule. There's a staff report with more information. If you're interested, I'm glad to 25
email it to you. It's available online. The Cubberley Master Plan. Staff anticipates the 26 draft Cubberley Master Plan will be released to the community in the next few weeks. 27 Regarding sea level rise, I know there's always questions about that. We've got staff from 28 Public Works coming to bring a discussion for the PRC on a horizontal levee project in 29 December or January. The Arastradero Community Gardens—this is our partnership with 30 the church—will open at the end of the month. We anticipate 35 garden plots, and we 31 already have nine or ten people on the waiting list. Catherine has done a wonderful job 32 leading that project and getting the gardens built. We'll be meeting with the gardeners soon 33 and setting up their plots. We're excited about that, our first new community garden in 34 quite some time. Lastly, there's a veterans recognition event planned at King Plaza on 35 November 4 at 3:30. That concludes the Department Report. 36
Chair McDougall: You said 102 tickets for the Black & White Ball and how much? 37
Mr. Anderson: 1,002 tickets and $111,000 in revenue. 38
Chair McDougall: Was the $111,000 net? Do you know? 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Mr. Anderson: I don't know. 1
Chair McDougall: Are there any other questions? 2
Commissioner Moss: How much money did the Moonlight Run bring in? 3
Mr. Anderson: I don't have the revenue figures for that. I apologize. 4
Commissioner Moss: The Cubberley Master Plan, when it comes back and before it goes 5
out to the public, you're going to have the subcommittee look at it? 6
Mr. Anderson: I'll talk to Kristen about that. She understands that's a deep interest of the 7
Commission. I'll make sure I convey that to her. 8
Commissioner Moss: The CIP, when is that kicking off? 9
Mr. Anderson: I've yet to hear from the Office of Management and Budget, who oversees 10 the capital program. We're starting internally right now. My staff has gone through all the 11 existing projects, and we're creating a clean spreadsheet. We're going to go over it 12 internally with staff this week, probably tomorrow morning. I'll set up a meeting to go 13 over it with the Department head, Kristen. I'll meet with the ad hoc next, and then we'll 14 come back to the full Commission. I've got an email coming out to you soon to set up a 15 time for us to meet and talk. 16
Chair McDougall: Any other questions? Daren, thank you very much. 17
V. BUSINESS 18
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 24, 2019 Parks and Recreation 19
Commission meeting. 20
Approval of the draft September 24, 2019 Minutes was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl 21
and seconded by Commissioner McCauley. Passed 6-0, Moss abstaining 22
2. Urban Forest Discussion 23
Chair McDougall: We'll move on to the Urban Forest Discussion with Walter. Walter, 24
welcome. Thank you very much for being here. 25
Walter Passmore: Thank you, Commissioners. Walter Passmore, Urban Forester. We 26 have a short presentation tonight. This is really more of a discussion. We are proposing 27 to establish an ongoing forum for Urban Forestry to interact with the community. The 28 purpose of the community forum is to implement programs of the Urban Forest Master 29 Plan, to optimize communication, address common issues, share information, and facilitate 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
collaboration in meeting challenges such as invasive species or carbon credits. Those are 1
some of the programs that relate to the purpose in the Urban Forest Master Plan. Secondly, 2
it's to assess and consider how to expand tree canopy as described in a number of plans 3
including the Urban Forest Master Plan, the Parks Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, 4
the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the Green Infrastructure Plan. There's a whole 5
slough of City plans that recognize canopy cover as an overarching performance measure 6
for ecosystem function. It relates very well to a number of goals that we have for 7
motivating community health, community recreation, ecosystem management in parks and 8 open space. As such, we feel like it's an appropriate role for the Parks and Recreation 9 Commission to host this ongoing forum. We're proposing to present the Parks and 10 Recreation Commission with an annual State of the Urban Forest Report. I've handed out 11 a Urban Forestry Accomplishments Report as an example of some of the measures that we 12 currently track. This is not a format necessarily for the State of the Urban Forest Report, 13 but I would welcome your feedback on which of those measures you'd like us to report on 14 annually and what you find would also be valuable to add into that report. Again, that's 15 just an example of what we're currently tracking, but we're very open to reporting on 16
whatever the Commission desires. The function would also be to provide a venue for 17
public comment. Currently, there is no formal venue for the public to comment on Urban 18
Forestry issues. The desire is not to establish another board or commission but to pair 19
Urban Forestry issues with the body that is most appropriate. We feel that the Parks and 20
Recreation Commission among our established bodies is the most appropriate to hear 21
Urban Forestry issues and decide how to address those. It would also be to comment on 22
significant issues, projects, policies, or reports that may affect the Urban Forest. We want 23
to talk a little bit about some limitations. I brought this up with the agenda planning 24
Commissioners. The Parks and Recreation Commission will not hear appeals, consider 25
claims, or register complaints against staff. You're not going to be a decision-making body 26 directing Urban Forestry policy or staff, but rather a body to listen to the voice of the 27 community and respond and make recommendations. You will not be directing staff to 28 take any specific action; however, the PRC may request staff to explore, report, consider, 29 or provide recommendations. I want you to feel like your input is very valuable, and you 30 are going to facilitate a healthy conversation with the community at large. In addition, the 31 Parks and Recreation Commission, being a formal body, always has the authority to 32 forward issues to City Council for consideration with opinions that are documented in your 33 minutes. That includes opinions from the public that may communicate with you via Oral 34 Communication. It will be an opportunity to place issues on the formal record and request 35 certain actions. While the Commission would not be directing, it would be an opportunity 36 for the community to interact with staff and for staff to respond in part to those issues that 37
the community brings up. I'm going to spend a little bit of time on this slide, my last slide. 38
Please ask questions. I want this to be an interactive process. An example issue is tree 39
canopy cover. I mentioned that it's an overarching performance measure for ecosystem 40
function. It's outlined in a number of goals that we have in various plans. This year, we 41
are going to create a new canopy cover tool in our enterprise-level GIS system. That will 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
produce an annual assessment of canopy cover throughout the City, and it will be to a level 1
of definition equal to our imagery. Currently, the City is acquiring 1 meter or finer aerial 2
imagery as part of our GIS system. We will be able to define the extent of canopy on a 3
tree-by-tree basis on a parcel-by-parcel basis or any selected area of the City. We can 4
compare one neighborhood to another. We can compare one park to another. We can 5
compare north to south Palo Alto, which was one of the issues that was originally broached 6
in the Urban Forest Master Plan adopted in 2015. There was a large disparity in canopy 7
between north and south Palo Alto. We'll be able to compare not only the canopy 8 distribution but trends in how the canopy is changing over time and compare that to 9 different baselines. I just laid a couple of baseline datapoints here because we did have a 10 canopy analysis conducted comparing 1982 to 2010. There are some other baselines 11 identified in our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan where we propose to reduce levels 12 of carbon by certain percentages compared to a 1990 baseline. We'll also be assessing the 13 1990 tree canopy cover so that we can look at the trend over time of how that canopy is 14 hopefully increasing. I do want to talk about some goals that are reflected in a number of 15 plans, one being the equitable distribution of canopy. Another is a tree canopy that is 16
resilient to changes in climate and culture. We are seeing changes in both. A third is 17
productive for a multitude of ecosystem benefits. A fourth is production of habitat values 18
that provide place for plants and animals, including people. Trees being a very large 19
organism, we have to create adequate space. By creating that space, we then create habitat 20
for all of the plants and animals associated with that tree or group of trees to thrive. It's a 21
good measure to assess other ecosystem values that we have interest in. I do want to 22
entertain some questions. I'm going to rely on Chairman McDougal to revisit some of the 23
discussion that we had about how the Parks and Recreation Commission would participate 24
in this ongoing forum. 25
Chair McDougall: Walter, thank you very much. I'm going to reserve my comments on 26 how we might go forward until we've actually heard from everybody in terms of whether 27 they have questions or not. I'm not totally influencing what we might do next. I'm going 28 to start with David. 29
Commissioner Moss: I have a couple questions. To increase the density of the canopy in 30 light of the extensive building that's going on and that's being proposed, it seems like it's 31 conflicting. How do you expect to resolve that? Is that just part of the—this seems to be 32 your important slide. I don't see how you can make much improvement. What's going to 33 change? 34
Mr. Passmore: Looking at the comparison of 1982 to 2010, we noted that the canopy 35 actually increased in excess of 5 percent citywide, which is a huge number of trees. That's 36 a substantial increase from a little over 32 to 37 percent canopy citywide. We attribute that 37
in part to development. We had policies for development that required new trees to be 38
planted in excess of a 1:1 ratio. When we have projects come forward, we were requiring 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
them to plant more trees than they removed. In 1982, there were more vacant spaces or 1
green fields development that was going on. Whereas, most of those vacant lots have been 2
developed since. That opportunity is probably gone for the most part. We can still make 3
some changes to policy. We can still motivate people to do the right thing and plant more 4
trees than they're removing. It's not going to be easy, to your point. There are some 5
substantial challenges if we're going to add more square footage of buildings, but we also 6
want more square footage for trees and green space and ecosystems. 7
Commissioner Moss: With our desire to have solar on rooftops and in parking lots and on 8 top of buildings, we're losing our sunlight if we have too many trees. There's going to be 9 a conflict there. I know in my own backyard we have so many trees that, for the first time, 10 we can't grow a garden. Our entire lot is covered by trees. We have to cut back in some 11 way, shape, or form. I don't know what you're going to do with the community garden, but 12 you're going to need some sunlight. How do you reconcile that? 13
Mr. Passmore: I agree. I think there's still a significant amount of opportunity for new 14 rooftop solar that does not conflict with trees. As we develop more square footage in 15 buildings, we can propose to build taller and have more opportunities for rooftop solar as 16
opposed to surface or parking lot-mounted shade canopies, which do have that conflict with 17
trees. I don't think we're going to prohibit rooftop solar by having more trees. We need to 18
be strategic about it, though. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: You mentioned we'll be getting 1-meter resolution data. Do we 20
have to manually go through and look at trees or do you have some automated process of 21
counting trees? 22
Mr. Passmore: There are existing algorithms that can compare the pixels of data to texture 23
and using infrared to tease out tree canopy in comparison to other types of land uses 24
including turf or bushes. There are a lot of existing algorithms. There are also comparative 25
datasets that we can cross-reference that have already looked at tree canopy. For example, 26 the U.S. Forest Service just did a statewide urban tree canopy assessment using 3-meter 27 data. Nonetheless, it's a good reference point so that we can compare Palo Alto data to 28 what the Forest Service is showing in Palo Alto. That's all free between government 29 agencies. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: How often do you get the new data? Is it once a year? 31
Mr. Passmore: Annually once we get the new enterprise GIS system, which is supposed 32 to occur in fiscal year '19. 33
Commissioner Reckdahl: Would we be able to use that to check out trees during drought 34 to identify which trees are stressed? That's one of the issues, that street trees do not get 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
watered regularly. If we have some automated process to say these trees are stressed and 1
they need extra attention, that would be very useful. 2
Mr. Passmore: Possibly, depending on the imagery quality. Infrared may not be refined 3
enough to assess tree health. Whereas, multispectral imagery would be. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we get both infrared and multispectral? 5
Mr. Passmore: Right now our default is infrared and the color. We're not currently looking 6
at multispectral imagery. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we have to pay for this or is this through the Forest Service? 8
Mr. Passmore: It'll be through our enterprise GIS system for the City of Palo Alto. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: The City of Palo Alto already contracts and gets this. The trees 10 will come as a bonus? 11
Mr. Passmore: Right. The trees will be part of the dataset that will be analyzed. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: In south Palo Alto, there's a lot of rolled curbs. We don't have 13 the regular areas. What are strategies that we can do to increase street trees along those 14 rolled curbs? 15
Mr. Passmore: Our street tree occupancy rate is actually pretty good. About 95 percent of 16
sites have a street tree existing on them right now. Our goal is 98 percent. There's a small 17
opportunity to plant more street trees and to better inform residents, such as those in south 18
Palo Alto with the rolled curb. The big opportunity for increasing tree canopy cover is on 19
private property. It's important to remember the role of government is not just to supply 20
services but also to facilitate advancing community interests and to leverage efforts through 21
public-private partnerships. To that extent, we have initiated some programs such as a 22
south Palo Alto tree planting initiative with Canopy, our nonprofit group. We've also 23
initiated a tree planting program through our utility to enhance the right tree/right place 24
program and not only replace an inappropriate species under the utility line but also provide 25
an extra shade tree in an appropriate location. We're doing a two-for-one offer. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we do surveys of street trees and say this street doesn't have 27 as many street trees and we can plant some? 28
Mr. Passmore: We do. For our public trees, we have a comprehensive inventory of every 29 tree in a developed area, 100 percent of our street trees and all of the trees in our urban 30 parks and high-use areas. We're able to run reports on an annual basis of the number of 31 vacant sites, where those are located, what stature of species could be planted there, and 32 then from that select what tree we would put in that exact location. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm very enthusiastic about this. Trees are an important part of 1
Palo Alto. If you go up to City Hall and look out the windows, it's just beautiful. You see 2
trees everywhere. That helps our quality of life. It helps our real estate prices. I think it's 3
a very good thing. 4
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm very enthusiastic about this too. I think it's a great opportunity 5
for all of us to learn more about trees in Palo Alto and all of that. The south Palo Alto 6
community tree planting, how are you publicizing that? 7
Mr. Passmore: Through Canopy. Canopy has a listserv of about 4,000 constituents in Palo 8 Alto. They reach out to them via email and an electronic newsletter that comes out on a 9 monthly basis. In addition, they're working with the neighborhood associations and 10 community champions. They've identified one or more champions in each neighborhood 11 that reach out neighbor to neighbor. That word of mouth is pretty effective a lot of the 12 time. They've hosted community meetings. We've seen that program actually gain quite a 13 bit of momentum. The first year, they planted somewhere around 70 trees. They planted 14 about 100 the next year. It looks like they're going to exceed 120 this year, so a little bit 15 more every year. As the word gets out, people are going to get more excited about being 16
a part of that. 17
Commissioner Cribbs: That's great. The staff within Community Services, what's the 18
practicality and how do you see this working? The reason I'm asking is because I think 19
we're down a couple of people in our headcount in Community Services. While this is a 20
great project, I'd love to know if the staff is going to be asked to take on one more thing. 21
Mr. Passmore: The Urban Forestry section is positioned in the Public Works Department. 22
Even though we service all of the different departments, we are the technical advisor to the 23
City. We're not positioned in Community Services, and I'm fully staffed right now. 24
Chair McDougall: In fact, we're counting on being able to borrow some of his people for 25
us. 26
Commissioner Cribbs: That's a good thing because there always is some interaction if we 27 have this here. We have some projects that have been on our list for a long time, that we 28 just don't seem to be able to get to. 29
Mr. Passmore: I'll give you an example. Before the Urban Forest Master Plan was adopted 30 in 2015, Community Services was responsible for maintenance of park trees. Since that 31 time, we have transferred that responsibility to Public Works. Now, all of those trees are 32 in inventory, and all of those trees are receiving recurring, cyclical maintenance via the 33 Public Works tree maintenance contractor. That's been a big change in doing proactive 34 maintenance for park trees that Community Services was not capable of doing previously. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Chair McDougall: I think there will be great cooperation. 1
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm sure there will be. I just wanted to ask the question because I 2
was anxious. 3
Commissioner McCauley: I'm going to dovetail on Anne's question. For purposes of this 4
Commission, primarily we interact with the Community Services Division. I can't think of 5
any issue on which there isn't a Community Services Department dimension. That would 6
still be true for Urban Forestry and trees. When you go back to the limitation slide, even 7
though there is not by any means mandates that come from this Commission that direct 8 Community Services to do something, there's a much more close working relationship. For 9 example, the Director of Community Services probably highly values the opinion of the 10 Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission. I'm not sure that the Director of Public 11 Works necessarily cares that much about the Parks and Recreation Commission. In some 12 respects, there's natural ability to hopefully move the ball in a helpful direction coming out 13 of the PRC. Should Urban Forestry be more closely aligned with the Community Services 14 Division? It seems like that's the inclination that I would be inclined to support. I'm curious 15 to know your thoughts. If you can't answer right now, that's okay. I'll leave it there as a 16
thought. 17
Mr. Passmore: I will offer this. My position was established right before I was hired. I'm 18
the first Urban Forester for the City of Palo Alto. At the time that the position was being 19
thought of, there was a debate about where it should be positioned, under what department. 20
Community Services obviously was one of the departments that had strong consideration 21
for positioning the Urban Forester position. The Planning and Community Environment 22
Department was another, and Public Works was a third. There was also discussion 23
proposed by Canopy that the position should not report to any department. It should report 24
directly to the City Manager. It would be within the Commission's purview to evaluate if 25
the reporting structure makes sense and make recommendations to the City Manager and 26 City Council if you don't think it's as effective as it needs to be. That's a benefit of the 27 Parks and Recreation Commission being involved in Urban Forestry. You can offer your 28 opinion, and you can keep track of these issues that you think are relevant to how 29 Community Services delivers a range of programs to the community. I'll offer that. I'm 30 not sure if I exactly answered your question. That's my best attempt. 31
Commissioner McCauley: You definitely got at it. What are you expecting the Parks and 32 Recreation Commission to do? Are you thinking it's going to be one State of the Urban 33 Forest Report and that's it or is it going to be a more regular discussion item? 34
Chair McDougall: Let me respond to that in terms of the meeting we've already had. 35 Before we go too far with all of this, one of the things we think we should do is at least 36 form an ad hoc committee so we can have a small group of people spend some time in 37
conjunction with Walter and Daren and talk about this. Some of these questions about how 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
exactly is this going to work and where are the lines, I've spent enough time with Walter 1
that I'm pretty sure we can make it work in a really constructive fashion. Maybe there 2
should be some guardrails somewhere that would be put in. We're thinking, number one, 3
it should be an ad hoc that we start with. In terms of some of the other things, Walter said 4
we need to understand we're not a decision-making body. We're not a decision-making 5
body relative to Daren, so why should it be surprising that we shouldn't be a decision-6
making body relative to Forestry? On the other hand, Walter's input was but if we want to 7
make recommendations, we're perfectly free to even go so far as to have an action item, 8 make a recommendation, and take it to City Council, let alone have a conversation with 9 Walter about what should be done. The other thing is the question of is it just an annual 10 report because we know an annual report is going to be good news or should there be a 11 quarterly report that covers issues. Should there be the opportunity for the Chairman and 12 the Vice Chair planning a meeting to say, "Trees are falling down. Maybe we better invite 13 Walter to the next meeting." Walter can say, "I've had all of this activity and we've done 14 all these things or we have these questions, I'd like to come to your next meeting." Those 15 are the ways it's worked with Community Services. I don't see any reason for it not working 16
that way here. I don't think there should be a rush to reorganize where Walter's organization 17
fits. There's something different about the tree removal service; almost utility-like service 18
relative to planting trees, taking trees out. I think Walter's right. We don't want to be a 19
body where we have 50 people show up to say, "We want more trees," or "I want the tree 20
in front of my house taken down," or "I want it replaced." Having arm's length is really 21
good for that. I'm confident we can make it work. I am convinced that we should start 22
with an ad hoc that sits down and discusses those items and comes back to the full 23
Commission with "here's how we should do it" or "we shouldn't do it." The objective 24
tonight is to bring it forward. I was enthusiastic. Daren was willing. I'll let Jeff speak for 25
himself. Jeff was enthusiastic that this could be something where this Commission has a 26
vested interest and could be useful. 27
Commissioner Cribbs: Even with an ad hoc, there's a staff person that gets involved in an 28 ad hoc usually and then there's a report. That's all time spent away from the regular work 29 of Community Services. I love this idea. I hope we can make it work, but I'm just worried 30 about … 31
Chair McDougall: I think we should create our own ad hoc with Daren to talk about how 32 does this work within the context of … 33
Commissioner Cribbs: That's the whole issue. It's with Daren. Look at the things that are 34 on his list. 35
Chair McDougall: I'm talking about two meetings. I'm not talking about setting up an ad 36 hoc that goes on forever. I'm just saying let's appoint … 37
Commissioner Cribbs: I'm being (crosstalk). 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Chair McDougall: Let's appoint a subcommittee or ad hoc, whatever you want to call it, 1
and create some structure. All of us trying to sit here and raise—we can raise questions. I 2
don't know that we can come up with answers. Maybe we have that conversation with 3
Daren, and then we sit down with Walter and say, "Here's our conversation. Do you think 4
we can make it work this way?" I don't think we need all of us to do that. That group 5
including Walter can come back and say, "Here's the way it would work." Does that make 6
sense? 7
Commissioner McCauley: It does. Like you, Don, I think it could be a great fit. I do have 8 one concern that I'll voice very briefly, and then we can move on. The Commission 9 operates best when it's thinking about policy issues. Perhaps it's less effective when we're 10 thinking about operational issues. I'm not sure how much input you need on policy issues. 11 Perhaps you need more than you're receiving right now. I would be careful to try and keep 12 the Commission out of the operational aspects. That's certainly what you're suggesting 13 already, but I would want to try and put up fairly clear guardrails that what we're talking 14 about is how to help you on a policy basis. 15
Chair McDougall: The other place where the Commission operates best is when we're 16
assimilating community input, when we're a receptacle for community input and feedback 17
to the appropriate body. We've done that in other cases relative to sea level rise and those 18
kind of things that are not specifically in the Community Services. We've been successful 19
at that without even a formal relationship. We're being offered the opportunity to have a 20
real relationship here. 21
Commissioner LaMere: I like the idea of providing a voice to the presentation. There's a 22
lot of synergy between health and wellness, which we're trying to get at with a lot of things 23
we do on our Commission, and trees in our City. I'm also sensitive, as Anne stated, to 24
further strain on staff's time. We do know that they're taxed with a lot of different projects. 25
That certainly is a sensitivity. This is of importance. Many of my questions were answered 26 from my fellow Commissioners. One question I have may be an expansion of a statement. 27 I thought you said tree canopy resilient to climate and culture. I was just wondering if you 28 could expand on resilient to culture and what you mean exactly with that statement. 29
Mr. Passmore: We have a chapter in the Urban Forest Master Plan that talks about the 30 history of Palo Alto. It describes some of the impetus behind planting trees in large 31 quantities and certain species. A lot of those decisions were culturally driven. There was 32 a motivation in the past in Palo Alto to plant a lot of trees and to have this very verdant 33 canopy that we enjoy now. We do see culture changing in Palo Alto based on where people 34 are coming from, what their background is. Some of the desires for tree canopy are 35 changing. It's not happening all at once because culture changes very slowly. It's 36 something we should be aware of. One of the challenges that we have with growing trees 37
around people is that people have very independent opinions about the tree in the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
community versus the tree in their own yard. We've seen, I would say, more in the recent 1
past of people that are new to Palo Alto that don't have the same appreciation of trees as 2
some of the residents that have lived here for 20 or 30 or 40 years. They're more interested 3
in having the biggest house they can have in the safest environment and not so much in the 4
surrounding landscape. I'm speaking in generalities because that's not everyone, but it 5
seems to be more people now than it was 20 years ago. Part of that could be because people 6
are wanting larger homes now than they did in the past, so there's less space for trees. 7
Regardless of the variety of reasons, we do need to recognize those cultural differences as 8
we have shifts in Palo Alto. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm very supportive of the concept. I've worked with Canopy a lot, 10 and I certainly value the trees in our community and the work of our Urban Forestry 11 Department. It's awesome that our City has an Urban Forestry Department and an Urban 12 Forester. The proposal fills a significant void in the community. The creation of a new ad 13 hoc is very appropriate. Are we looking towards Walter ultimately being the staff liaison 14 to the ad hoc, which seems appropriate and would thereby alleviate the concerns of an 15 additional burden on the Community Services Department. Daren, do you care to comment 16
on that? 17
Mr. Anderson: I think that's right. Maybe in the beginning, I'd like to be there to 18
participate, and more on an as-needed basis as we move on from there with Walter certainly 19
taking the lead. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: That sounds like the right approach, to have you meet initially to 21
get things going in the right direction and then pass it on. The core roles of the Parks and 22
Rec Commission are policy review and serving as a conduit for community feedback. 23
Those are very appropriate roles for the Commission to fill with respect to the Urban 24
Forestry aspect of our community and our City government. There were some comments 25
about the challenges of increasing tree canopy. Yes, it's challenging, but it is critical to 26 work on for the sustainability of our community and beyond. My experience is that lots of 27 residents are really excited to learn that our City will pay for a tree and have a tree planted 28 in their backyard or on their private property. It is really a grassroots door-to-door process 29 started by somebody in the community. It's a process that takes time, and it's gathering 30 momentum as Walter suggested. It's definitely the right approach. The enterprise GIS 31 system, is it used by other departments besides Urban Forestry? 32
Mr. Passmore: It will be used across all City departments. 33
Vice Chair Greenfield: What are some other anticipated uses for the system? 34
Mr. Passmore: Right now, we have a proprietary GIS system that is branded GeoCity. It's 35 a company that's only used by a few entities. We're going to be converting our entire City 36 GIS system to Esri, which is the most commonly used software worldwide. That will give 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
us a lot of additional flexibility and tools that we don't currently enjoy. It will allow us to 1
have a lot of prepackaged reporting and analysis capability. It'll allow us to compare data 2
to other entities that are also using Esri, here again the most common GIS system in the 3
world. It's going to be very constructive for the City to make this conversion. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: What's a ballpark price for a system like this? 5
Mr. Passmore: It was in the millions, but I am not the GIS manager, so I could not quote 6
you a price. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: That's very exciting to see that coming our way. When we meet 8 as a group to plan the agenda meeting, we had the idea we'd probably see Walter twice a 9 year on average, once for an annual report and once for something else that comes up. 10 Maybe it happens twice a year, maybe it happens a couple of extra times a year, maybe it 11 doesn't. That was our working idea, which seems about right. I'm very supportive of this. 12 I do recommend that we act tonight as a group to create an ad hoc in support of this moving 13 forward. I look forward to increasing our relationship directly with the Urban Forestry 14 Department. 15
Chair McDougall: Daren, do you have any comments you'd like to make? 16
Mr. Anderson: As Walter pointed out, our relationship with Public Works and the Urban 17
Forestry Division has been the best in all my time at the City that we've had with Public 18
Works. We've seen enormous benefits both in the maintenance of the trees, as he spoke 19
about. In the previous years, it was on an emergency basis only or our team who aren't 20
arborists doing essentially emergency work. The canopy suffered in the parks. They've 21
seen big increases thanks to this partnership. This is a great step in the right direction. 22
Trees are so important to all of our park users. I hear about it constantly, and I think this 23
is a good venue for it. The ad hoc committee is a great place to start, and I'm looking 24
forward to helping. 25
Chair McDougall: Just to wrap it up … 26
Commissioner Moss: As I've been listening to this decision, I'm reminded of the last 27 meeting. There was a discussion of fire management. One meeting when we would get a 28 ton of people here is if there was a fire, especially one in the Foothills that's coming this 29 way. With more trees, there's certainly more chance of a catastrophic fire. They mentioned 30 specifically the border between Foothills Park and Los Trancos Woods and Portola Valley 31 and the need to somehow keep the canopy and the chaparral down. I don't know if this is 32 a question for Walter or Daren. What is the time that we move forward with fire 33 management and with the larger canopy that we're talking about? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Mr. Passmore: That's a discussion for a future meeting. In short, in the first 17 years of 1
my career, fire management was one of my primary responsibilities, pre-suppression, fire 2
planning, management of vegetation. I started with the U.S. Forest Service and worked for 3
a state agency which is the counterpart of Cal Fire in Mississippi. Obviously, there's a lot 4
to managing risk of wildfire. It's not solely how many trees you have, but what type of 5
trees, how those trees are distributed, what kind of fuel load you have, how you prevent 6
sources of ignition. Humans are a primary source of ignition. How do we modify that 7
human behavior so that we have less starts of fires, especially in locations where they can 8 spread quickly. We can talk much more extensively in the future. Daren and I are two of 9 the Co-Chairs for the Foothills Fire Management Plan, a group of departments that think 10 about these issues and try to address fuel loading and other fire management aspects of our 11 public lands as we move forward. We've also made a lot of progress in managing fire 12 concerns in the Foothills, where the risk is the highest. Be glad to have that as a topic of 13 discussion at a future meeting. 14
Chair McDougall: I'm going to again try and wrap it up. There's been a bunch of 15 discussion. I mentioned the idea that the Commission, any Commission whether it's the 16
Library Commission or Planning Commission or the Parks and Rec Commission, is a place 17
for the community to bring their conversation. I was going to say grievances, but not 18
necessarily grievances, their conversation. As Ryan has pointed out, this body in particular 19
has been particularly effective working with Community Services relative to policy. I'm 20
not sure that that's true always, but this Commission has done that very, very well. The 21
thing that got left out of that, saying that there was those two things, is the third thing. 22
Everybody on this Commission would agree that we have been very strong in terms of 23
advocacy. It hasn't been that we all came together and said, "We're all advocates for a 24
particular thing." Anne said, "I'm an advocate for what's going on with the swimming." 25
Ryan said, "I'm an advocate for what's happening at Foothills." Jeff said, "I'm an advocate 26 for what's happening at soccer." We talk about it together and get our collective voices 27 together as advocates. I think that's been particularly effective. The risk that we should 28 warn Walter of is that we will become advocates. As an advocate, it's on the record, you 29 invited us to say what other presentations would we like other than the annual thing. If this 30 Commission's doing its job relative to a relationship with you, they will ask questions. 31 Please come and tell us about all the oak trees. Please come and tell us about whatever. I 32 would hope that this cooperation we're talking about now would last as opposed to you 33 guys are asking too many questions. I hope that those questions would be good for you 34 and good for the community. You said you would like us to feel that our input is valuable. 35 We know our input's valuable. You should understand that we know that our input is 36 valuable. There are two questions that might be added to the "how do we do this right." 37
Making sure of the logistics, is it an annual report, is it a quarterly report, is it a half yearly 38
report, are there different topics. I suspect that can only grow and get better in terms of the 39
way we communicate. Relative to the question of reporting and structure, over the long 40
term there's a mission creep that needs to be worried about from the Commission and the 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
structure. As soon as we say, "Let's add Forestry," Forestry's in collaboration with 1
Sustainability, why isn't Sustainability here? David called out that the Foothills Fire 2
Management Plan is part of—it's on your sheet. How soon can you come back with that 3
report because we're really anxious about that one? In fact, we owe that one to our 4
neighboring communities. This is absolutely the right thing. I'd like to ask for volunteers 5
to create an ad hoc. I'd like to define the ad hoc as maybe two or three meetings with Daren 6
to start to make sure we're not doing what Anne's worried about, are we creating problems 7
for Community Services, and then expand that ad hoc to define how the relationship might 8 be, bring that back and then maybe define a new ad hoc that would have the relationship 9 with you, Walter, as the foundation of the relationship with the Commission. Do I have 10 any questions or comments on any of that? 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm not sure I understand the need to have two ad hocs or two 12 sequential ad hocs. For continuity purposes, it would make sense to have an ad hoc 13 established that works with Daren and Walter to get things off the ground and then that ad 14 hoc continues to work with Walter. Maybe I'm missing something. 15
Chair McDougall: I'm only concerned that we need a first step to say how we're going to 16
do this. Maybe we should have that discussion amongst us before we take Walter's time. 17
Maybe we should get some ideas about how this might work. Some of the reservations 18
I've heard tonight about what will it do, it might be logical that the ad hoc would continue 19
on. Maybe we can define one, and that one can stop after. The very thing that ad hoc has 20
to do is define and help Walter feel comfortable with the relationship we'll have. You'd 21
like to feel comfortable that we're building a good relationship. 22
Mr. Passmore: I wouldn't have proposed it if I didn't feel comfortable. This is the right fit. 23
To give you a level of comfort, in my previous position we had an Urban Forestry Board, 24
which was a decision-making body. They were much more directive and involved in our 25
business than anything we're going to create in the City of Palo Alto. 26
Chair McDougall: If we want to say let's create an ad hoc and the ad hoc can take it forward 27 in whatever structure, that's fine with me. Can I have some volunteers to be on that ad hoc? 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm interested. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm interested. 30
Chair McDougall: I'll volunteer to start with you guys on that. That would be a good start. 31 We need to move quickly and embrace this. If that's all, thank you very much for a great 32 discussion. Thank you, Walter, for coming and offering this new relationship. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
3. Community Garden Guidelines 1
Chair McDougall: Let's move on to Community Garden. 2
Mr. Anderson: Chair, I just wanted to check to see if you got any public speaking cards 3
on this item. 4
Chair McDougall: I have two cards. I'll invite Penny Proctor—I have three cards. 5
Penny Proctor: I am the volunteer liaison for Eleanor Community Garden. I wanted to 6
thank everyone for the process that made this total rewrite of the rules into these Guidelines. 7
They asked all the gardeners. We had several meetings. All the gardeners were invited. 8 Several more meetings with all the liaisons. It was written and rewritten. I'm delighted 9 with the result. Thank you. 10
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Penny. Karen Holman. 11
Karen Holman: Thank you for the service of Penny and Catherine. We're fortunate to 12 have them. This has been an issue of mine for several years now. Actually, I have a garden 13 plot at Pardee, have had for several years. Starting just a few years ago, there was the 14 insertion, if you will, of PVC piping structures. It's just proliferated and proliferated. 15 Unless you go to the garden—for some reason or other, it's really exacerbated at Pardee. I 16
don't see it at other gardens. What you can't tell from these rules and why I have concerns 17
about these rules is that they're really guidance, but they aren't rules. I feel that they're 18
really not very enforceable. What you can't experience unless you go out to the gardens is, 19
if you see a PVC structure referenced here, you don't have the feeling of some of these 20
structures, like the one near me, the garden plot is 20x20, the structure is 20x20. That's 21
why I'm saying you have to see it in real time. Because PVC isn't meant for structure, they 22
tend to go like this, they tend to look like—I'll get to the photos in just a second. In my 23
section of the garden, which is a fairly large section, there are ten PVC structures of varying 24
sizes. In a garden section that is nearer to mine, that's nearer to center, there are eight 25
structures. That's a garden section that's about half the size of my section. The one that's 26 just across the road from that, from which you can look across and see some of the 27 structures on the other side because they're so big and tall and dominant and because they're 28 white. In that garden section, one garden plot alone has six structures, six structures. It's 29 dominant. The rules right now say any trellis or other structure will be allowed if it is 30 functional, orderly, safe, in use, and contributes to the community garden's overall visual 31 continuity. What happens with this environment or any environment is once that visual 32 character starts to change, in this case with the introduction of PVC structures, the visual 33 continuity—what is it—it's changed. If you look at some of these images where there isn't 34 PVC, that's what the garden has always been until the last few years. That provides the 35 visual continuity. When you have the introduction and proliferation of PVC structures, 36 what's the visual continuity? Is it PVC structures? When it comes to the structures, PVC 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
isn't even mentioned. There's no way to preclude it. You're putting these two young ladies 1
in a very difficult situation. How are they going to argue for visual continuity when PVC 2
is proliferate and you want to promote—other materials aren't even mentioned here, like 3
wood, wire, metal posts, that sort of thing, the kinds of things that either start out as natural 4
colors or age to natural colors because they oxidize or whatever. Those are the natural 5
materials. We used them for all kinds of purposes in the gardens before. There are many 6
products that you can buy that are low and netted and not PVC that you can put over young 7
plantings. It doesn't require PVC. I asked the master gardeners—I understand they don't 8 want to get involved in this—if they have rules about PVC, and they said no. I said, "What 9 would you do if one of your gardeners came forward and asked about using PVC?" They 10 said, "No one would ask." One of the other master gardeners who happens to have a plot 11 also in Eleanor Pardee, said very passionately, "It's a petroleum product. It outgases." 12 They would never allow it. It's just not appropriate for community gardens. If PVC is a 13 good product for garden settings, why do we not see it introduced into our landscaping 14 projects? I've never been to anybody's garden who has a PVC structure. Now, it's being 15 used not just for structures over at the gardens, but it's being used also for staking. If 16
someone sees a PVC structure, they're going to go ahead and build it and ask for 17
forgiveness. It says any trellis or structure not in use for 3 months—thank you for your 18
indulgence here—out of a 12-month period must be removed. What does that mean? If 19
it's a 6-foot structure, does that mean the first 2 feet have to be used for something? The 20
first 3 feet of a 5-foot have to be used for something? What is "in use"? Covered? Used 21
to provide support? What does "in use" mean? There's nothing here that I can find that's 22
enforceable or interpretable. I did spend a lot of years on Planning Commission, City 23
Council. If a rule can't be enforced, it's not a rule. It's not even guidelines. I encourage 24
you to go to the gardens, especially Eleanor Pardee, and see what the impact is. It's quite 25
striking. It's quite stunning. I'm sorry you can't see it from here, but you can see them from 26 way across the way. It really degrades the experience there. It's a respite. It's a restful 27 place to be except for these intrusions. Why don't you see a lot of people here opposing 28 them? Because the gardens are a community. We share produce. We share garden tips. 29 We share plants. We share all kinds of things. It's like any kind of neighbor situation. 30 People don't want to speak against somebody else's structure that they have in their garden. 31 Why am I here being brazen enough to be here? I respect the other gardeners and the use 32 of the gardens. I have great—that we have these community gardens is just phenomenal. 33 Daren and I have talked about this. I'm here because I don't want to see those assets reduced 34 in their quality and their enjoyment and even the health because of the use of PVC, a 35 petroleum product that out-gases and is not made for above-ground use and which is a 36 visual intrusion into the pastoral setting. Thank you very much. 37
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Karen. Shenae O'Dell [phonetic]. 38
Shenae O'Dell: I wanted to ask about the no fencing because from time to time people 39
bring their dogs and let them just run around in the gardens, which is an issue. I just wanted 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
to know possibly how could we eliminate or at least have some kind of fencing, maybe 1
chicken wire that we can put around the plots just to ensure that animals aren't running in 2
and out. The garden hours for the Arastradero Garden, Sunday 1:00, we're not able to enter 3
at 1:00. That's an issue for me sometimes because life gets in the way. Sometimes I need 4
to go early in the morning on Sunday. Maybe looking into allowing—maybe not parking 5
at the parking lot but at least letting us walk in to do the gardening on Sundays in the 6
morning times. That's all I have. Thank you. 7
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Daren, do you have staff comments to make? 8
Mr. Anderson: Yes. We have a brief presentation. Good evening. I'm Daren Andersen 9 with the Community Services Department. I'd like to introduce my colleague, Catherine 10 Bourquin. She's the Program Coordinator who manages the community garden program. 11 At last month's meeting, you might recall that the Commission recommended the approval 12 of an update to the Park and Open Space Regulations. One of the changes made to the 13 regulations was to remove the community garden regulations that mainly provided 14 administrative details on how the garden program operated. It was also edited to allow the 15 Director of CSD to promulgate guidelines for the use of those community gardens. The ad 16
hoc committee and staff worked together to create these Guidelines, which incorporate the 17
administrative details from the community garden program along with responsibilities of 18
the gardeners. The Guidelines largely consist of existing practices and policies; however, 19
the ad hoc committee and staff identified opportunities to add new policies and procedures 20
aimed at enhancing the garden program. I'll pass it to Catherine now to discuss those new 21
elements of the Guidelines. 22
Catherine Bourquin: The Guidelines were basically revamped. What's existing right now 23
is the same except for the ones that are in your staff report. These five were developed to 24
help make sure we had the necessary information from the gardeners to know when they 25
were having problems. Oftentimes, plots would appear unattended, and we would have to 26 try and contact the gardener to see if anything was wrong or a notice would be sent for 27 termination. They would later respond not understanding why. That was one of our 28 problems with that section of the Guidelines. There were quite a few non-English speaking 29 gardeners, who we've had a hard time communicating with and had to try to find translators. 30 This delays important information they need to know. New gardeners would not start 31 gardening right away. Before no time, their plots looked unkempt. Introducing an 32 orientation for new gardeners will help with ensuring they are aware of the Guidelines and 33 will help us know how much gardening experience they have, so we can assist them better. 34 Under maintenance, the gardeners' responsibilities. There were six new Guidelines. We 35 realized repeat problems kept coming up, such as leaving items in the walkways, disrupting 36 other gardeners' plots by the misuse of the watering hoses, problems with shading other 37
plots, the use or nonuse of trellises and structures. We decided they needed to be in our 38
Guidelines to provide a clear expectation and to help the garden liaisons enforce these 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
problems. Under Section IV, we have four new Guidelines. These were generated to 1
ensure the proper maintenance and the expectation to start at the beginning of the season. 2
Since the community garden program is year-round, it was hard to tell if a plot might be 3
abandoned because some would not start until later in the springtime. We also wanted to 4
make sure that produce didn't go to waste, so we developed that Guideline. Also ensuing 5
that communication between the gardener to the coordinator was understood. Under V, 6
organic gardening and use of plots, we added only one new guideline, which only pertained 7
to Rinconada Garden. Over the years, more and more new gardeners added fences around 8 their individual plots. This started a chain reaction of sorts, where it seems to have become 9 the norm. This causes problems on maintenance where weeds are hard to take out because 10 of the location of these fences and some encroaching now on the pathways. The condition 11 of the fences are also a problem. They're rusty, and they haven't been repaired for a while. 12 Going forward, no fences are going to be allowed at Rinconada. The last section is the 13 violation policy, which still exists. We just added a few things that we had issues with, 14 such as gardeners would use somebody else's tools and not replace them, things go missing 15 sometimes. Not very often, but disagreements between the gardeners can escalate. For 16
gardeners who have received multiple notices, every year we put a cap on how many they 17
can receive in 24 calendar months. This is how we developed these new Guidelines. 18
Mr. Anderson: Chair, I'd also like to thank the ad hoc committee who worked closely with 19
Catherine to create these and all the gardeners who participated as well. We're asking the 20
Commission for feedback. It's not an action item. Depending on the feedback, we can go 21
back and edit these again and come back and communicate more with the gardeners if need 22
be. 23
Chair McDougall: Catherine, thank you very much and thank you for being here and your 24
friends. 25
Ms. Bourquin: My garden liaisons. I wouldn't be here without them. They helped me a 26
lot. 27
Chair McDougall: I'd like to ask any who was on the ad hoc if they would like to comment. 28
Commissioner McCauley: It was the right thing to pull these Guidelines out of the rules 29 and regulations and to have them be a standalone thing. I'm glad that the Commission 30 endorsed that last month. With respect to these specific Guidelines, Catherine did a great 31 job both gathering input from the gardening community and also trying to find the best 32 way to articulate what the garden community is looking for. With specific respect to the 33 PVC issue or the larger structure issue, the proposal here is a good one. We spent quite a 34 bit of time discussing this within the committee. Essentially, it provides Catherine and the 35 garden liaisons [video malfunction] right approach, and I'm supportive of it. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Mr. Anderson: Earlier, we were having difficulties with the computers, and I didn't get a 1
chance to open the photos. I think we've resolved that now. One of the public was 2
wondering if they could speak to the photos that I failed to get up in time. 3
Chair McDougall: That's fine. 4
Ms. Holman: Thank you. This shows the gardens with no PVC. There it is with PVC. 5
Note the size of the structure, note where your eye goes. It goes to the white structure. If 6
you look closely, there are structures here, but they're wood and wire and garden string that 7
hold up all those plants. You don't see it. That's what you see when you come around the 8 bend from the photo that's missing. You come around this really pastoral road—it's 9 beautiful—and you make a few more steps, and that's what you're faced with. In your 10 mind's eye, if you're thinking these are little things, they're not. This is what they look like. 11 In some occasions, they're this large. Again, they don't manage the test of time. They start 12 looking this way and that way in addition to being a big, large, white intrusion that 13 outgases. Thanks. I think staff was going to answer my first question about fees. 14
Commissioner McCauley: I personally don't (crosstalk) Mayor Holman about the 15 aesthetic. I personally tend to think that the PVC structures are not appealing aesthetically. 16
However, my understanding is the feedback we received in community meetings with the 17
gardeners is they don't think it's an issue that needs to be addressed. Please staff, if I've got 18
that wrong, chime in. 19
Ms. Bourquin: Like I was saying before, the structures are extreme at Eleanor, but it may 20
be six plots that have them. 21
Ms. Holman: No. 22
Ms. Bourquin: More than that? 23
Ms. Holman: Ten in my section, eight in another, seven in another. 24
Ms. Bourquin: Big structures? 25
Ms. Holman: I didn't count the big ones. 26
Ms. Bourquin: Not PVC alone. Most of them use it just to cover what they're growing, 27 which isn't very intrusive. What she's saying, the reason we put in those Guidelines were 28 so that we can mandate how big they make them and if they're not being utilized. Some of 29 the ones that she's pointed out don't get utilized. You don't see greenery on there. Even 30 though it's wood structures that you don't see, it's because there's greenery on there. The 31 ones that she showed us were basically nothing was growing on them at this point. As far 32 as enforcing, the license is a legal agreement that goes along with the Guidelines, and that's 33 enforceable. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Commissioner LaMere: I appreciate everyone's hard work in revamping the rules. It's 1
great that we've taken a look at both the parks, the gardens just to see what we can update. 2
I do have a question on the thought of Section VI, the fences, Number 7, no fences allowed. 3
Why are we grandfathering in fences that are there and then not allowing fences anywhere 4
else in any other parks and also not allowing them to be built further in Rinconada as 5
opposed to having all fences removed? 6
Ms. Bourquin: Only because Rinconada is the only garden out of the four that we maintain 7
that has fences. It just started over time. 8
Commissioner LaMere: But we're not allowing any additional, and we're saying that we 9 don't want them at any other parks. I was wondering why we would still allow them at the 10 park as opposed to having them removed? 11
Ms. Bourquin: Only because most of the people that have installed them spent a lot of 12 expense on their own installing them. If they do leave, they have to remove them. 13 Eventually I would hope that we get down to not having fences at all. 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: About the fences, is it the height of the fences? How about 15 allowing 2-foot fences? Would it be acceptable? 16
Ms. Bourquin: Our problem is that they're starting to encroach in our pathways. They're 17
really hard to maintain. We're constantly having to send notices because they can't reach 18
the weeds. There's so much Bermuda or other invasive weeds that go around there, and 19
they just can't clean it. It starts spreading onto the pathways. That's primarily why. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: If the fences were in good condition, then it's not as much of an 21
issue. The fact that they degrade over time is the issue. 22
Ms. Bourquin: Yes. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: The PVC, the thing that strikes me is the fact this is an organic 24
garden. If this was not an organic garden, I wouldn't have as much (inaudible). My sister's 25
an organic gardener, and you're not going to get PVC anywhere near their garden. They're 26 very rigorous about that. The fact that it is an organic garden makes me think you don't 27 want something like this in your neighbor's plot. I don't see any reason not to ban them. 28 There are other options, wood, bamboo, steel. There are plenty of other garden things that 29 are not PVC. We know PVC in the sunlight does break down; it does leach into the soil. 30 Whether that's dangerous or not is an open question. I don't see any reason to have PVC 31 in a garden. 32
Ms. Bourquin: Bringing up PVC, we'll have to look into the type of cans they use because 33 there are certain plastics that aren't organic. The irrigation hoses, I personally would have 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
to go and inspect the hoses to make sure they're purchasing lead-free hoses. Not just PVC, 1
we'll have to look further into everything that's a nonorganic material that everybody in the 2
garden is using. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: It is a slippery slope. It's also an aesthetic issue. I don't think 4
we need to keep PVC in the garden. I wouldn't go any further and inspect hoses. I don't 5
think that's worth the effort. I guess there are other options. Even if you said, "We're going 6
to grandfather this for a year or two, and you can keep your PVC in there, but two years 7
from now we want everything to be non-PVC," that would be a reasonable approach. 8
Commissioner Cribbs: I think that's a nice idea about grandfathering and the PVC. I'm 9 wondering why somebody would choose to use PVC as opposed to something else. When 10 you talk to the gardeners who are using PVC, what's the … 11
Ms. Bourquin: It's for the flexibility that the material gives. You can't do that with the 12 hoops. 13
Ms. Proctor: It's smooth, so you can put (inaudible) or row cover or shade cloth over it 14 easily. Wood or bamboo—for the coverings, not for a trellis. For a trellis, the wood and 15 wire are superior. For bed coverings to keep the birds and the squirrels and the rats out, 16
the PVC is superior. You can take the coverings on and off easily without it catching on 17
every little sliver of the wood. It's incredibly aggravating to try to put coverings over a 18
wood frame. There are colors of PVC available, dark gray or black, if you wanted to restrict 19
it to no white. The white really shows. 20
Commissioner Cribbs: That could be an option. 21
Ms. Bourquin: We did discuss that during the meeting. This is what we came up with. 22
Commissioner Cribbs: The other question I had is about the dogs running through the 23
gardens. It doesn't seem like that should be allowed. 24
Ms. Bourquin: They're not allowed. They're not supposed to. Only service dogs allowed. 25
We have big signs that say that on the outside of the garden. 26
Commissioner Cribbs: What's the enforcement? Is there anything really you can do about 27 it? 28
Ms. Bourquin: I've told the gardeners that, if somebody's not obeying a rule in the park, in 29 the garden, they need to call communications so we can get park enforcement out there. 30
Commissioner Moss: I've been listening for the past 20 minutes about the PVC. As a 31 longtime gardener, I've never ever heard of PVC not being in an organic garden. This is 32 the first I've heard of it. Let's just assume that's the case. The most important thing about 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
PVC is the ability to make a structure where you can connect this piece to this piece to this 1
piece very easily. You can't do that with wood. If you want to make $1 million, find a 2
connector that's wood or something like that that will connect those four in a corner to 3
replace the PVC. I do it all the time against the rats and the squirrels and the birds. It's 4
impossible to garden without some kind of a net in this area. When you have the 5
orientation, if there's something you don't like, you really have to train them with an 6
alternative. You get your best gardeners who are doing it right, and you have a training 7
session for all newbies, and you have these solutions right there. You even sell them on 8 the side. Otherwise, it's not going to work. You're going to have that PVC for a long time 9 or you're going to have squirrels and rats and birds. That's all I'm going to say about PVC. 10 The last speaker was talking about hours. I'm assuming the gardens are open from dawn 11 to dusk seven days a week, 365 days a year. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: The church's Sunday morning services. They don't (inaudible). 13
Commissioner Moss: This is that one garden. 14
Ms. Bourquin: They're all sunrise to sunset. 15
Commissioner Moss: There was something in there about not starting your plots until 16
April 1, but of course everybody has a winter garden separate from a summer garden. I'm 17
assuming that there are people out there 365 days a year. Is that correct? 18
Ms. Bourquin: True, but a lot of people go on vacation, and they just leave their plots. 19
Billing gets out in February, and the next thing you know it's March. April comes along, 20
and they still haven't started their gardens. 21
Commissioner Moss: The enforcement is have your garden being used. You don't have to 22
worry about what days of the year or … 23
Ms. Bourquin: They can either cover it or grow something. If they let it go to weeds, then 24
… 25
Commissioner Moss: Then hire somebody to keep it neat if you have to, if you're going to 26
be on vacation. You have that all in your Guidelines already. 27
Ms. Bourquin: I do, yes. 28
Commissioner Moss: It's the enforcement part. I'm wondering with this community if 29 there's somebody who isn't following the rules, does the community come together and 30 stop the one rather than a police person. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Ms. Bourquin: We're very lenient. We give multiple warnings before we give them that 1
violation notice, which is a 30-day notice and goes along with the three times they can get 2
the violation and then their license won't be renewed. 3
Commissioner Moss: Do you ever just clean up the plots without them asking? 4
Ms. Bourquin: One of our gardeners loves to do that. 5
Commissioner Moss: I was thinking it could be done in one minute. 6
Ms. Bourquin: I contacted other community gardens. Out of four, three did call back, and 7
they do use PVC. They don't prohibit it in their gardens. 8
Commissioner Moss: I'd like to know the best practices for an alternative and publicize it 9 at the new orientation. 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: We certainly had a number of discussions with staff about PVC. 11 It's easy to say, given our choice in the matter, we'd all prefer not to see PVC, especially 12 white PVC, in the gardens. It is intrusive. It arguably doesn't belong. It does serve a 13 function for some people but not for others. First, we started looking into what PVC is in 14 use in the garden. We found that all of our irrigation system underground for the plots uses 15 PVC. At a certain fundamental level, there's already PVC in the gardens. We figured out 16
we can make sure that any PVC that's used for potable water purposes needs to be 17
appropriately rated. There are generally two types of PVC, the NSF-rated PVC for potable 18
water and what's known as furniture-grade PVC. The furniture-grade PVC is the bright 19
stuff you see in all the different colors. It typically doesn't have any rating or marking on 20
it. It is typically rated for more sun exposure. There are very reasonable concerns to raise 21
this evening regarding PVC. It's important to have a clear and enforceable policy so that, 22
one, we can clear out unused structures. There are very reasonable concerns raised about 23
defining what use is. We need to make sure that our policy is enforceable. We also had 24
discussions about different colors of PVC. At one point in earlier revisions, there was more 25
detail in the Guidelines in terms of what would be allowed and what wouldn't. That was 26 scaled back to leave it to the discretion of staff. I have concerns about that. We need to 27 make sure what we're doing is a consistent policy, and we need to make sure we have 28 Guidelines in place to ensure that consistency is maintained. I'm not sure we're there by 29 just leaving it to staff. I'm not sure it's clear to the Commission what are the Guidelines 30 that staff would apply to allowing these structures. It would be helpful to get that more 31 clearly delineated by staff. We were concerned about considerations for grandfathering in 32 existing PVC to some degree. We are very interested in not having PVC proliferate further 33 in the gardens, particularly in the new garden that's opening up. We'd like not to have large 34 structures, particularly white, popping up in those. In the same manner that we're looking 35 not to have fences in the gardens, ideally we'd like not to have the same thing happen with 36 the larger PVC structures that aren't in use, particularly the ones that are more of an eyesore. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
The policy as structured is a bit of a compromise. It's possible that this could get tightened 1
up further. I'm open to considerations on that. I'm hearing concerns raised by 2
Commissioners in that respect. We did talk about potentially grandfathering in PVC for a 3
set period of time or structures over 2.5 feet would be allow for a set period of time, and 4
then it wouldn't be allowed after a year or two years. That's certainly something that could 5
be discussed further. My comments are kind of fluid as opposed to decisive, but that 6
reflects how I feel about the matter. 7
Chair McDougall: How many people are—Penny, what's your title? 8
Ms. Proctor: I'm a volunteer liaison. 9
Chair McDougall: Are you guys liaisons as well? There are all these rules, and we're 10 discussing throwing people out of their plots and this and that. Is this something where 11 there's a contention every day or there's a contention once a year? All of these rules and 12 regulations, is this something that is stressful? Is there a bunch of this stuff going on? 13
Ms. Proctor: There's a certain amount of bad behavior. Guidelines will be very helpful for 14 us to deal with it. One gardener drags the hose over the other gardener's plot and ruins 15 their plants. There wasn't any rule against that. Now there is. Somebody leaves the 16
garbage can in the path all the time. Now, they're not allowed to do that. 17
Chair McDougall: Does this gardener who drags his hose across the other garden still do 18
it or does he say, "Look at these regulations. They scare me silly. I better not do it" or 19
does he do it? 20
Ms. Bourquin: He will get a notice. 21
Ms. Proctor: It isn't against the rules until now. The main hose and garbage can, she's not 22
putting the garbage can in the path anymore. She's gotten mad a couple of times. 23
Chair McDougall: I think I got the answer I want in your explanation and the head nodding 24
behind you. 25
Ms. Bourquin: Annie's responsible for the largest community garden, so she has a lot. 26
Chair McDougall: I applaud the work. This is really well done. I applaud not just this 27 work but the fact that you people do this. I can't imagine why we don't have more 28 recognition of that, why you don't have special badges or whatever. This is an interesting 29 environment. We should get you uniforms or something. 30
Ms. Proctor: I say I'm the weed police. I send people an email picture of their weeds once 31 a month. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Chair McDougall: We should do everything we possibly can to get rid of white PVC pipes. 1
If that means we say, "You've got one year to paint them," that's a start. You've got some 2
restrictions as to how high they should be. I totally agree with Karen that there's two 3
reasons for doing this. One is to get some vegetables, and the other is to be in nature and 4
to do something that's relaxing. A bunch of white structures in the middle of the garden is 5
not relaxing. I would encourage the ad hoc to go back and look at that again. I have 6
comments on almost every one of the revisions. It says the primary gardener may choose 7
to have a garden helper noted on their registration in case of emergency or this or that. 8 Why shouldn't it be the primary gardener must have a garden helper for the purposes of 9 following up? 10
Ms. Bourquin: I think the attorney took that out. I think we had that word in there. 11
Chair McDougall: Considering all these rules are written just in case the garden gets left 12 alone or blah, blah, blah, I don't think we have any way of finding out why the person's not 13 doing it. It says non-English speaking gardener please provide a contact. Why isn't it must 14 provide a contact? There's other wording in here about the primary gardener on the license 15 is ultimately responsible. They're just responsible; they're not ultimately responsible. It's 16
not baseball. How about two strikes and you're out or something? The first thing is plot 17
allocation registration and fees. There are 19 things listed here. I can't be bothered. I knew 18
I was coming to this meeting. I knew I was going to have to discuss it. I had trouble 19
convincing myself to read 19 things. After I convinced myself and did that, I got to the 20
next one. The gardener's responsibility has 16 things. When I read them, some of them 21
are etiquette if you're a gardener. Let's call out etiquette and have five etiquette rules that 22
you could clearly differentiate. "Let me refer you, Mr. Gardener, to our garden etiquette." 23
There is other stuff in here about how to apply and fill out the form. You could have that 24
in a separate category. Your job could be a lot easier if you had eight or ten different 25
sections here that did different things and allowed you to know what you're dealing with 26 as opposed to which one of these 19 am I referring to. The gardens should be wonderful. 27 I'm not surprised that there are etiquette issues, culture issues. Garden participate 28 expectations, what does that mean? Is it garden participation? It's the same typo in several 29 places. It's not just one typo. I would encourage the ad hoc to work with Catherine and 30 see if we can make this a useful document that people can read this and know what sections 31 are being called out. You've got something wonderful, and this needs to reflect it. 32
Commissioner McCauley: Catherine, could you provide the Commission a sense of what 33 you heard during the community meetings you held about the PVC issue? 34
Ms. Bourquin: We just asked the question, and everyone said no, they didn't have an issue. 35 That was just one meeting that we had. I brought it up in a survey too, and I didn't get 36 anybody saying they wanted to prohibit it. Mostly people were worried about treated 37
wood. I hear from other people that treated wood nowadays is okay; yet, it hasn't come 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
out from the government saying that it's okay to use but still has some type of toxicity in 1
it. I can't say it's not going to be used either. It's still in that as a nonorganic. 2
Chair McDougall: If you asked the question, "Do you have an objection," you could get a 3
majority of people saying it's okay. If you then asked the question, "What if we asked you 4
to paint it brown or buy brown PVC," would everybody say "it's too expensive" or "I don't 5
like it" or "yes, I want white"? 6
Commissioner McCauley: There are some technical difficulties to potentially using types 7
of PVC that are not NSF rated. If you go with furniture-grade PVC, for example, it's not 8 potable, it doesn't carry potable water, it's not rated for that. The likelihood of it degrading 9 in a way that's dangerous might be higher. If you paint it, you're going to have a similar 10 issue. You're going to have paint leaching into the soil instead of something else. There 11 is a technical aspect of that. I commend Jeff Greenfield for digging into all of that. While 12 I agree entirely with the sentiment that it is not a good aesthetic, for that reason I would 13 say let's not have any more white PVC. What we're hearing from gardeners is it's actually 14 useful to them and it's what they want. I'm concerned about asking staff to think about 15 banning the PVC when it's something the gardeners appreciate and use. They want to be 16
able to use that substance. 17
Commissioner Moss: There have to be best practices for organic gardening at industrial 18
levels that should be passed around to every gardener. If you want it to be uniform and to 19
go to the best practices, you have to educate. You can't get rid of PVC unless you have an 20
alternative. I think there are alternatives. I don't know what they are. If you could find 21
out what those best practices are and recommend them to every new whatever, then you 22
could phase it out. Until then … 23
Commissioner McCauley: I don't know what they are either. Catherine and the committee 24
did research into this and didn't come up with an answer. 25
Chair McDougall: You're swaying me to listen to the argument. I'd be interested in and 26 ask staff to have a mission statement at the beginning of this document, that says here's 27 what we're doing with community gardens. If community gardens are Number 1, Number 28 2, Number 3, and Number 4, plain and simply places for people to grow vegetables, and 29 Number 5 to feel good about being outside, I would go with the right thing to do is facilitate 30 growing vegetables and very politely ask Karen to go somewhere else in the park. If you 31 wrote a mission statement, it would not be explicitly grow vegetables. It would be to create 32 community. It would be to create fellowship and environment. If you wrote the mission 33 statement that way, it might be more appropriate to think about whether white PVC is a 34 good thing to have or, if the mission is to grow vegetables, it's maybe a different argument. 35
Ms. Bourquin: When the community gardeners feel strongly about something, they come 36 right at you, and you get a million emails. Somebody came in and built a fence around 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
their plot, but it was industrial fencing material that did not belong in a garden setting. I 1
got a million emails because I didn't know this person was doing that. She spent a lot of 2
money on that, and she had to remove it. She did and put up a more natural-looking fence 3
material. I would hear from more than a few people if they had a problem with PVC. 4
Chair McDougall: If you want to leave the document the way it is, I can't ask you to change 5
it. I can recommend that your job would be easier if it was structured a little better. 6
Commissioner Moss: I would recommend that the community come up with a guideline, 7
not the Parks and Rec Commission. We put in place the community gardens infrastructure. 8
As far as how you run it and what it looks like, maybe it should be a community effort. 9
Ms. Bourquin: That's why we had a community meeting, to gather information of what 10 people wanted in the garden. 11
Commissioner Moss: What do you need from us? 12
Ms. Bourquin: I wanted your edits and comments. 13
Commissioner Moss: You're not asking us to approve or disapprove? 14
Ms. Bourquin: No. 15
Chair McDougall: This is a discussion item. 16
Commissioner Cribbs: Can we talk about the fees? There's a part in the new Guidelines 17
about reduction in fees. 18
Mr. Anderson: That was a helpful comment and a good thing to highlight. CSD has 19
implemented a low-income fee reduction program on a trial basis, so not exclusively for 20
seniors or people with disabilities. It's been in place since earlier this year, not just for 21
gardens but other programs as well. Catherine sent this out to the gardeners earlier in the 22
year with the billing cycle in February. The feedback I've gotten is so far it's going well. 23
They're going to continue that for right now. They hope to make an evaluation on making 24
it permanent by the end of the year. We should have more information on that soon. 25
Ms. Bourquin: And then we could change the document. 26
Ms. Holman: What about anybody who is applying new? How would know that they 27 could then afford one by utilizing the low-income fee? 28
Mr. Anderson: Is it on the website where a new gardener would go to see it? 29
Ms. Bourquin: Not on the community garden website, but I can add that. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Chair McDougall: I'd like Jeff to wrap it up for us please. 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'd like to summarize the discussion we've had because the 2
feedback is very mixed. It would be helpful to clarify how to move forward on a couple 3
of different levels. In the big picture, originally the community garden rules were part of 4
the rules and regs document, which the Commission made an action to recommend changes 5
to last month. Part of that change was to remove all of the community garden rules from 6
the rules and regulations document. When that goes to City Council for consideration, at 7
that point we need to make sure we have new Community Garden Guidelines in place to 8 (inaudible). I'm hearing mixed messages. Should we be considering phasing out white 9 PVC or not? Should we be considering tightening up the wording so that Section 3.10 10 regarding the removal of unused items is more enforceable? Do we need more specific 11 clarity regarding the consistency of how the Guidelines would be interpreted by staff for 12 allowing new structures? Should we be considering low-income fee reductions? Are these 13 things the Commission should continue to discuss with staff? I've served as both the 14 community gardens liaison and on the rules and regs ad hoc. Once this is out of the rules 15 and regs document, it may or may not be appropriate for that ad hoc to continue the 16
discussion. I'm just trying to get clarity on where we are moving forward. 17
Mr. Anderson: Additional conversations with the ad hoc and the gardeners are probably 18
the appropriate next step. That's what I recommend. 19
Chair McDougall: I trust that Daren will do that. If that concludes it, I would go on to 20
Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 21
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 22
Chair McDougall: Everybody should have a copy of the update form. I would ask if there 23
are any comments, suggestions, questions on any of these items. 24
Commissioner McCauley: When Natalie sent this out last week, I didn't recognize that 25
there was an earlier deadline than usual. The Foothills Park ad hoc committee has been 26 working in the past month on a number of aspects for advancing the pilot program, that we 27 talked about at the September meeting, back to the Commission for consideration next 28 month. For park amenities, Anne and I met with Daren this past Thursday and had a very 29 helpful and informative meeting. Anne has already mentioned one of the big takeaways 30 from the meeting. We've got many more projects in terms of capital improvement projects 31 or park amenity issues in the hopper than we have resources. It's not necessarily the dollars 32 but the staff resources. There's a constant discussion about prioritization. That 33 conversation will continue. I wanted to mention to the Commission the issue that park 34 staff could use some additional headcount if possible. That bleeds into CIP, which we're 35 going to be meeting in the not too distant future. Those are the committees that I'm some 36 part of. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Commissioner Cribbs: On the amenities one, we should change your name. 1
Chair McDougall: Yep. I'm glad that Ryan's able to substitute for me. 2
Commissioner Cribbs: On the Baylands 10.5, there's nothing there. I should have sent a 3
little note. We're just waiting for community outreach and some environmentalists to be 4
(inaudible). 5
Chair McDougall: Daren, we were anticipating the 10.5 being on a future calendar item. 6
Mr. Anderson: I think it is appropriate to have that one-on-one before we go public for the 7
full Commission with the environmentalist groups. They've had a chance to talk to the 8
athletic groups but not the environmentalists yet. That should be coming very soon. 9
Chair McDougall: Is there anything else anybody would like to bring up? I'm not going 10 to go through the list one-by-one. 11
Commissioner Moss: The Baylands Conservation Plan, the Ravenswood groundbreaking 12 was very well attended by many dignitaries. They touted it as a way to connect 80 miles 13 of trail. The section just south of it is our responsibility. It's mostly paved except where 14 it's not. How do we get that last section paved? I know there's a particular landowner 15 who's a problem. Can we go around it or past it or do a half-assed job that doesn't require 16
his okay? 17
Mr. Anderson: This gap in the Bay Trail in our property on the East Palo Alto side of the 18
San Mateo County side of the Baylands Nature Preserve, the property owner is not willing 19
to entertain the option of us completing that trail. It's an unimproved dirt section 20
surrounded by either asphalt or decomposed granite. We approached the previous 21
landowner twice and the new landowner to ask if it would be possible, and they weren't 22
willing to entertain it. We tried to work this from a couple of different angles. We wanted 23
to partner with East Palo Alto, so we've had conversations with their planning staff. It's 24
outside the City boundary and outside the county. There are certain limitations on what 25
Palo Alto can do. With the partnership with East Palo Alto and maybe other vested groups 26 like Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space, it may be possible. I intend to continue the 27 request and see if there are other options. 28
Commissioner Moss: It's going to become more visible once that new section is done by 29 the end of January. It's going to come up really quickly. I want to urge the City to keep 30 pushing at it. If you have to get San Mateo County and all those other dignitaries to help 31 you, they were very excited. Right now the plan says that we're going to take down every 32 vestige of that ITT property. You've got this influential historical group that says some of 33 that is valuable. When we had the tour, they were suggesting that we leave part of it up or 34 moving some of it. That plan, as it's gone out to the stakeholders, may need to be adjusted 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
because it doesn't do (inaudible) groups that have the same interest in the same piece of 1
land. I just wanted you to know it's not a slam dunk yet. 2
Chair McDougall: David, I was at the same meeting with you. I think they were in love 3
with the poles. They understood more about the poles than we've ever understood. They 4
actually went out in the marsh and measured the distances so they could report in some 5
way where they were. They were much more discussable and amenable and understanding 6
that it was going to be removed than you're implying. We need to keep the BCCP document 7
and the plan the way it is and see if it gets more contentious. At the moment, I don't think 8 they were going to lay down in front of the truck or the bulldozers. Daren, you may have 9 talked with Lisa about that. 10
Mr. Anderson: Lisa has shared some thoughts as well. We're still actively working on the 11 CEQA analysis for BCCP and running into some delays with Planning. They're short-12 staffed. I can't move forward without Planning's support. I had a conversation with our 13 firm, MIG, who's doing the CEQA analysis specifically about the ITT building. Their 14 concern in the CEQA analysis, independent of the conversation you just mentioned, is the 15 Historic Resources Board has one perception about the building and the Parks Commission 16
another. She was referencing possible issues with the CEQA analysis. We're still working 17
that out, but I really need Planning to help me walk through that process. Hopefully, I'll 18
have Planning's aid soon in moving that forward. 19
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2019 MEETING 20
Chair McDougall: Let's discuss the tentative agenda. For the next meeting, we would plan 21
to put the Foothills proposal on the agenda. Is there anything else that is imminent or, 22
Daren, you think we need to have? 23
Mr. Anderson: There's one project regarding the Utilities Department. They've got a 24
proposed project at Peers Park. There's an existing pump station at Peers Park, and they 25
need to do some improvements adjacent to it. That will require a Park Improvement 26 Ordinance. I'm assisting the Utilities staff in creating a Park Improvement Ordinance. 27 They'd like to bring it to the November meeting if possible, but they haven't completed the 28 document. They might not be ready in time. 29
Chair McDougall: We can plan for that. We have the aquatics and golf, and we've agreed 30 to move those to December. 31
Mr. Anderson: Yes, sir. 32
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is that pump station used for? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Mr. Anderson: I'll send you the staff report as soon as I get it. I'm not quite sure. The 1
change they want to make is about getting power across the tracks. They didn't want to go 2
aboveground; they want to go below. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: It's pumping water? 4
Mr. Anderson: No, electricity is my understanding. 5
Chair McDougall: Didn't we have a GIS update for … 6
Mr. Anderson: December. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: What about CIP annual update? 8
Mr. Anderson: I'm not sure if I'll have it ready for the November one. For sure for 9 December. 10
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 11
Chair McDougall: Are there any comments or announcements? 12
Commissioner Cribbs: Is there enough to do anything about Cubberley? 13
Chair McDougall: Cubberley's in process. Once we get the status from Kristen and the ad 14 hoc, they'll come back. The Council did ask staff to negotiate with the School Board again. 15 I think it's all pending. 16
Commissioner Moss: What about the AT&T property? 17
Chair McDougall: That was brought up by Daren earlier. There's a dedication plan 18
sometime in the next several weeks. 19
Mr. Anderson: A community meeting to talk about the possible uses, November 9. That's 20
tentative. Peter's going to confirm. 21
Commissioner Moss: They'll talk about the channel, the creek? 22
Mr. Anderson: No, I don't believe that'll be the focus. It'll be about Boulware itself and 23
the Boulware addition and how we unify them as one park. This is specific to a CIP project 24
as well. 25
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 26
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Cribbs and second by Vice Chair 27 Greenfield at 9:18 p.m. 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 November 12, 2019 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, Ryan McCauley, Don 13 McDougall, David Moss, and Keith Reckdahl 14
Commissioners Absent: None 15
Others Present: Council Member Cormack 16
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin 17
I. ROLL CALL 18
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS 19
Chair McDougall: The agenda tonight is really brief in terms of the number of items. 20
Are there any additions or requests or deletions that anybody would like to ask for or 21
suggest? 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: There were no minutes because there wasn't enough time? 23
Chair McDougall: I was getting to that as the next topic. We will not be approving the 24
minutes of the last meeting because we have a change in staff, and we have a short 25
meeting. I expect we will be lucky to have time to get this for the next meeting, but we'll 26 catch up in the meantime. At the next meeting, we will have the October minutes. If 27 there are no other comments or additions, I'd like to proceed with Oral Communications, 28 comments from the public on topics that are not on the agenda tonight. 29
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 30
Chair McDougall: I'd like to start with Dr. Bruner [phonetic]. 31
Good evening. How nice to be meeting all of you. I just moved up here about six 32 months ago and have fallen in love with the area. What I'm talking with you about 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
tonight is a grove of trees, a grove trees that—let me give you a little of my history. I 1
was senior psychologist for the State of Nevada, and I was senior psychologist for 2
Scripps Memorial Hospital in San Diego—in La Jolla, excuse me. In that capacity, I 3
worked with the executives who were stressed. This particular grove of trees that I want 4
to talk to you about, the one that's on Arastradero, I think it's in the Charleston rebuilding 5
district. If I had had that down there, they wouldn't need me. From the people that I have 6
talked with about this particular grove of trees, they experience an oxycontin high. That 7
is, your body goes into a state of relaxation, and it can be brought on by the area that 8 you're in physiologically. You go into relaxation. Your stress hormones drop. The 9 cortisol itself that gives you the heart attacks or can set your body up to have a heart 10 attack or strokes or any multiplicity of diseases—your body responds to an area like this 11 particular grove of trees, and it calms you down. These are the kind of places I would 12 send my people to, to go find, to sit, to meditate, to get away. The next thing I notice 13 about the Palo Alto area is how phenomenally stressed the population is. You've got a 14 traffic problem; you've got a population problem that's going on. There aren't a lot of 15 those places that are still remaining in a natural zone, that induce the relaxation in your 16
population. The people I've talked to are deeply in love with this one particular area. I 17
posted one question on Nextdoor. The next thing I know, within two days I had 120 18
responses from the public about wanting to keep this particular grove of trees intact. I 19
thank you for your attention. Good evening. 20
Chair McDougall: Dr. Bruner, thank you. I assume you're familiar with Nature Fix. 21
Dr. Bruner: I am not. Sounds like I need it. 22
Chair McDougall: It's what you're talking about. The Japanese, in fact, practice 23
something called forest bathing, that you're probably familiar with as well. Thank you 24
for your comments. 25
Commissioner Moss: What's the grove she's talking about? 26
Dr. Bruner: It's the one that's on Arastradero. Could you describe to him where it is? 27
Geoff Paulsen: It's a bike/pedestrian path behind Alta Mesa Memorial Park. It's popular 28 with both Palo Alto and Los Altos. It's a bike/ped path near Gunn High School, between 29 Gunn and what now is Emily (crosstalk) Park. It's a place where some trees are 30 threatened by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission because it involves the 31 Hetch Hetchy waterline. 32
Council Member Cormack: From the City Manager, based on community concerns 33 received regarding planned tree removals and trimming planned for the San Francisco 34 Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way between Arastradero and the Los 35 Altos city limit, Public Works has put a pause on the tree work planned. The City will 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
schedule a meeting to share information about the project and answer questions. That 1
meeting is still in the planning stages, but community members interested in this project 2
can sign up to receive a meeting notification once it is announced at 3
www.cityofpaloalto.org/cacorridor. I'll be happy to write that down for you. 4
Chair McDougall: I have two cards from Geoff Paulsen, one I think has got non-agenda 5
item ticked. 6
Mr. Paulsen: I'm Geoff Paulsen. I'm speaking as a Board Member of the nonprofit tree-7
planting group Canopy but really from a bureaucrat's perspective. My dad was a 8 psychiatrist. We had a little meeting this morning for our advocacy group, and I would 9 suggest that the City consider agendizing having some kind of dotted line communication 10 responsibility or connection between Public Works projects and the Parks and Rec 11 Commission so that you can all facilitate public communication. It's difficult for this 12 City when a public outcry occurs after a project has been almost finalized or when the 13 chainsaws have been started. It's much better to have communication at the outset. I 14 would suggest that you agendize that for a future item, and Canopy can give you some 15 thoughts on how to specifically implement that. Thank you. 16
Chair McDougall: Thank you, Geoff. Shani Kleinhaus, not an agenda item. 17
Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you, Chair McDougall. I would like to support the comment by 18
my esteemed colleague here. I speak for Audubon and the issue of lack of transparency 19
and for the public not always knowing whether something is Public Works or parks. 20
That's especially important in the Baylands and Byxbee. I think it would be a very good 21
idea to try and put something together so there's more transparency on that. My other 22
comment is about the horizontal levee. The people from Public Works who are working 23
on this project came to the Conservation Council, which is an assembly of organizations 24
in this area, and presented that to us. We had a few comments, but I think the one that 25
really should be paid attention to by you is that we recommended that the trail should not 26 be on top of the levee but put more towards the road. If the intent is indeed to promote 27 wildlife use it, especially endangered species, when the water comes up, then having 28 people walking on top is not a good combination. People can go a little further down. 29 They can have an access point where they can see that people just want to get through, 30 don't have to because the disruption that walking or biking on top of a levee would cause. 31 It's a better design so the levee has a ledge. At the bottom of the levee is where people 32 that just want to get through are going. Whereas, the top of a levee just has a few 33 viewpoints but is not for continuous movement. Thank you. 34
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I don't intend to start a discussion on either of the last two 35 speakers, but they should be encouraged by the fact that we are in some cases doing a 36 much better job at the moment of having ad hocs meet with Public Works and looking at 37
specific parts of Public Works where we can interact. Specifically, we have been 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
working with them on the horizontal levee issues. We don't disagree that more 1
transparency is a good idea, but I think there's some progress. I think we have all of the 2
public comments on non-agenda items. 3
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 4
Chair McDougall: I'll ask for the Department Staff Report. 5
Daren Anderson: Good evening. Daren Anderson, Community Services Department. 6
I've got a couple of updates for you. One is sort of a sad one. Natalie Khwaja, who has 7
supported the Commission for a couple of years, is leaving the City for another job 8 opportunity. In the interim, we've got Catherine Bourquin, who has previously served the 9 Commission. She'll be filling in for the time being. Regarding the Boulware Park and 10 the Boulware Park addition, we had a community meeting last Saturday, November 9. 11 Approximately 30 people attended. It was the style where people could stop in anytime 12 during a two-hour period and make notes and put stickers on boards and say, "these are 13 the kind of things I'm interested in or support." Some of the main topics are having a 14 restroom, closing the road that separates Boulware from the new Birch Street property, 15 having a dog park, and then a lot of miscellaneous one-offs. All this information will 16
come to you via a presentation soon. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect, is going to 17
develop a conceptual plan based on the feedback that he got at the community meeting 18
and share it at a second community meeting in January. After that January meeting, we 19
would come to the Parks and Rec Commission for their regular January meeting, and 20
we'll share that plan with you as well as the feedback. Pickleball, just a minder. Our 21
Mitchell Park pickleball court is complete now, and tomorrow at noon, we'll have the 22
ribbon cutting for that. The Mayor will be there to cut the ribbon. We welcome a 23
Commissioner to come speak if they would like to as well. We'll certainly offer to 24
Monica Williams, the President of the Pickleball Association, to say a few words too. 25
The Hoover dog park fence, I mentioned this at one of our previous meetings, that we 26 were going to be raising that fence. I had mentioned it had been put in and installed 27 many years ago at a height of 3 feet and received a lot of complaints from park users over 28 the years. We raised it to 5 feet last week. Peers dog park is another one I've mentioned 29 in the past. One of the challenges with that dog park was the grass. This has to be our 30 most beloved dog park in terms of use. It's certainly the highest and the newest. It wore 31 that grass out very quickly. It couldn't be sustained with that level of activity. We 32 explored options, and we tried about half the dog park in this engineered mulch that's 33 designed for dog parks. We got positive feedback, and we came in just last week and did 34 the remainder of the dog park and received positive feedback. This was timed to precede 35 the rainy conditions to avoid the muddy conditions that dog park users hoped we would 36 avoid. So far, we've got happy users over there. Ramos Park CIP is tied with the 37
restroom CIP. I've said in the past we had hoped to target November. Peter Jensen who's 38
leading that endeavor has been very, very busy with some other projects, namely the 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Boulware and CIPs and others. He says he thinks he can do it in the first week of 1
December, but he hasn't confirmed a date. I apologize that we haven't been able to firm 2
something up yet. I'm hopeful it'll be the first week of December. As soon as that's 3
confirmed, I'll send an email to the full Commission. The Highway 101 bike bridge goes 4
to Council on November 18 for award of contract. It's $15.5 million. Again, the 5
construction would start in the fall of 2019. It's an 18-month construction window to 6
complete it in March 2021. The 7.7 acres community meeting, the Commission received 7
an invitation on this. This is for Saturday, November 16, at 11:00 a.m. at Foothills Park 8 Interpretive Center. An update on Cubberley. The draft Cubberley Concept Plan, 9 previously called the Cubberley Master Plan was posted on the project website on 10 November 7. Staff will be doing email blasts to get the word out, get people to 11 participate. The project website is pausd.org/cubberleycodesign. I can share that with 12 the Commission via email after the meeting. The public can provide feedback on the 13 plan or the codesign process by emailing cubberleycodesign@cityofpaloalto.org. The 14 CEQA environmental assessment is still being prepared, and it's expected that the 15 Concept Plan and draft CEQA document will come to the PRC in the spring of 2020 and 16
then to Council for adoption in June 2020. Kristen's planning on meeting with the ad hoc 17
later this month to determine the best time to bring this to the Parks and Rec 18
Commission. We talked about sea level rise the last time and that Public Works will 19
bring the horizontal levee project to the Commission for discussion in December or 20
January. It'll probably be January, but I'll confirm that. An update on the Arastradero 21
Gardens. The garden is now open, I'm very pleased to say. There are 32 plots, and three 22
gardeners are already signed up and working on their plots. Catherine Bourquin, who 23
helped lead this project, is scheduling appointments with 14 additional people who are 24
interested in having a garden at this site. One has already volunteered to be a garden 25
liaison. The aforementioned project involving some trees slated to be removed 26 associated with the SFPUC, I've got a similar email that you got from Public Works but 27 with a little more information, details on the meeting. I'm going to recap the whole thing 28 just in case anyone missed it earlier on. Several community members have raised 29 concerns about the tree removals and trimming planned on the pathway in the San 30 Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) right-of-way. This is between 31 Arastradero Road and Los Altos city limits. In response, the Public Works Department 32 has paused the work and is hosting an onsite meeting and walk-through to discuss the tree 33 removals and the trimming. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 20, at 34 3:30. I'll repeat that. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 20, at 3:30 35 p.m. at the entrance to the pathway on Arastradero Road. If you'd like more information 36 or have questions, please call Public Works at 650-329-2295. An update on the Renzel 37
ponds on East Bayshore Road just north of the Municipal Services Center. You might 38
remember they were rebuilt not too long ago. One of the things that came with the 39
rebuild process was a tremendous amount of algae. It blanketed both of the two ponds. 40
It seems that that has died away. I presume it's the cold weather, but it's almost 41
completely gone. Before the algae left—people have corroborated this—I noticed an 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
increased number of waterfowl on the ponds. I talked to the Chair and Vice Chair about 1
bringing in a photo. I took photos, but they don't do it justice. I went out and did a count 2
and thought I'd share some of the wildlife that I observed today at 4:30. There were 75 3
coots, 25 Canada geese, 3 American pelicans, 10 canvasback ducks, 10 northern 4
shuttlers, 4 snowy egrets, 3 black crowned night herons all within a 10-minute walk. It 5
was nice to see that the place is being used by wildlife even though the vegetation has not 6
fully grown back. An update on the 10.5-acre plan. The next steps are—the project lead 7
is Lam Do, Superintendent with the Parks Division. He's going to meet with the 8 environmental stakeholders in about two weeks. He'll be sending out invitations soon. 9 He'll meet with the ad hoc committee to debrief on that. The next piece in the process is 10 the community meeting. It will hopefully bring everyone together to talk through what 11 we'd like to have happen there. You might remember our last Commission meeting we 12 talked about the garden guidelines. The next steps on that process are Catherine has met 13 with the garden liaisons to get their feedback on some of the feedback we heard from the 14 Commission and other members of the community. The next step is we'll meet with the 15 ad hoc next week. That concludes the Department Report. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: You mentioned the water foul at Renzel pond. They were 17
staying away because of the algae or because the remnants of the algae are attractive for 18
some reason? 19
Mr. Anderson: I'm not totally sure if it's the algae. I think it's partially because new 20
vegetation is growing on the bottom; some of it is algae. I'm certain there's a lot of 21
insects because I've seen them. There is vegetation coming up slowly on the edges. I 22
think all that contributes to make it more hospitable and welcoming. I anticipate it 23
getting better as more vegetation grows in, particularly the cattails, which are just 24
starting. I think that's going to spread fast based on my experience in seeing that in the 25
past. Even in areas where we've removed cattails, it comes back pretty quickly. I think 26 it'll continue to get better. We've started spreading some native seed and occasionally put 27 in willow trimmings to re-root itself. Some of it has taken, and that'll help too. 28 Hopefully we'll get going with a more robust volunteer effort. We've got some higher-29 priority areas in the wetlands that we focus on. My hope is we can help that be a vibrant 30 habitat. 31
Commissioner Moss: I don't think the algae is good for the birds. I think they're there in 32 spite of the algae. I thought they were going to try to control the algae by changing the 33 depth or some other way. Do you have anything on that? 34
Mr. Anderson: I spoke with Phil Bobel, the Public Works Assistant Director, who helps 35 manage the discharge of treated water to the ponds. We had brainstormed different 36 things. My suggestions were mainly only increased aeration. There are solar aerators. 37
Phil was here when we first built the Renzel ponds, and he said we had a similar algae 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
situation in the beginning, and it went away on its own. He said just give it some time, so 1
that's what we're trying right now. I don't believe the situation has resolved or gone. I 2
think it will come back. I think it's the colder weather, but I could be wrong. We'll keep 3
monitoring it. I think you're right that they weren't necessarily drawn for the algae, but 4
there is other aquatic vegetation growing in there as well. I think that helps the wildlife 5
come. 6
Commissioner Moss: It cuts down on the number of fish there because they don't have 7
enough oxygen. Also, it cuts down on the amount of light that gets down to the bottom 8 where you want those plants to grow. Keep working on that. What did you say was 9 November 16th in Foothills? 10
Mr. Anderson: That's the community meeting on the 7.7 acres. 11
Commissioner Moss: Peers dog park, what was the solution? You replanted the grass? 12
Mr. Anderson: No, we didn't replant the grass. We put in an engineered mulch. It's 13 softer on the dogs' paws. 14
Commissioner Moss: It's not Astroturf. It's a mulch. 15
Chair McDougall: Any other comments, questions? I'm not sure if the algae is hurting or 16
helping. An awful lot of the birds seem to be moving through it as if it wasn't there. The 17
point I passed onto Daren is the algae is 400 times better than trees for taking carbon out 18
of the air. When he said, "Let's rake it all away," my reaction was, "Let's talk about this." 19
On top of the birds he was talking about, when I was there yesterday—I don't know if 20
you mentioned the snowy egrets—there were also great blue herons and double-crested 21
cormorants. Double-crested cormorants are fun to see. I sent Daren this morning an 22
iNaturalist. It's amazing how many birds and animals and insects are in the Baylands. I 23
would like to ask relative to the tree event November 20th, are we providing enough 24
other publicity rather than just mentioning it here. 25
Mr. Anderson: Thanks for the question, Chair McDougall. I just found out about this 26 today. I'll check in with Public Works and see if there is some other good way to help get 27 the word out. 28
Chair McDougall: It was a rhetorical question. Relative to the gardens, I want to 29 reiterate—Catherine, it's pleasant to have you back again tonight. The garden stuff you're 30 doing is amazing. The fact that it's moving on already is amazing. We'll move onto 31 business for the evening, which does not include the minutes as we've already discussed. 32 One of the notes I just got was Foothills. The other was renting the tennis courts. I'm 33 going to allow Kim Grant, if you'd like to speak about the tennis courts. If you're here, 34 we'd like to hear you. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Kim Grant: Good evening. My name is Kim Grant. I'm a former professional tennis 1
player, now the owner of Kim Grant Tennis Academy, which is located in Midtown, Palo 2
Alto. We've been operating there for about 12 years. We're a school of about 7,000 3
people in the Palo Alto area. We would like to ask the Board of Supervisors to change a 4
policy which we feel has become outdated. We would like to ask for a use permit or to 5
have permission to rent the public tennis courts in the Palo Alto area to host some tennis 6
tournaments for the community. We each offer our services to the community. We'd 7
promote the tournament for the public and cater to any gender, age, and level. The 8 United States Tennis Association is a nationally respected organization. There's a new 9 organization that's been formed and called Universal Tennis Rating, UTR. Roger Federer 10 and Novak Djokovic have invested in this company because it's such a great and new 11 system that allows everybody in the whole world to participate. It would be a shame to 12 exclude ourselves from this opportunity. We would like to ask permission, myself and 13 my team, to run the tournaments for the community. We want to run it every Friday if 14 possible and open to everybody if at all possible. As the policy is right now, we're not 15 allowed to rent the courts at all. This UTR system is great because anybody can plan at 16
any time. If a top player were to enter, the system would categorize the players together 17
in the same order so they would be able to play each other, so they don't have 18
mismatches. We'd really like you to consider this opportunity for the City of Palo Alto 19
and the people in it. Thank you. 20
Chair McDougall: Kim, thank you. It's not appropriate to discuss in this forum, but we 21
have your contact information. We'll make sure that either members of the ad hoc 22
committee or staff contact you to fully understand your requests. Thank you for being 23
here. 24
V. BUSINESS 25
1. Park Improvement Ordinance for Utilities at Peers Park. 26
Chair McDougall: We move to the Park Improvement Ordinance for the utilities at Peers 27 Park. I'll let Daren introduce that. 28
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. It's my pleasure to introduce Henry Nguyen. He's the 29 Senior Electrical Engineer for the Utilities Department. I'll let you introduce your 30 colleague. 31
Henry Nguyen: Good evening, Council and Commissioners. Thank you for having us 32 tonight. My name is Henry Nguyen. I'm a Senior Electrical Engineer with the Electric 33 Utility Engineering. This is my colleague Greg McKernan. We're working on the 34 project to underground or raise all the overhead that are crossing the railroad to prepare 35 for their plan to electrify the railroad. You've probably seen the report already. Would 36 you like me to go through it? Okay. At Peers Park, we have two overhead crossings. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
We would like to combine those two overhead crossings into one underground crossing. 1
By doing that, we will make the park look better without the overhead lines. We will 2
increase the reliability of the electric system. In doing that, we will have two bores 3
across the railroad. It's going to be a little bit of disruption during that process because 4
we have an 18-inch casing that we have to, per Caltrain spec, pull underneath the 5
railroad. In that process, they will tunnel a big hole underneath the railroad. For about 6
two days, we have to lay that casing, assemble the whole thing, and then pull it all at once 7
to prevent the channel from collapsing. After that, we will have another two days to 8 assemble all the conduit going inside the casing and put them all in it once again. Those 9 conduits will be interconnected by a few boxes. We have 4 feet 6 inches by 8 feet 6 10 inches box connecting with a utility switch on top of a 5-foot by 10-foot box and two 11 more of the smaller boxes for fiber optic cable, about 30 by 48 inches. Out of all those 12 boxes, two of them will be sitting in the mulched area. Right now, it's covered by mulch 13 or tree bark for the dog run, I believe. Those boxes can be covered with the existing tree 14 bark with no problem. The switch will be installed in front of an existing emergency 15 water pump station. The switch will be sitting in front of that pump station. Other than 16
that, after the project is complete, nothing will be seen. Everything will be in the ground. 17
The only thing that will be seen will be the utility switch sitting in front of the existing 18
pump station, and it's in the paved area about 150 to 200 feet away from the dog run, I 19
believe. This is where the existing pump station is. In front of it, there are two boxes. 20
One is a 5 by 10, which is underground. On top of that 5 by 10 will be that utility switch 21
that I mentioned in the report. That little box next to that would be the fiber optic box 22
that's 30 inches by 48 inches. Over here are the two boxes sitting in the middle of the 23
dog run by the end of the project. That's the 4-6 by 8-6 for the electric. The smaller one 24
is 30 inches by 48 inches for communication. Out here, we'll have one more box that's 25
going to be 4-6 by 8-6 feet for the power to come down from the pole over here. This 26 pole will bring the power down to the box and to the switch and eventually to that box in 27 the middle of the park. Then everything will cross at the railroad right here. That in a 28 nutshell is our project. 29
Chair McDougall: That would be the report. I think everybody might want to ask 30 questions about it. Since this is an action item, do you or Daren have wording that you 31 would like to have the Commission consider? 32
Mr. Anderson: It's under the recommendation in the staff report. Essentially, we would 33 like the Parks and Rec Commission to recommend that the Council adopt this Park 34 Improvement Ordinance for the installation of electric utility equipment at the existing 35 Peers Park water pump station. 36
Chair McDougall: Does anybody have any questions? 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Commissioner Moss: This underground tunnel, how long will it take to do and when 1
approximately were you planning to do it? 2
Mr. Nguyen: It's going to take about three weeks to install that tunnel. We are going 3
through this Commission. If we have a pass, we're going to have to go through to 4
Council for approval in January. We anticipate, if everything goes well, we'll probably 5
do it in February. 6
Commissioner Moss: The rain is not an issue? 7
Mr. Nguyen: No, it shouldn't be. 8
Commissioner Moss: The location of the tunnel, will it have to be moved in the future if 9 the high-speed rail project—how does this dovetail with that at all? 10
Mr. Nguyen: We took that into consideration. It's not definitive either way whether 11 they're going to raise or lower. Considering the scale of that project, this one has to go 12 one way or the other. We cannot wait for a final decision on that one to decide. That's 13 why what's best at this point is to go underground. If they decide to go below grade at 14 that point, we'll have to deal with it at that point. 15
Commissioner Moss: There will be minimal impact to the grassy areas? Can you get 16
your trucks and things like that in without disturbing most of the grassed lawn there or 17
will you have to destroy that and then replant it? 18
Mr. Nguyen: We can certainly put down boards to protect the grass during construction. 19
If it comes to a point where it's not practical to do it, we can certainly replant the grass. 20
Commissioner Moss: Will the dog park be closed? 21
Mr. Nguyen: Briefly, yeah. During the construction, part of it will have to be closed. 22
Commissioner Moss: For three weeks? 23
Mr. Nguyen: For the three weeks, yeah. 24
Commissioner Moss: Could you close just half of it? 25
Mr. Nguyen: We could certainly do that. We can probably set up the fence to close 26
maybe the middle portion and leave the two ends open. 27
Commissioner Moss: When it's all done, can you make plantings so that you hide the 28 boxes that remain? You talked about putting some of it under the mulch of the dog park. 29 That's great. You had some 8-foot boxes. Can you hide those in some way? 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Mr. Nguyen: The green box you're talking about is going to be in front of the pump 1
station. We have a better picture. This is what it is right now. That's going to be after, 2
with the switch sitting in front of it. It's already sitting on top of the paved area. There's 3
not much we can plant. Plus, we need an 8-foot clearance to operate the switch. When 4
we operate the switch, we don't stand up close. We use a hot stick, insulated stick, about 5
8 feet long in case the switch flash over. We can stay away from the flash. 6
Chair McDougall: Are there any other questions? 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: Overall, undergrounding seems like a good approach. How deep 8
is the tunnel that goes underneath the railroad? 9
Mr. Nguyen: We're doing 15 feet below the railroad. 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: As far as the vaults in the dog park, they're located there because 11 that's where they need to be for the proximity of the (crosstalk)? 12
Mr. Nguyen: Right. On the other side of that is Seale Road. We have to line up with 13 Seale Road in order to have the equipment to bore from that side over. On the other side 14 on Seale Road, that would be where they have the boring machine set up. They bore over 15 to the dog park. When we line up the casing, we have room on the dog park to line it up 16
all at once and pull it in all at once. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I understand the dog park would need to be closed for a few 18
weeks during the initial construction period. You mentioned there would be annual 19
maintenance or perhaps it was in the report. Will this impact the vault area in the dog 20
park or does the maintenance only occur at the switch? 21
Mr. Nguyen: You are exactly right. Mainly, it will be the switch. We'll come back 22
periodically. I've forgotten how often. We have to come back and do a visual inspection 23
and shoot the infrared camera to make sure every connection is not hot. As far as the 24
vault with cable in there, the cable is designed to last 30, 40 years. Typically, we don't go 25
into the vault that just has cable. Usually, we only come into area that has equipment 26
other than cable. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: If I understand correctly, the maintenance checkout is only once 28 every three years, and that's at the places in the picture we're looking at by the fence. In 29 general, the dog park should not be impacted except for unforeseen circumstances. 30
Mr. Nguyen: That is correct. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl: I want to echo David's concern about this looking ugly. It 32 doesn't look real pretty right now. If we can do anything on the left side, plant some type 33 of boundary to prevent the park from being uglier, that would be good. I really want to 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
minimize the effect on the park users during construction, particularly the dog park users. 1
If you can put a fence around that, it'd be great. I'm worried about the top of that vault 2
being slippery and having that engineered mulch just be pushed aside. I'm not sure if you 3
can recess it a little or make it a rough surface so the bark doesn't get pushed aside. What 4
can you do to minimize that? 5
Mr. Anderson: Commissioner Reckdahl, we have a few spots on our synthetic turf fields 6
where there's infrastructure like that. What I've seen done is a chunk of turf built to spec 7
fits right in there, and it's got a little base on it so it provides stability, something you 8 wouldn't slip on. Maybe there's something like that we can look at. I'd be glad to work 9 with Henry and his team to see if we can find something that would be appropriate for the 10 site. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: That should be doable, find something that makes it so it's not 12 slippery. I agree undergrounding will be better than having it hanging from the pole. I 13 think this is a good thing. 14
Commissioner Moss: In the answers you just gave him, didn't you say that you have to 15 have enough space so that there's no fire danger? 16
Mr. Nguyen: That would be in front of the switch, that green box right here. 17
Immediately 8 feet in front of this switch right here, we need 8 feet. 18
Chair McDougall: If there are no other questions, can I have a motion to recommend the 19
Park Improvement Ordinance per the description that Daren gave us? 20
MOTION 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: I so move. 22
Chair McDougall: Can I have a second? 23
Commissioner Moss: I second. 24
Chair McDougall: All in favor. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Henry, thank you. 25
Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. You made my day. 26
Chair McDougall: We're glad it was that easy. 27
2. Foothills Park Access Pilot 28
Chair McDougall: The next item is the Foothills Park Access Pilot. Just before we start, 29 I'd like to describe what I think the process might be, should be. I would hope that we 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
could come to a conclusion that the Commission gave a unanimous recommendation to 1
the Council. If not, then we have before proceeded with non-unanimous actions. I'm 2
going to let Ryan describe it. Instead of having public comments first, we're going to 3
have public comments after so that comments are relative to what Ryan's saying, then 4
we'll have Commission comments and a vote. I want to point out before we start that the 5
recommendation has in it—Ryan can describe it—both a pilot project component and a 6
permanent component so that we're not hiding one inside the other as we go forward. 7
Ryan, Jeff, and Jeff constituted the ad hoc that has put all the work into this. It's also 8 appropriate to be clear that—I'll let the ad hoc members talk about this. I don't think they 9 come to us with a totally unified conclusion. With that, I'm going to let Ryan start. 10
Commissioner McCauley: I'm just going to hand it right over to Jeff LaMere. 11
Commissioner LaMere: Don, thank you for your introductory comments. In addition to 12 Daren, we would also like to thank the many people who have taken time to look at this 13 proposal and comment on it. We've had a lot of help from the Rangers and input from 14 Rangers in regard to this. We understand the sensitivity of this topic and have spent a 15 great deal of time with it. Not only the ad hoc but the Commission itself has spent time 16
to be very thoughtful with what we're presenting. I'm going to give a brief overview, and 17
then I will hand it off to Ryan to finish up and drill down into some more details of what 18
we propose. To begin, it's a one-year pilot test. It's not something that is permanent. It's 19
something we want to use to study. It is a year in duration. There will be a limited 20
number, an adjustable number of passes for nonresidents. It's not something that we've 21
said there's going to be 200 passes for nonresidents every day. It's a limited number and 22
an adjustable number. We'll get into those numbers in a little more detail. We also have 23
a very important focus on school field trips. As our speaker previously said at the start, 24
talking about the effects of nature on health, we think those effects are very important for 25
our youth. Increasing access for field trips for those outside the Palo Alto area to visit 26 Foothills Park is something that we see as a great addition and something that our City 27 can offer. It's something for the youth. We're talking about environmental stewardship. 28 This helps environmental stewardship. We want to continue to prioritize resident access 29 and not change the current access policy for residents and their guests. Residents of Palo 30 Alto will still have priority to this park. At the conclusion of the pilot, the staff and the 31 PRC will review the park visitation, the data, and then make a decision on how to move 32 forward. This is exciting because we will be able to gather data. We'll see how the park 33 is being used, and we'll see the impact of the increased visitation on the park. With the 34 field trips, we want to formalize a program and a reservation process. We think that will 35 help with the field trips, with the process. That's already started in terms of the 36 communication and the planning for that. The nonresident passes will be available on the 37
City's new online reservation portal, which I believe Ryan has looked at. From the 38
comments that I've heard from the City, the City is excited about this new system. It can 39
collect more robust data, but it's also easier to use. As we said, there's going to be a 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
maximum cap, and that cap is on 50 nonresidents per day. That's a maximum. On days 1
where there is historically much greater visitation, Mother's Day for example, there may 2
not be any nonresident passes available. It will be minimal. That is something based on 3
historical data, that we will be able to adjust. There have been a lot of objections voiced 4
about increased visitation and the fear of the park being overrun. If that is the fear, that 5
too many people are coming, based on the numbers that we've looked at for the past few 6
years, our visitation has not approached the cap of 1,000. Adding these additional passes 7
is not going to push us much closer to that cap based on our visitation. If there is that 8 concern, then perhaps revisiting the policy of allowing 1,000 people in or the signs of that 9 is more prudent as opposed to limiting who we let in. I think that's something perhaps to 10 consider. There will be a $6 fee for nonresidents. This fee is inline with what other area 11 parks charge, that do charge a fee. There's a fixed cost already for managing the gate. 12 We are not proposing to increase those hours of managing the gate. Hopefully, this $6 13 fee will serve to offset some of those costs that are fixed and already exist. With that, I'll 14 turn it over to Ryan, and he'll go into a little more detail with what we're doing. 15
Commissioner McCauley: Thanks, Jeff. As we've spoken about before, the park has 16
seen very consistent visitation of about 150,000 visitors per year for the past decade. 17
Again, as we've mentioned before, 2011 was an outlier in the past decade when you had a 18
little bit of an uptick to 202,000. Staff's observation from that period of time is that it 19
was manageable. It was a little bit busier summer particularly, but it was certainly 20
manageable. The historic high visitation back in the late 1960s and through the 1970s 21
was more than 300,000 people on a pretty regular basis. Year over year, there was a 22
significantly larger population of people visiting the park. At the same time, we've seen a 23
growing number of nonresidents who have been turned away. In the past year, the 24
average is 2,800 people per year. In the last year that we have complete data for, the 25
number is all the way up to almost 3,800 people. That's a significant number of people 26 who Rangers are having to turn around and say they can't enter the park. The Foothills 27 Park committee began discussion on this particular topic in a more formalized way back 28 in October 2018. David was a member of the committee at the time. We've gone 29 through a number of permutations of what a pilot program might look like, but we arrived 30 tonight with the proposal before you after lots of thought and input over that past year. 31 As Jeff mentioned, the process has included consultation over the past year with many 32 people in the Community Services Department, our Ranger staff. We had three excellent 33 retired Supervising Rangers who provided a bunch of input in addition to Kathleen Jones, 34 our current Supervising Ranger. We also had input from Greg Betts, who's the former 35 Community Services Director. We had great interactions with JMZ staff, Junior Museum 36 staff, who will be helping to coordinate the field trip aspect. We also had outreach with 37
some of our volunteer organizations that the City partners with. Of course, we had PRC 38
meetings on the topic in July and September of this year. A few updates for the 39
Commission from the last time we met in September. As Jeff mentioned and as I'm sure 40
you saw, the current proposal is for a fee of $6. Again, as Jeff mentioned, the idea there 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
is that it would be in line with what Santa Clara County and San Mateo County parks 1
charge. Again, anticipating that we would have waivers for students and volunteers with 2
key City partners that focus those volunteers for us and help us with projects within the 3
City. As everyone knows as well, we already have a program in place to help defray 4
costs for people who might be low income. One of the beauties of this is that the new 5
CivicRec online portal will allow that information to be distributed across the system 6
such that, if someone qualifies for a scholarship in one program, they could also qualify 7
for a scholarship or a reduced fee here. We received feedback from the City Attorney's 8 Office. That was attached to the report that you have before you, Enclosure A, and you 9 can see the proposed language changes. I want to be very clear that the City Attorney's 10 Office is not advocating for this particular language. What we did was run by them 11 conceptually what we're trying to do. They took a look at the language for us and helped 12 us with crafting that language. That's what's before you in Enclosure A to the report. It's 13 a fairly simple or elegant edit in my mind to the City Code provision. Presently the City 14 Code only allows residents of the City and regular City employees, members of their 15 household to access the park. This would add in addition to that list of people such other 16
persons as are authorized by a specific pilot program approved by resolution of the City 17
Council. It would require Council approval before anyone would be able to enter as part 18
of a pilot program. As we mentioned, we've had follow-up and further discussions with 19
the JMZ staff, who have been very helpful, John Aiken and Alex Hamilton. We had 20
outreach with the Ravenswood District. It's going to be one of the key constituencies that 21
we want to work with. Currently, the JMZ does field trip programs with the Ravenswood 22
District for the Baylands. They are very interested in being able to take those students up 23
to Foothills Park in the future. With many thanks to Natalie, she provided a preview of 24
the new CivicRec recreation system's capabilities. I have to tell you that I'm excited not 25
just for this program but across the board. It's going to really expand our capacity as a 26 City to help serve our populace. Logistically I think it's going to be very beneficial. It's 27 going to be easy for staff to use from my perspective. I don't mean to suggest by any 28 means that I'm an expert in the CivicRec system, but I was wowed as I was going through 29 this demonstration with Natalie. It will allow staff to plan ahead and make passes 30 available automatically at an interval that they might determine. One of the questions 31 that Keith had previously is how far in advance would these passes be available. Daren 32 or the Ranger staff could determine a month out that they're going to have however many 33 passes on a particular weekend and then just set it so that automatically they would be 34 available to the public two weeks in advance or whatever interval they wanted to set. 35
Commissioner Reckdahl: Daren will have the freedom to adjust that if he doesn't think 36 it's working out? 37
Commissioner McCauley: Right. The flexibility here is one of the key aspects from my 38
perspective. This is something that can be adjusted. It makes a lot of sense to give staff 39
that discretion at some level to appropriately experiment within the bounds of the pilot 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
program. In terms of ease of use for users, the CivicRec system will be hosted through 1
the City's main web portal and can be linked from other CSD pages. It's not as if you 2
have to go to a different website, which is the current system. It'll all be essentially 3
seamless. It allows you to sign on through several different single sign-on systems. For 4
example, if you have a Gmail account, you can sign in through Gmail. You can sign in 5
through Facebook. You can also sign on and complete a transaction as a guest without 6
providing some of the background information you might otherwise have to provide. The 7
last thing I think is going to be great for us is it has a number of different customizable 8 fields and questions that we can obtain feedback on the front end as people go in and 9 obtain these passes. It also has survey functions so that we can automatically contact 10 people who have provided us with their contact information and ask them how the 11 process worked. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Will we know where they're coming from? One question 13 would be is where are these new visitors coming from. 14
Commissioner McCauley: I absolutely expect that will be one of the questions we ask. 15 On the point of fees, I want to be very careful. We know that staffing the entry gate is a 16
fairly expensive enterprise from my perspective. It costs us $89,000 per year, which is 17
the estimate from our Ranger staff. I want to be very careful about projections. 18
Everyone can start to do the math and think about how this would add up. I think it's 19
probably going to generate somewhere between $40,000 to $50,000 per year potentially. 20
We could at least put a significant dent in the overall number. I want to put a lot of 21
caveats around that projection. We're recommending that the reservations for picnic 22
areas and campgrounds remain as they are today. They'd only be available to Palo Alto 23
residents during the pilot program. What we're looking at now is an example of the 24
visitation to the park in 2017. Commission members who were here in September will 25
recall that we saw this previously. If you look at the second blue column, you'll see the 26 total number of visitors for the year at 151,000, broken down by month. You can also see 27 the number of people turned away from the park each month. It peaks at 500 people in 28 one month with a total of 3,765 in 2017. You can also see the distribution of individuals 29 by day of the week, by holiday, etc. That's on the right-hand side where you see the 30 percentages. No surprise that Saturday and Sunday by far bear the brunt of visitation. As 31 expected, May, June, July, August are by far our peak months. We have a couple of 32 shoulder months, and we have low months over the winter. This slide is an attempt to 33 give folks a sense for where we've been and where we are currently, where we might be 34 with the pilot program. The blue curve reflects the actual 2017 numbers. The orange 35 curve reflects what I would say is the outer bound of the pilot. I've tried to be very 36 conservative in drawing this, to overcount how many people might be accessing the park 37
with respect to the pilot. That's what the orange line reflects, that outer bound. The red 38
line is the curve at the level of 1,000 visitors per day, which was the approximate historic 39
peak level visitation going back to the 1970s. The red curve is adjusted to reflect the 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
same month-by-month distribution as 2017, as if you took the 370,000 people who were 1
visiting in the 1970s and distributed it on the same baseline as in 2017. This goes along 2
with what I just said about the orange curve being fairly conservative from my 3
perspective. With the implementation of this pilot, it's possible that weekday visitation 4
will actually decrease because individuals will now be encouraged and required even to 5
obtain passes, who are presently potentially accessing the park without paying a $6 6
nonresident fee. That's one aspect of a way in which this pilot could see effects across 7
the board. We might see weekday visitation go down. We could see weekend visitation 8 potentially go up. The purpose of the pilot, from my perspective, is to track that and 9 learn what we can over the course of a year. One last example. We have the red line 10 reflecting an average of 1,000 people per day, again that historic high point. You have 11 the blue bars, which reflect actual visits in these three months. The orange is the outer 12 bound for the pilot. January 2017 is the first month. January is typically a low month for 13 us. June 2010 a higher month. November 2014 again a higher month. With that, it 14 probably makes sense, Don, to take any clarifying questions from the Commission and 15 then any public comment. 16
Chair McDougall: I think I'd like to go with public comment first, and then we can have 17
a full and open discussion. I'd like to start with Geoff Paulsen. I don't have an awful lot 18
of speakers here, but I will limit all the speakers to 3 minutes. 19
Mr. Paulsen: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, and Daren, thank you for all your 20
work on this, especially the ad hoc committee. My name is Geoff Paulsen. I grew up in 21
Palo Alto. Actually, my name is Geoffrey Lee Paulsen. I'm a grandson of the Lees who 22
negotiated the sale of Foothills Park. I have seven items, all starting with "P." I'll try to 23
be short. I want to talk a little bit about the purchase. My grandparents bought 2,400 24
acres in the Palo Alto Foothills off the courthouse steps during World War II for $42,000. 25
That calculates to $18 an acre, if we can believe that. Anyway, my grandfather wanted to 26 develop it as an intensive development, a horse-oriented housing development. He built 27 the barn, which was the first phase. That's now the interpretive center. My grandmother 28 was friends with Josephine Duveneck and needed a plant nursery. She put her foot down 29 and said, "I own every other acre, and I will not sell." My grandfather was stubborn, but 30 she was more so. Thanks to her, we have Foothills Park. She didn't want the park named 31 after her, but residents only did not enter into the equation. What did enter into the 32 equation was an enemy of my grandfather. A personal enemy—I don't know the exact 33 origin of the animosity—objected to the City Council's decision to purchase the land and 34 said, "You can't spend this much money without a vote of the people." That was the 35 issue that brought it to a vote. That was told to me by my uncle. The purchase really 36 didn't have anything to do with the residents only. The payment issue about the City 37
going to other cities and asking for money, the neighboring cities, especially Portola 38
Valley and Los Altos Hills, Woodside, are wealthy communities with a minimal city 39
government. They really don't want to spend much money on city government. Their 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
governments couldn't afford to contribute. Palo Alto, having the foresight to develop its 1
Utility Department with its income, was able to do so. For that, I'm very thankful. There 2
are issues about protection. People say if you allow nonresidents, it's going to hurt the 3
park's ecology. I was a Ranger at the park for seven years. The real impact is a 12-acre 4
mowed turf, an artificial lake, and great big areas that were developed as road cuts for 5
what was going to be an intensive visitor plan with a hilltop restaurant, lakeside boat 6
rental, elephant trains, very intensive use. There was a lot of damage done to the park 7
before the first Superintendent put a stop to that. That's where the real ecological damage 8 is. A few more footsteps are not going to damage the ecology. I have a degree in natural 9 resources planning, so I understand about these issues. There's also the issue of 10 prejudice. Mr. Sujimoto [phonetic] in his excellent paper really dwells more on that. The 11 issue of redlining does enter in. The issue of justice enters into this decision as does Palo 12 Alto's public image. I read through the comments over the years. One of the comments 13 was "it's okay to be selfish once in a while, isn't it?" It really isn't, but that's the 14 perception that a lot of people have of Palo Alto. Palo Alto is a great city, but there's this 15 perception of selfishness. This would be a great move to help Palo Alto's public image. 16
The sixth thing is process. Having a master's in public administration and having spent 17
my career in government, having chaired the Parks and Rec and the Planning 18
Commissions in Cupertino, I understand about process. I applaud your efforts. I know 19
that any change like this is a process. You can't do it all at once. I really appreciate your 20
efforts and applaud the thoughtfulness and the steps that you've taken. The last item is 21
patience. Leo Tolstoy said the greatest two warriors are these: time and patience. We've 22
been kicking around this issue for 60 years, and it's on my bucket list to see something 23
done. I don't have another 60 years obviously, but I really hope that we can move this 24
issue forward with thoughtfulness but also with deliberation and with certainty. Thank 25
you. 26
Chair McDougall: Thank you, thank you very much. The next speaker would be Cody 27 Einfalt. 28
Cody Einfalt: Good evening, members of the Commission. My name is Cody Einfalt, 29 and I'm here as both the Management Analyst for the Town of Los Altos Hills as well as 30 a resident of Palo Alto in the College Terrace neighborhood. In both of these positions, I 31 would like to show support for the pilot entrance program to Foothills Park and let the 32 Commission know that the Town of Los Altos Hills is committed to working with the 33 City of Palo Alto in this pilot program to allow a mutually beneficial partnership between 34 our two municipalities. Allowed entrance to this park has been a goal for our City 35 Council this year, and we're happy to see this process move forward. If the Commission 36 should have any questions about Los Altos Hills' involvement with this pilot program, I 37
could extend myself to be there for those questions. That point when you were talking 38
about the online question about what city the people would be purchasing those tickets 39
from, I think you had said something about that. I think it would be really interesting to 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
see how many Los Altos Hills residents are actually buying those tickets. For those 1
residents near Page Mill and Buena Vista and Central Drive, it's right next door. I'd be 2
curious to see how many buy those tickets. Thank you. 3
Chair McDougall: Thank you for being here. Thank you for your presentation. Shani 4
Kleinhaus. 5
Ms. Kleinhaus: When a public agency takes a step that could have significant impacts to 6
the environment, they have to do CEQA. I understand that you think that the pilot project 7
will not have significant impacts, but I think this needs to be a public process. It needs to 8 have a Mitigated Negative Declaration. It needs to have a clear and public mitigation and 9 monitoring plan. I don't have distrust in our staff. Our staff in Palo Alto is excellent, and 10 they do an excellent job there. However, this needs to go to a Mitigated Negative 11 Declaration. Things happen again and again in this City when we do something and have 12 to apologize later. This needs to have a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and it can show 13 that every possible impact can be mitigated and how with a very, very public and clear 14 process. I have suggested before and think still that the best way to go is people who 15 want to visit, if it's a school group, they have a teacher with them, somebody's monitoring 16
them. If it's a different kind of group, they have to have somebody who has some 17
training or some permission from the City to lead the group into that park. When we 18
have people just going to party or to do a barbecue, that is to me something that we don't 19
need to provide. There are so many parks in Palo Alto where people can do that and 20
elsewhere. Speaking as a Palo Alto resident, I don't think the $6 will cover very much. 21
When we look at comparables, the comparables are Mid-Pen or other organizations that 22
have a lot of people visit. They get enough money with $6 from a lot of people. Here are 23
50 certificates a day, maybe eight people. It's max 400 people a day, but that's not going 24
to cover any of the need for Rangers and for people to actually see what's going on there. 25
We have two Rangers in the entire City, I think. This is the best opportunity to justify 26 getting a little more eyes on our treasures. $6 may make it very accessible, but it's not 27 going to help the City. This was the chance that our park system can have, if we're going 28 to do more for people, to actually try and recoup more or at least estimate what is it going 29 to cost us and acknowledge $6 a day per vehicle, 50 vehicles, is not going to make a 30 difference. Education programs not just for children—I work for Audubon, and we have 31 groups that go all over the place to watch birds. They would love to go there. I don't 32 think that should not be allowed, but they should have a certain level of somebody in that 33 group having some sort of certificate that it's okay for them to bring a group in. I can see 34 teachers having that. That's usually pretty easy. Just having open access to all without a 35 mitigation plan and a monitoring plan, even if it's a pilot project, you need that. For 36 CEQA, the baseline is what is happening now, not the 1,000 people that are allowed to 37
visit right now. The fewer people that are actually visiting is the baseline, and that's what 38
we have now. When you look at how many more people you want to let in, you have to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
do CEQA on that. It has to have a clear and publicly available mitigation and monitoring 1
plan. Thank you. 2
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Uji Sujimoto [phonetic]. 3
Uji Sujimoto: Hi. My name is Uji Sujimoto. I'm a senior at Stanford University, and I'm 4
one of many people that have been turned away at the gates of Foothill Park. I've done 5
significant historical research on the origins of this rule. You can read my paper. It's on 6
the desk if you'd like. I believe that this rule perpetuates a legacy of exclusion that Palo 7
Alto has been trying to move away from. It is a park after all. I can't list another park off 8 the top of my head that has a rule like this. As a town that strives to be an open, inclusive 9 environment and leader within the Bay Area, it seems backwards that we have a rule on a 10 park that doesn't let anyone except the residents enter. I served as an outdoor associate at 11 Stanford, so I understand the argument that could be made for environmental protections. 12 Environmental protection doesn't have to go hand-in-hand with this exclusion. As was 13 listed, someone has done the research that says 1,000 people a day is fine. We shouldn't 14 be excluding that number to just the residents of Palo Alto. We should be opening it up 15 to others. Also, in my time at Stanford, I volunteered for an organization called SOOP, 16
the Stanford Outdoor Outreach Program. Within this program, we bring students from 17
areas such as East Palo Alto to camping and hiking trips. For most of our camping 18
endeavors, we go all the way to Henry Willard Coe State Park in Gilroy, which is pretty 19
far. It's hard to get resources from Stanford to take students to these areas. Having the 20
opportunity to use Foothills Park would expand our ability to bring more students for 21
these kinds of programs. In the end, this proposal is a really great way of opening this 22
park to more people. 23
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Our final speaker, Leland Levy. 24
Leland Levy: Thank you. A previous speaker mentioned that this problem has been 25
bedeviling Palo Alto for some 60 years. I came here 52 years ago, and it's certainly been 26 around since then. Over that time, I've taken a great deal of pride in all the services that 27 Palo Alto offers, particularly the recreation and park facilities that we have. I've used 28 them intently over that time. I've also used the facilities in San Mateo County and 29 adjacent counties and communities. They've been open to me, and it's been a great 30 source of pride that this greater area offers all of this to members of our community. The 31 one source of embarrassment has been the fact that Foothill Park was exclusive. I 32 justified that on the basis that we needed to watch the environmental development of the 33 area. We didn't want it to be overcrowded and overused. I'm delighted with the work 34 that the committee and the Recreation Department has done over the past year with this 35 issue to look at the actual usage of the park and to see what, in fact, we can do to open the 36 park without seeing its deterioration. The park usage, as the data showed, is now about 37
half of what it was in the early years when I first came to Palo Alto. That means there's 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
ample room, if we manage it properly, to allow many others including residents of Palo 1
Alto. The pilot program that is in front of you seems to do that very well. It manages 2
overuse. It watches overcrowding. It allows reasonable nonresident use. More 3
importantly, I think it's going to keep an eye on what we do up there to make sure that the 4
area does not deteriorate environmentally. I hope that you approve the pilot program and 5
that over the next year or two or three we all watch very carefully what is going on in 6
Foothill Park to make sure it continues to be one of the bright lights of Palo Alto and of 7
this area. Thanks very much. 8
Chair McDougall: Thank you. Thank you for being here. With that, the first thing I'd 9 like to do is give—if there are any clarification points, not so much selling points but 10 clarification points on any of the public comments that were made that Ryan or Jeff 11 would like to respond to. 12
Commissioner McCauley: With respect to the comment about CEQA, as it concerns any 13 proposal that goes to the Council, it goes through a review process that includes a review 14 by Planning, by Legal, and other teams in addition to the Community Services 15 Department. As it goes through that process, they make decisions about what they think 16
is necessary for Council consideration before implementation of a program. That's the 17
point at which CEQA would be considered. It would go through the ordinary process as 18
anything else would on its way to the Council. I wanted to emphasize the number of 19
people that are expected. The idea is that for operational efficiency we would have one 20
pass per vehicle. When we look at the historic trends from 60 years essentially, we've got 21
really good numbers on how many people come in each vehicle. It's 1.5 people on 22
average on a weekday per vehicle and 2.7 on average on a weekend. That's how we came 23
up with these numbers. While it is possible that a passenger vehicle might carry as many 24
as eight people in a minivan, it's not that likely given what we've seen over this many 25
years. 26
Chair McDougall: I'm going to open it up to the Commission for comment. Since we've 27 discussed this before, I'm going to suggest that everybody turn to page 5 of the document 28 that we have. There's a recommendation there. The expectation is we would turn that 29 recommendation into a motion. The recommendation is that the PRC recommends the 30 City Council direct the manager and staff, etc., to move forward with the pilot project and 31 amend Municipal Code as attached in Enclosure A. What I'd really like is to have the 32 comments directed to are you prepared to accept this or something similar to this as we 33 modify it or are there major things that would cause you not to accept this as opposed to 34 rattling through all the things that we've talked about before. We've heard from Ryan. 35 I'll ask Jeff if he has anything else to say. He says no. I know that Jeff Greenfield was on 36 the ad hoc as well. I'll give him the opportunity to comment. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: I did first want to clarify that I have been part of the Foothills 1
Park ad hoc that's worked on this project for quite some time on the pilot proposal. 2
Based on some more recent changes to the proposal, I wasn't completely comfortable 3
recommending this project to the full Commission, and I expressed this cordially to Jeff 4
and Ryan at our last meeting and split off from the group after it. I believe the project has 5
many significant merits. Opening Foothills Park to nonresidents is a worthy goal for the 6
inclusivity aspects among many others. Changing the violations from a misdemeanor to 7
an infraction is a very important action. We should be recommending to make this a 8 permanent action independent of what we act on as far as the pilot program. I appreciate 9 that accommodations have been made to try to limit user experience and environmental 10 impacts of the pilot program. The project and the concept continue to evolve. More 11 recently, the field trip enhancements are a positive. I do feel like a primary focus of the 12 project has changed, diluting the prioritized access for PAUSD and neighboring students 13 and their families, environmental volunteers, and underserved communities. I know 14 there's aspects within the program to try and give priority, but I think it's complicated in 15 terms of how this works out. I also have concerns about charging a modest entrance fee 16
for nonresidents only. I recognize that cost recovery is important; yet, we're propagating 17
a tiered structure as part of a plan to reduce barriers. It seems like we're going in opposite 18
directions on that. I have concerns with that. That's exemplary of my overall opinion of 19
the project. There's a lot of positive goals we're striving to achieve. I don't feel like 20
we've hit the right balance of how to move forward to achieve some modest goals. The 21
scope of this pilot is very modest. Maybe that's a problem in itself, but there is a lot of 22
push and pull. I've been struggling to balance these back and forth. I'm struggling with 23
the balance. The plan is a step in the right direction and offers many positives, starting 24
with the community dialog, which has been initiated. This has been very beneficial, and 25
I've learned a lot in the process. As I mentioned before, we should permanently change 26 the entry violation to an infraction. That's the least controversial aspect of this entire 27 project, and that should be done permanently. This is a complex issue for our community 28 with many paradoxes as I'm articulating. Many support opening Foothills Park; yet, this 29 is a divisive issue within the community, which many don't support. On the other hand, 30 many who don't support the overall opening of Foothills Park could live with this pilot 31 program, if you go along with it. As much as we've tried, the plan remains too 32 complicated rather than simple. It's not easy to communicate or understand all the 33 variances, and it continues to grow in different directions. Not to suggest it's an easy 34 task, it's not. I've been alongside these guys for many months, and I applaud their efforts. 35 I've solicited a range of community feedback and heard a variety of opinions from a lot of 36 people I respect and a lot of people I haven't known and new opinions and new people to 37
me. For me, it's not clear that there's a plan proposal, which I'm comfortable in 38
promoting to City Council, at this point. I believe the plan underestimates the cost to the 39
City, both the costs incurred and moving forward, in terms of staff time. Certainly, there 40
will be incremental costs regarding staff time, and suggesting that costs may be incurred 41
just doesn't wash right with me. It's going to happen, and this is at the expense of 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
prioritizing the use of staff resources on other projects. In its current state, the plan will 1
entail significant Council and staff time to review and implement. The CEQA MND 2
issue is just one possible example. Looking at the 1,000-person limit to the park, I think 3
we're going to be well under that, which is important. That's a concurrent visitor number. 4
I think we don't want to approach that number often, if at all. It's a positive that this 5
project is going to be well under that. Overall, given that this project is a Parks and Rec 6
initiative rather than a Council directive or a staff proposal, I think it's particularly 7
important to have something very solid and complete to give to Council. Broad 8 community support is important. There is a lot of community support, but there's also 9 varying opinions on that. Having a straightforward plan to communicate and understand 10 the why and how of what we're doing is important. I'm struggling with that. At the same 11 time, I'm torn because there's a lot of good reasons to do this. That's basically my mixed 12 feelings on this that I'd like to share. 13
Chair McDougall: Thank you. I'm going to allow other Commission members to 14 comment. I'll start with Keith. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have some questions for Daren. If this is passed by the 16
Council, you're planning to staff seven days a week at the front gate? 17
Mr. Anderson: No. We wouldn't be able to do that with our existing staff. It would 18
remain as-is, periodic staffing Monday through Friday, but staffed on weekends and 19
holidays. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: The Council would have to make that determination. If they 21
wanted to staff it, they'd have to give you some extra money for that. 22
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, we'd need more staff. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: It's not just a money issue; it's also a manpower issue. 24
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 25
Commissioner Reckdahl: That's a good point. The entry fee, the $6 per car, where 26
would that go? Would that go to the General Fund? 27
Mr. Anderson: It would. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: We don't get that rebated next year? It just goes into the … 29
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: If we do have cost recovery, it really is very indirect. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Mr. Anderson: I think that's correct. 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: What about CEQA? Do you think something like this, 2
opening the park to nonresidents, would require CEQA? 3
Mr. Anderson: I think it's possible. The next step is to go to Planning and ask them to 4
present the pilot. As Commissioner McCauley has mentioned, that's built into our CMR 5
process, City Manager Report. Before it gets to Council, it has a series of reviews, and 6
Legal and Planning are some of them. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Our Planning staff will make the determination whether we 8
need CEQA or not. 9
Mr. Anderson: That's correct. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: You think it's a coin flip? 11
Mr. Anderson: I'm not qualified to say. I get different answers to different projects from 12 Planning, and it seems to change. I don't think I could guess. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: I do share some of Jeff's concerns. This is not without risk. 14 Overall, it's worth the risk. I will be supporting this. Foothills Park is a special place, 15 and I have faith that staff will monitor its conditions and keep it a special place. I'm 16
concerned both about nature but also about we have allocated right now ten spots for 17
school children. If those are routinely used up, I want to make sure that we extend that to 18
maximize the chance that the school children get in. That was one of the focuses for our 19
opening this up. 20
Commissioner Moss: I too feel Commissioner Greenfield's concerns. This is not any old 21
City park. We have open space, and we have urban parks. Even the open space, if you 22
look at all of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space preserves, none of them have 23
picnic tables or lakes where you can rent a canoe. This is a special place that's 24
somewhere in-between. Going back to one of the speakers, 60 years we've never had 25
1,000 people in a day. Over that 60 years, the park has become more of a respite for 26 wildlife and for peace and quiet compared to other open spaces and other urban parks. I 27 never want it to be like Rancho San Antonio, which is overrun by people. I'm torn. How 28 do you preserve that, and how do you be more inclusive and how do you let more people 29 in? The other thing that's really important goes back to what Commissioner LaMere said. 30 There's an educational component. If you want future environmentalists, future people 31 who are going to help us preserve the environment, you have to get them into the parks. 32 You just can't do it in an urban park. You have to do it in a quiet place. How do you 33 preserver it, yet share it and have this educational component? That's why even though 34 there are many flaws or many issues that have to be worked through with this pilot 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
program, I feel that something has to be done. You want to get more kids in. You want 1
to get more groups in. You want to get more volunteers, more docents, more trained 2
student volunteers who can lead groups and share this gem. How do you do all that? I do 3
feel that there are many people who want to picnic. They want to picnic in nature. They 4
want to be near that lake. I don't think the lake can handle 100 people around it at any 5
point in time. If you have picnic tables everywhere and there's people there all the time, 6
the environment needs rest time. The animals need to be able to come back there. If you 7
have 100 people around that lake, you're not going to get many ducks in that lake. If you 8 look at Shoreline Lake, there are many ducks and many people. We have room to grow. 9 I want to see this pilot program move forward despite its flaws, despite its issues but 10 work through them. I'd like to first see staff do a bio blitz. They've done a number of 11 them. I would like to see a CEQA, something to have a baseline as to what this park is 12 now. Not what it was 60 years ago or 100 years ago, but what it's become over the last 13 50 years. I'd like a baseline, and then I'd like to see what impact we do have from this 14 pilot. We love to see the data with the numbers of people. I would like to see some data 15 that has more to do with species as well. I have many more things, but that's enough for 16
now. 17
Commissioner Cribbs: Thank you very much. I'd really like to again acknowledge the 18
people who have worked so hard on this, the ad hoc committee, and the community and 19
certainly the staff from the Recreation Department and also from the other groups in the 20
City. I've been here since 1960, and I know this has been a topic, as former Mayor Levy 21
said, that has been up and down and up and down. We've had a lot of discussions about 22
it. I'm very proud that we're sitting here tonight talking about moving this on to the 23
Council with our recommendation. I think it's a really important thing to do. We live in 24
a region, not a tiny city. We're not a stan; we are part of the Greater Bay Area. Former 25
Mayor Levy said it very well when he said this has been an embarrassment to say, "I'm a 26 Palo Alto resident, and by the way we have a park that we won't let you come into." I'd 27 really like to see us move this along. I understand that it's complicated. I really share, 28 Jeff, your thoughts about it. I really appreciate your talking about it the way that you did 29 because clearly there are a lot of conflicts. Working together, we can resolve this. It's 30 really important to let our Commission voice be known and say, "We believe this is the 31 right thing to do. It's the right time in the community. Let's see if we can work together 32 to make it work." 33
Chair McDougall: I think everybody's had a chance to talk. I appreciate the candidness 34 of giving an indication of what direction you're thinking and the completeness of all of 35 the thoughts. We have to remember we have an action here. The action item is going to 36 require us to (inaudible). We need to go back to looking at this statement and see if we 37
can create a motion that would address some of the concerns I've heard. I would like to 38
suggest that we have a motion that says something like, "the PRC asks" and put in a 39
specific date, by December 15, so that we're not just agreeing to do this and then we don't 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
do it until some date or it just doesn't happen, and that we ask City Council to propose to 1
City Manager and staff—maybe Council Member Cormack can help with that a little 2
bit—that we commit to a process to implement the pilot process. What I'm hearing is we 3
need to accept the fact that there is a process. The process will involve staff work. The 4
process will involve CEQA or whatever. We can't simply ignore the fact that we just tell 5
them to do it, and they run out and do it. We need to have a commitment to a process 6
that would implement a pilot project. If we're going to commit to a process, we should 7
say that it's including the timeframe for the pilot so that a process to commit to a pilot 8 within the next six months or something. That may be impossible, but we'd define a 9 timeframe and commit to both baseline and follow-up reporting. We don't need to define 10 what that reporting is. We may all be sitting here with ideas of what the reporting needs 11 to be, but we've got some evidence, and public and Commission have confidence that 12 staff can figure out what the baseline and measurements are. We should say that we want 13 to have a baseline and qualitative and quantitative measurements. The motion should on 14 top of that be basically as defined in the key parameters of the November 12 report that 15 we have in front of us. I would further suggest that there should be a statement in there 16
that in parallel the City should be encouraging volunteer organizations to participate with 17
them in the pilot. If we said all those things, we'd be doing a pretty good job of defining 18
the parameters, making it clear that we would like to see the park open, and we'd like to 19
do it responsibly, but we'd like to do it. We're having a pilot, and we're having 20
measurement, and we're having reporting, and we're dealing with the fact that there's 21
process. I'd really like a motion that's consistent with what I've just said, or we sit here 22
and work out the exact wording of that. That's where I'm at. I have notes, and I can talk 23
about why I think we should do this and why it's good for the City and why it's good for 24
the park, and why it's good for the people. At some early point when I was on the 25
Commission, I was involved in a thing where it was ask a bunch of people what they like 26 about Palo Alto. Was it the trees, the park, the libraries? One wise person said, "Palo 27 Alto is a good place because of the people." The people are good, and the people deserve 28 and need parks and park policies that are worthy of the good people. That's why I'd like 29 to see us move ahead with that. I can wordsmith this, or we can get a motion. At this 30 point, maybe I'll give Council Member Cormack a chance to say something while I try 31 and recover from what I was saying. 32
Council Member Cormack: I want to be judicious in my comments. I'll repeat what I 33 said a few months ago. I commend the subcommittee, the ad hoc, that's worked on this, 34 the staff, the use of data, the ability to take what the Mayor and I both said, what is the 35 problem we're trying to solve, and describe it beautifully. I honestly don't think this 36 needs to be divisive. While it's a little complicated, I don't think it's complex. I mostly 37
just want to commend the Commission for tackling something difficult in such a 38
constructive manner. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Commissioner McCauley: I appreciate that it's part of the process, but the process has 1
been a good one. It's led to a pretty decent consensus amongst the Commission members. 2
I appreciate that it's not perfect by any means. It really does reflect the sense of the 3
Commission, that we should do something here. This is a good approach because it's 4
good policy. We're using the data, the information we have to try and structure the policy 5
in a way that meets our goals. We have multiple goals, but the two big ones are 6
ecological protection and providing people an opportunity to experience the ecology. I 7
realize those could be in tension, but they don't have to be. We've done a decent job here. 8 Don, I appreciate everything you said about what exactly the motion should be. I have 9 one concern. The Commission has talked about this at some length now for more than 10 half a year. We've had a committee that has talked about it for more than a year. It's 11 probably time for us to send something to the Council. I totally appreciate that the 12 Council can do whatever it wants with that, and they will. If that means they want to 13 send it back to us, so be it. It probably makes sense to send something to the Council that 14 could be acted upon if that's what their desire is. What I had in mind as the motion would 15 be that we recommend to the Council that it direct the City Manager and staff to move 16
forward with the pilot project, amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to allow that, and 17
with respect to the document that we have before us, this report and recommendation, we 18
direct the ad hoc to take into the account the comments received tonight and clarify the 19
document where needed or perhaps some minor revisions and present that to the Council. 20
Chair McDougall: I'm going to suggest that it would be really hard to have a motion that 21
said let's go forward with the motion we have but allow the ad hoc to go further define it. 22
I'd like to ask the Commission's forbearance for two minutes to see if I could draft 23
something that would accommodate that. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: In the redlined version, the pilot and the resolution are added 25
later by Legal. Is that the history of that? 26
Commissioner McCauley: That's right. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl: The purple was your original markup, and they … 28
Commissioner McCauley: That's right. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Did they explain why they wanted the word pilot in there? 30
Mr. Anderson: Commissioner McCauley had specifically asked to take that word out, 31 giving us more flexibility in the future. I reached out to the City Attorney and asked what 32 his thoughts were. He thought for now let it reflect what the true proposal is, which is a 33 pilot. If Council chooses to make it go on in perpetuity, they have that right even though 34 it says pilot. The discretion is the Council's to do what they want with the length of 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
whatever you want to implement. He thought it would be best to reflect pilot in the 1
wording. 2
Commissioner Moss: Daren, can you clarify one more time the additional costs? You 3
have a certain budget now. You'll need more staff in the future. The $6 is going to cover 4
a part of that. Can you be more specific about the additional costs because the Council 5
will want that. If we propose this proposal, that's probably the second or maybe the third 6
question they're going to ask us, what is the impact on you and how much is it going to 7
cost. 8
Mr. Anderson: I think the wisdom of this proposal is that we can control how many 9 people are coming in or at least do our best effort to do so. My understanding through 10 our discussions is that would be framed in such a way that we would not be asking 11 Council for additional staffing. If the proposal changed shape or proves unmanageable 12 with what we've got, I would come back not at the end of the pilot but in the middle or 13 whenever it becomes apparent to both the Commission and ultimately Council to say, 14 "This is what we're experiencing. Staff doesn't seem adequate for this." From what I've 15 heard and the way we'd manage this, it seems to me we'd manage it with existing 16
resources. To your question about other costs, some of them will probably be more clear 17
once we've begun. As I looked at those previous years, where our numbers were 50,000 18
greater than what they are typically, that anomaly year where we had 200,000 compared 19
to our 150 normal over the last decade, we didn't have an increase in funding during that 20
year. There were 50,000 additional visitors, and we didn't have extra costs. Some of 21
those things might not be readily visible or apparent right away. It might be over time. 22
I'll be certainly thinking about that very closely and trying to, as I'm providing data back 23
to the Commission and Council and community, have it be reflective of everything, 24
including things that might come in the future in terms of increased costs, at least to the 25
best of my ability. 26
Commissioner Moss: The costs are not just the Ranger at the front checking your access. 27 Maybe the access should be electronic instead of a person, a card that you slap on the 28 side. There's also the cost of fire management and trash and restrooms and that kind of 29 stuff, which could go up or may not. I just want to make sure that you're going to be 30 prepared for that. Volunteers, at least four of us have talked about the fact that we will 31 need more volunteers, docents, or trained leaders, who can help introduce people to 32 nature without overwhelming them on every trail. I don't know what part staff can play. 33 Certainly, we need some kind of group that's going to manage volunteers. That's not 34 insignificant. 35
Mr. Anderson: That's a fair point. The methodology we use now for that practice—not 36 exclusively environmental education, but volunteerism and stewardship—is via 37
partnerships with Grassroots Ecology. I think they'd be at the table as we brainstorm 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
ways to help new visitors learn more about the park and enjoy it in different ways. That'd 1
be a great way, having Grassroots help to some degree. The amount that staff will be 2
able to help with that is probably not great. We're already at our capacity in terms of 3
what we do. There are things like bird walks and nature hikes, but it's not every day. It 4
would be difficult to manage if we said every visitor is going to go to a Ranger-led 5
program. I don't think that's practical. 6
Chair McDougall: I think I can speak for Environmental Volunteers in that we'd love to 7
participate in something like that. I would like to suggest that we create a motion that 8 says, "Move that the PRC submits a request to City Council to ask manager and staff to 9 initiate the process including necessary environmental analysis for a pilot project as 10 defined in the key parameters including base, ongoing, and final qualitative, quantitative 11 measurements. PRC further recommends an amendment to the Municipal Code in 12 Enclosure A and then the adoption pursuant thereto. PRC further recommends 13 development of a robust volunteer program to support staff in Foothills during the pilot." 14
Mr. Anderson: Depending on the nature of that environmental analysis that you 15 mentioned, that might be the kind of thing, especially if it's intended to meet certain 16
CEQA requirements, that would not be staff-led. It would be a consultant that we hire. 17
There would probably be a cost associated with that. Just to be transparent and let you 18
know. 19
Chair McDougall: You don't disagree that there might or might not be that kind of 20
requirement? I didn't even call out CEQA. I just said, "analysis as required." We can't 21
define what happens at the next level. I'm going to ask for comments on my draft if you 22
can remember what I said. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'm wondering if there's a way to draft a proposal so that it could 24
go straight to Council to approve the process of moving forward, thereby minimizing 25
staff time prior to Council consideration. If I understand what Daren said previously, the 26 process that we're looking at would go through the CMR, which sounds like it would 27 incur a fair bit of additional staff time and perhaps go to the Planning Department. Is 28 there a way to draft a recommendation that can go more directly to Council and minimize 29 staff time in the process? 30
Mr. Anderson: My understanding in talking to the City Attorney—we had asked about 31 the best methodology to convey the recommendation to Council and how we'd agendize 32 it—is there would be a staff report, so it would go through that CMR process. The body 33 of the report itself would be reflective of the memo that the ad hoc put together and their 34 recommendation, but it would still go through that same process. Absent that 35 recommendation, I don't have a methodology of how you'd do it otherwise. Perhaps a 36 memo. The concern was a memo wouldn't be agendized for a discussion and run the risk 37
of it not reaching the discussion level that the Commission wanted. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Chair McDougall: Are there any other comments or suggestions on my tentative draft? 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: On your wording, you said something about performing an 2
environmental analysis. I would maybe say it "assess the need for an environmental 3
analysis." We aren't saying you need it. We're not saying you don't need it. We think 4
the Council should determine what's necessary. 5
Chair McDougall: To initiate the process including a discussion of? 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: Either the necessity for environmental analysis or an 7
assessment of necessary analysis. Something like that. 8
Commissioner McCauley: If I might offer. One way to simplify it potentially would be 9 to say "the PRC recommends that staff prepare the necessary materials for presentation of 10 this issue to the Council, and that it be agendized by the Council with our 11 recommendation that the pilot be implemented as laid out in this document." Baked into 12 that would be everything that Daren has talked about as part of the City Manager review 13 process, the determination of whether or not you need CEQA or whatever else. There are 14 other hoops to be jumped through as well with the City Attorney's Office, etc., but that's 15 all baked into the regular process, rather than calling out individual pieces. 16
Chair McDougall: I don't disagree with that. What are your words? 17
Commissioner McCauley: I would move that the PRC recommend to staff and the City 18
Manager that they prepare a staff report to be presented and agendized for the City 19
Council reflecting … 20
Mr. Anderson: I'm typing it. I've got the Park and Recreation Commission recommends 21
that staff and City Manager prepare a staff report. With the necessary materials? 22
Commissioner McCauley: Right. I think you could just say "prepare a staff report to be 23
presented to the City Council and agendized"—feel free to clean up my poor verbiage 24
there—"that reflects the Commission's recommendation that the pilot program be 25
implemented including proposed amendments to the Municipal Code as set out in 26
Enclosure A." 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: I want to make sure that we're careful that we're recommending 28 and not directing staff. It's not the place of the Commission to be directing staff. While 29 the goal of this body is to get this agendized at a Council meeting, we need to be careful 30 that we're not directing staff to work to agendize this. 31
Chair McDougall: Does anybody else have comments on this? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Council Member Cormack: I wonder if the maker of the motion might consider having 1
the words "Foothills Park" in it? I realize you're all spending a lot of time on this, but … 2
Chair McDougall: Thank you. 3
Commissioner McCauley: Daren cleaned this up really well. If I could repeat it just for 4
the benefit of the group. 5
Chair McDougall: In the request to staff, I still think the point that David and Keith and 6
maybe others made as well that there be a specific measurement plan. Maybe you don't 7
have to do what I said about measuring qualitative, quantitative, before and after. A pilot 8 project including a measurement plan. I would like to say a pilot project including a 9 measurement plan and a volunteer plan. That helps address specifically what the 10 Commission members are asking about. 11
Mr. Anderson: Chair, may I ask for clarification on the volunteer program? Was this in 12 the context of providing nature awareness opportunities or (crosstalk)? 13
Chair McDougall: Even if you said let's put a volunteer to staff the cabin 3 hours a day 14 or 3 hours a week. It doesn't need to conclude a volunteer plan. It doesn't need to come 15 up with—we need to have something that encourages partnership to address the issue of 16
are we educating people or are we just letting them in and letting them run around and 17
then leave and now they don't know anything more about nature than they did when they 18
got there. Are we going to ask Kathleen to specifically talk to everybody there or are we 19
going to see if we can get a volunteer? David's going to volunteer. I know that. 20
Commissioner Moss: One of the examples is young people picking wildflowers. There 21
are some beautiful patches of wildflowers around in our mountain. Unless you educate 22
people that you don't pick wildflowers, you won't have any wildflowers in the future. It's 23
that stuff that we take for granted that you need to educate people. 24
Mr. Anderson: One of the best ways we can do that is the partnership with Grassroots 25
and steering them towards volunteer programs. I led programs from Palo Alto as a 26 Ranger for over a decade. By far, it was the best way to teach people and get them to 27 care about nature. 28
Chair McDougall: It would just say volunteer program. We don't have to define is it 29 Grassroots or Environmental Volunteers or McDougall and Moss in a nonprofit we just 30 created to do that. It just needs to be in there. It is a concern, and it's easily covered. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl: If a school wants to go to the Baylands with a school trip, they 32 call up the Rangers. Do you provide a Ranger for the school trips? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Mr. Anderson: No. Typically, it's done through John Aiken and the Junior Museum 1
program where they have naturalists doing classes or tours. I guess it is a little more 2
multifaceted because there are times that the Rangers will do that too, just to a lesser 3
degree. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: John coordinates some type of docent to go with the group? 5
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 6
Chair McDougall: Environmental Volunteers has three different programs, one of which 7
is a snoop. You just go find stuff. You can do a snoop in your schoolyard, your 8 backyard, or more interestingly in the Baylands. When you get to grade 5 level, they go 9 out and take water samples at various locations and analyze the water that comes out of 10 the purification plant versus the marsh versus the ocean. There are all these programs. 11 There's no reason why you couldn't—we wouldn't go back and say to Environmental 12 Volunteers, "Do the same thing. Let's walk these paths and figure out what we can 13 interpret." It's all about interpretation and learning. 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: We'd anticipate that any school trips to Foothills Park would 15 use the existing John Aikens or Environmental Volunteers or some existing program. 16
Mr. Anderson: As the ad hoc discussed it, we thought it would be best to filter through 17
John Aiken. We could organize it and, if he partnered it out to different groups like the 18
EVs, that would be fine too. John Aiken's group would be core. 19
Commissioner Moss: I would be okay with a science teacher from the school district or 20
the Stanford students if they have a Biology 101 professor that goes along with a group of 21
30 students. That's okay too. 22
Chair McDougall: Ryan, are you ready to read it back to us? 23
Commissioner McCauley: I've started to tweak it more significantly. 24
Council Member Cormack: May I make a suggestion? Sometimes on Council, we have 25
it up on the board so everyone can see it. Not everyone is able to take in all the words by 26
listening. 27
MOTION 28
Commissioner McCauley: My apologies. There's a lot of thought and consideration that 29 has gone into the recommendation, but not enough into the language of the motion itself. 30 Sorry for the hiccup. I would move that the Parks and Recreation Commission 31 recommend that the City Council agendize the Commission's recommendation that the 32 Foothills Park pilot program be implemented as set out in our November 12 report 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
including the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code that are set out in Enclosure 1
A thereto and request that the City Manager and staff prepare their regular form of staff 2
report and analysis to facilitate the Council's consideration of this recommendation. 3
Commissioner Moss: Can you add the word access between pilot and program? The 4
Foothills Park pilot access program or access pilot program, whichever you prefer. 5
Commissioner McCauley: Absolutely okay. 6
Chair McDougall: Just to be clear. Ryan, you've read that as a motion? 7
Commissioner McCauley: Correct. 8
Chair McDougall: Do I have a second? 9
Commissioner LaMere: I will … 10
Commissioner Moss: Second. 11
Commissioner LaMere: … second it. 12
Chair McDougall: Jeff LaMere second. Do you want to speak to your motion, Ryan? 13
Commissioner McCauley: We've heard from ample supporters who have expressed this 14 more eloquently than I can. 15
Chair McDougall: Would the seconder like to speak to the motion? Are there any other 16
comments or questions about the motion? 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I'd like to ask the Chair to have the motion considered in two 18
parts, with each part voted on and recorded separately. Specifically, I'd like to request 19
that the recommended revision that's referenced in the Muni Code section regarding the 20
violation being changed to an infraction rather than a misdemeanor. It would make sense 21
to have that voted on separately as a permanent change not associated with the pilot 22
program. The other clarifications changing a person to a resident of the City and regular 23
or part-time City employee, etc., that would make sense to leave it as well. I don't think 24
this diminishes anything that's part of the pilot proposal, but it separates them since this 25
should be done regardless of whether we move forward with a pilot proposal or not. 26 Also, it should be considered separately by Council independently of what they think 27 about moving forward with the pilot program. 28
Chair McDougall: What does the mover think about that? 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Commissioner McCauley: I'm concerned that that introduces a level of complexity that 1
we'd be suggesting two different sets of amendments to the Municipal Code. One would 2
be that the pilot be allowed. The other would be that the violation of the subsection 3
would be changed from a misdemeanor to an infraction. It makes more sense to have a 4
single recommended revision to the Municipal Code. 5
Commissioner Moss: I agree. 6
Chair McDougall: I'm going to ask the seconder. 7
Commissioner LaMere: I agree with what Ryan just said. 8
Chair McDougall: Are there other comments or questions? We left out the measurement 9 thing that seemed to make sense. If you're comfortable that that's covered in the regular 10 form of staff report and analysis? 11
Commissioner McCauley: That's absolutely what's intended. It's also covered in this 12 document as well. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: Procedurally, I believe it's up to the Chair to decide whether or 14 not the motion would be considered in two parts as opposed to the maker and second to 15 the motion. 16
Chair McDougall: I appreciate that. The right steps would be to go ahead with the 17
motion as we have it. Jeff, you spoke to simplicity. That was one of your major 18
concerns. Ryan's response is that this makes it simple. I think we'll leave it simple by 19
doing it all in this one thing. If that's the only comment at this point, I would say we vote 20
on it all in one piece. 21
Commissioner Moss: What Commissioner Greenfield has said can certainly be a second 22
motion. We could even bring it up next month. 23
Chair McDougall: Exactly. We could bring up a second motion. 24
Commissioner Moss: With discussion. 25
Chair McDougall: I would propose that we vote on the—Jeff, if you would like to do 26 that, I would like you to make a motion with a seconder to amend this motion. That 27 would be the proper procedure. It's not my decision. It's the Commission's decision. 28 You should make a motion to amend it, and then we can vote on the amendment, and 29 then we go back to the original. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don't think I wish to make an amendment to the motion because 31 that would effectively be splitting the motion into two separate motions. The appropriate 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
way to do this is to have this be a single motion considered in two parts as I 1
recommended. It would be an appropriate message for unanimous support from the 2
Commission regarding the section that I recommended splitting out. I'm not sure at this 3
point if I can offer my vote for a unanimous record for the full proposal. 4
Chair McDougall: We're not making two separate motions. You would make a motion 5
with a seconder to amend this motion. Then, we would go back to this motion. We're 6
asking for the Commission to agree with you that we should change this motion, then 7
we'll end up with two. If your motion passes, we'll end up with two. If your motion 8 doesn't pass, we end up with this one. It's not my decision. It's a Commission decision. 9 Would you like to make that motion? 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: No, I'm not going to make a motion to amend. 11
Chair McDougall: Then we need to vote on this motion. All in favor say aye. All 12 opposed. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: Nay. 14
Chair McDougall: The motion passes 6-1. I thank you all very much for your attention, 15 your cooperation. I want to thank the people who have participated with us over the last 16
several months as we've done this. I look forward to moving this forward. Thank you all 17
very much. Now to on with the rest of our agenda. 18
4. Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates 19
Chair McDougall: Are there any further explanations or comments relative to the ad hoc 20
report that we have here? Anything that anybody would like to add? 21
Commissioner McCauley: One quick note that I'll add for the park amenities. We are 22
regularly hearing from our folks in support of dog parks. They were just in contact with 23
Daren and me again this week. I'm going to try and catch up with Howard Hoffman and 24
some of the folks who have been advocating for a dog park at Pardee Park and see what 25
we can come up with in terms of finding some consensus on that issue too. 26
Chair McDougall: That brings up the point, the issue of green tags. Is that part of the 27 conversation that you're looking into? 28
Commissioner McCauley: Yeah, absolutely. 29
Chair McDougall: That would be an important part of any kind of dog park discussion. 30 If there are no other ad hoc comments, then … 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Commissioner Moss: I want to emphasize what Daren said earlier in his report that 1
tomorrow at noon we're going to have the ribbon cutting for the pickleball courts. 2
VI. TENTATIVE SPECIAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 10, 2019 MEETING 3
Chair McDougall: Daren, I think we have at this point a pretty full agenda for the 4
December 10 meeting. I don't know if you have that in front of you, if you want to 5
mention what we think we have and see if Commission members have other things they'd 6
like to add or subtract. 7
Mr. Anderson: We discussed having the aquatics and golf update at the December 10 8 meeting. Most likely, depending on how the meeting goes on the 7.7 acres, that would be 9 presented as well. The CIP update, where we're at, and potentially the GSI update from 10 Public Works. 11
Chair McDougall: Anything else that people feel is a burning requirement for 12 December? It's a very short time. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: We should consider discussing Cubberley. The report has been 14 released. There's a fairly short timeline for a response. We might need to consider that it 15 takes priority over some of the items on the agenda. I agree that the meeting's getting 16
very full. 17
Chair McDougall: That's a good suggestion. Maybe we can do something like have 18
Kristen and the ad hoc report, so the energy goes into the ad hoc discussion. Maybe we 19
can shorten a full Commission discussion on Cubberley. I would encourage everybody to 20
read the report that's out right now. It looks like it's extremely well done. It's a point 21
where there's enough meat to chew on. 22
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 23
Commissioner Cribbs: I understand we are going to maybe listen to that in December. 24
In the meantime, at everybody's places I wanted you to see the information about Carole 25
MacPherson, who will be retiring from the Rinconada Masters. The program is 26 obviously near and dear to everybody's hearts, and a lot of people have been coached by 27 Carole. She's made a tremendous statement in the community and had a tremendous 28 effect on a lot of people, a lot of generations of people. She's being honored by the 29 Pacific Masters Association in a couple of weeks at their meeting. All of the 30 Commissioners, as I said before, are invited to her retirement party. She's been a real 31 treasure to this community. I didn't want to have her go away—she's moving to 32 Oregon—without commenting about how much she's given to everybody. 33
Commissioner Moss: When is that event? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
Commissioner Cribbs: The party is at the Elks Club on Sunday, the 8th of December, 1
from 1:00 to 4:00. I will make sure everybody gets an email invitation. 2
Chair McDougall: I don't know that the Commission can create a meaningful memo, but 3
maybe we can encourage City Council to create something to recognize her. 4
Commissioner Cribbs: I think there's a Proclamation in the works that will recognize 5
Carole. 6
Chair McDougall: Anything else that people would like to mention? I would like to 7
mention one thing. I'm pretty sure that everybody is aware, but everybody should know 8 that I've not applied for the Parks and Rec Commission for the next go-around partly and 9 mostly because Mary and I will no longer be Palo Alto residents. Mary is moving to 10 Burlingame to be with her grandchildren. I'm moving to Carmel to be with Point Lobos. 11 Every once in a while, we'll probably visit one another. The time that I've spent with 12 each and every one of you has been special. It's just been a great experience. The rapport 13 from all of the staff and particularly Mr. Anderson has been outstanding. I want to thank 14 you for that. 15
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 16
Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 17
McCauley at 9:30 p.m. Motion passed 7-0 18
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: JAZMIN LEBLANC, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2019
SUBJECT: AQUATICS PERFORMANCE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Palo Alto Swim and Sport has submitted an annual report for review by the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC), as required by their contract. Staff will provide an overview of the report for discussion
only. No action will be taken by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s (City’s) agreement with Team Sheeper (operating as Palo Alto Swim and Sport)
requires an annual presentation in the fall of each year to the PRC reporting on:
• Total program hours by program area
• Participation statistics by program area including resident and non-resident percentages
• Customer satisfaction survey results
• User group feedback by program area or rental
• Gross revenues and revenue shares between Palo Alto Swim and Sport and the City
• Risk management documentation
• Training certifications listed by staff members
DISCUSSION
Palo Alto Swim and Sport entered into a full service public/private partnership with the City in 2017 as a
way for the City to provide expanded, high-quality aquatics programming to Palo Alto residents and to
alleviate long-term staffing shortages. Over the course of Palo Alto Swim and Sport’s tenure with the City,
they have expanded pool hours and programming significantly, while maintaining overall high satisfaction
with the pool operations from our swimming community.
Performance highlights include:
• Increased year-over-year lap swim hours from 50.5 weekly hours to 72.75 weekly hours during
the non-summer season and from 71 to 75 hours during the summer season, without any
decrease in hours for other programming.
• Almost 28% more people have used the lap swim program than last year. To date, 14,760 people
have dropped into lap swim hours in 2019 as compared to 11,598 at this point in 2018.
• 29,667 people participated in the open swim program during 2019. This compares to 21,953 at
this point in 2018, a 35% increase year-over-year.
• The Swim Camp program has continued to expand; growing from 106 participants in 2017, to
354 in 2018, to 703 in 2019.
• The Swim School program served fewer students in 2019 than 2018, from 8,830 sessions in 2018
to 7,738 sessions in 2019. Palo Alto Swim and Sport believe that many former swim lesson
students have opted to enroll in swim camps instead of stand-alone swim lessons in the past
year.
2
• Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics (PASA) has maintained their youth swim team programming with 21
hours of Rinconada Pool use each week.
• The Rinconada Masters head coach, Carol MacPherson, announced her retirement from the
program after 47 years of coaching at Rinconada Pool. Her legacy and development of swim
programs in Palo Alto will be greatly missed. Palo Alto Swim and Sport is intently looking to uphold
the legacy of the Rinconada Masters as the program transitions to the new Palo Alto Masters.
City and Palo Alto Swim and Sport staff meet regularly to ensure that we continue to improve and enhance
aquatics programming. Together we are looking forward to growing in a variety of ways in 2020, including:
building an adult learn-to-swim program, ensuring consistency and high quality in swim instruction
through an extended-season swim instruction program, starting an in-water exercise program, and
growing the Masters program.
For additional reporting information, please review the attached Palo Alto Swim and Sport Annual Report.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Palo Alto Swim and Sport Annual Report 2019
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: LAM DO SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2019 SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PERFORMANCE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report. No action is recommended. BACKGROUND In October 2012, City Council awarded a contract to Golf Group, Ltd. (Forrest Richardson &
Associates) to design a reconfigured Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course and modified practice
facilities. In accordance with the renovation plan, Forrest Richardson designed an 18-hole course layout to conform to a Baylands setting. The reconfigured Golf Course design incorporated or modified existing low-lying areas, raised other areas to provide contours and course views, reduced the area of managed irrigated turf, and introduced areas for native vegetation and wetland habitat.
The project design was developed to achieve the following objectives:
• Creation of a golf course providing a more interesting layout for golfers of all levels, with enhanced wildlife habitat, improved wetland areas, and reduced usage of potable water, pesticides, and maintenance labor for turf and landscaping;
• Integration of a Baylands theme into the Golf Course with a links style course;
• Improvement of Golf Course playing conditions – turf, drainage, and irrigation;
• Mitigation for impacts on the Golf Course resulting from the adjacent San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority’s flood control expansion project; and
• Expansion of adjacent areas for future recreation needs.
After several delays in securing regulatory environmental permits, the Golf Course closed on July 1,
2016 for a full course renovation. During construction, the driving range, practice facilities, golf
shop, and restaurant remained open for business under three different operators. Prior to re-opening, the City issued a Request for Proposal to golf management companies and restaurants. After a review and interview process, OB Sports was selected to operate the course
entirely, inclusive of golf course play, course maintenance, practice facilities, merchandise sales, and
food and beverage services. Upon City Council approval of operating agreements with OB Sports, they began renovation projects to clubhouse facilities including the golf shop, restaurant, and patio. With course construction and facility renovations complete, the golf course re-opened on May 26, 2018 as the Baylands Golf Links.
DISCUSSION The selection of OB Sports to manage the golf course on the City’s behalf included assessment of
their management operations as well as financial performance projections. The City reviewed OB
Sports’ projections, compared them to pro formas prepared by the National Golf Foundation, and asked for an assessment by an established industry consultant.
When the golf course re-opened, green fees were established with a range to accommodate dynamic pricing, where green fees fluctuate based on time of day, day of week, and demand. Green fees are
also tiered with Palo Alto residency, Bay Area residency, and visitor rates. The combination of
dynamic pricing and tiered residency pricing has resulted in strong green fee revenue to support operating costs.
In Fiscal Year 2019, green fee revenue from course play and tournaments overachieved its financial pro-forma projection and budget. However, revenue from merchandise sales underachieved sales
targets. Numerous retail and online vendors competing for golf related merchandise sales remains
an alternative for players. Although green fee revenue overachieved, when considered in combination with low merchandise sales, overall revenue from golf operations ended FY 2019 at 6% under target. As OB Sports operates the Baylands Café under a lease, food and beverage revenue and expenses are not factored in the golf course’s operating budget.
Also, golf rounds played were below projected rounds. It was anticipated that rounds would be lower than ideal and ramp up over several years as either golfers return to the course after a two-year closure or new players discover the links style course unique to the region. Although 54,619 rounds played were lower than projected, it is higher than each of the three years prior to course closure.
The old golf course hosted a declining 46,527 rounds, 42,048 rounds, and 35,354 rounds in Fiscal
Years 2014, 2015, and 2016 respectively. With the new course, player residency consisted of 80% from Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Palo Alto residents were 27% of golf rounds played on the new course compared to about 13% on the prior course.
For the current Fiscal Year 2020, the overall revenue target was increased in alignment with prior
pro-formas. As the prior fiscal year resulted in strong green fee revenue this revenue category was increased while the revenue target for merchandise sales was decreased. Overall revenue is budgeted at $3.8M and expenses (including debt service) is budgeted at $3.6M. Through the first five months (July – November 2019) of FY 2020, overall golf revenue is tracking at approximately
11% behind. This will continue to be observed by staff and our golf course operator, OB Sports.
To promote more golf play and affinity to our course, a membership rewards and green fee discount program has been extended for a longer period with pricing discounted. This program is marketed as the Links Card. In addition, select tee-time slots are being discounted for non-members without the
Links Card.
The following two tables reflect golf rounds played, player residency, tee time utilization in comparison to capacity, and weekday versus weekend play for the current FY 2020. Weekend course play is at a high capacity, but weekday play is under-utilized. This reflects the lack of time
for players during weekdays and the difficulty in driving to and from the course due to congested
highway traffic on weekdays which is a common feedback from players.
`
Fiscal Year 2020 information in this report is based on available, but limited year to date data. It should not be viewed as performance results for the full year. There are opportunities to improve in
terms of increasing rounds played and merchandise sales. From a customer service perspective,
having a single operator (OB Sports) managing all aspects of course play, course maintenance, and food and beverage has resulted in a consistent player experience and service delivery at higher levels than before.
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: KRISTEN O’KANE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2019
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON CUBBERLEY ITEMS, INCLUDING: DRAFT CUBBERLEY CONCEPT PLAN; AND
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PALO ALTO UNIFED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff will provide a status update on the Draft Cubberley Concept Plan and the Cubberley lease
agreement with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
DISCUSSION
Cubberley Concept Plan
The Draft Cubberley Concept Plan is now available to review on the project website at
www.pausd.org/cubberleycodesign. Members of the public can submit their feedback or comments to:
cubberleycodesign@cityofpaloalto.org. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis of the
concept plan is currently underway. Staff anticipates bringing the Concept Plan and CEQA document to
the Parks and Recreation Commission in Spring 2020, and to City Council by June 2020 for adoption.
Cubberley Lease
On October 7, 2019, City Council directed staff to negotiate an agreement with PAUSD to continue leasing
Cubberley Community Center for an additional five years. The October 7th staff report (CMR # 10730)
provides background information on the current lease, which is due to expire on December 31, 2019.
The Council direction also approved a draft term sheet developed by City and PAUSD staff (Attachment
A). Prior to developing the draft term sheet, the City Manager and PAUSD Superintendent prepared pre-
negotiation principles based on the interests of both agencies in extending the lease. The principles are
included as Attachment A in CMR # 10730. The draft term sheet would extend the lease an additional
five years and cap the lease payment at the current amount for the duration of the five-year term. The
draft terms also include several milestones related to future development of Cubberley and adjacent
PAUSD–owned properties. One of the terms would result in a newly formed Ad Hoc committee consisting
of representative from both the City and PAUSD to coordinate each agency’s plans for their respective
properties.
City staff have prepared a draft lease agreement and it is now being reviewed by PAUSD. Staff anticipates
having a final executed agreement in place in February 2020. Until that time, the current lease will
continue month-to-month.
Attachment A: Draft Cubberley Lease Terms
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: LAM DO
SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2019
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FY 2021-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report. No action is recommended. BACKGROUND The FY 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan will guide the City in the planning
and scheduling of infrastructure improvement projects over the next five years. It is being
developed in coordination with all City departments responsible for capital projects. After the City Manager presents to the City Council a citywide Proposed FY 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review the CIP Plan in April or May 2020 to evaluate the program’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The PTC will then forward its recommendations to
the Finance Committee and City Council. Council adoption of the CIP Plan is anticipated in June 2020. The FY 2021-2025 Proposed Capital Budget will include the Capital Improvement Funds, Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds.
Every CIP has a project page that provides details regarding the project description, justification, significant changes, schedule, funding, budget source, and other details. The following is a sample of a project page for Hoover Park Improvements:
2
3
DISCUSSION In Fiscal Year 2020, improvement projects completed from CIP funding include replacement of
the Cubberley artificial turf field and track, repair of the Baylands sailing dock station, construction
of a new community garden, resurfacing of tennis courts at Rinconada Park, and construction of new pickleball courts and resurfacing of existing courts at Mitchell Park. This review and discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission is for CIPs proposed by
the Community Services Department. These CIPs are pending reviews by a citywide CIP
committee, the Office of Management and Budget, and the City Manager’s Office. The following are projects being proposed by the department for FY 2021:
The list above includes $835,000 for on-going annual projects consisting of trail and pond
maintenance, emergency repairs, court re-surfacing, and replacement or repair of benches, signage, fencing, walkways, and landscaping. In June 2020, Council will review and approve the FY 2021-2025 Capital Plan.
It should be noted that City Council only approves the budget for the first year of any five-year
CIP Plan and the remaining four years are to be used for forecasting and planning. Attachment A lists all projects the department has under consideration for the five-year CIP Plan. The attachment also includes a total by Fiscal Year and area of expenditure.
4
Funding The funding for CIP projects comes from a variety of different sources. The majority of CIPs are
funded through the General Fund. Projects that meet the criteria of Impact Fees (which include
amenities that increase the capacity of a park) may utilize Park Development Impact Fee funding (e.g. a new park restroom). Projects at the Cubberley Community Center may be able to use Cubberley Funds, which is an account that the City contributes funds which were previously paid to the Palo Alto School District under the Covenant not to Develop Agreement.
Prioritization
The method for prioritizing projects has evolved through the years. In the past staff applied a priority matrix and ranked projects based on the following criteria:
• Council Direction
• Leverage Funding (Private/Public/Grants/Impact Fees)
• Health and Safety Requirements
• Code/Legal Requirements
• Operational Needs and Efficiency
• Sustainability
• Community Priorities
• Revenue Generating Potential
Over the last several years, projects have been prioritized based on a combination of the criteria listed above, as well as feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and addressing Catch-up/Keep-up projects as a priority. Catch-up and Keep-up are terms used by the City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee that evaluated the
City’s infrastructure in 2011. Catch-up projects are ones that were identified previously as a
priority need for repair or replacement but were never implemented. Erosion repairs to Buckeye Creek is a good example of a Catch-up project because it was identified many years ago as a need, but wasn’t addressed. Keep-up projects are the ones that are forecasted to be necessary for repair or replacement in a coming year. A good example of a Keep-up project would be replacement of
park amenities that will have reached the end of its anticipated useful life such as the sample
Hoover Park Improvements project. CIP Process Timeline
• October/November: Staff begin planning for the next capital budget and meet with the
Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee to discuss prioritizing the projects.
• December/January: Staff submit the department’s proposed five-year capital improvement projects to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Administrative Services
Department.
• February/March: OMB reviews all departments and makes recommendations.
• April: City Manager reviews and presents to City Council a Proposed FY 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Program Plan.
5
• April/May: Planning and Transportation Commission reviews the Capital Plan to ensure
the projects comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
• May: Finance Committee reviews capital plan.
• June: City Council reviews and adopts capital plan and budget.
Attachments Attachment A: CSD Proposed CIP projects FY 2021-2025
AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS STAFF
LIAISON 12/10 STATUS UPDATE
Baylands 10.5 Acres Cribbs
LaMere
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson
Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan (BCCP)Moss
McDougall
Reckdahl
Daren
Anderson
Horizontal Levee Pilot and CEQA are being planned. Baylands Signage along the proposed "Friendship Trail"
heard public commentary on Dec 5th. Salt Removal Plant project approved inside the existing bounds of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
CIP Input Moss
McDougall
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Cubberley Master Plan Moss
McDougall
Greenfield
Kristen
O'Kane Met with Kristen to discuss Cubberley project plan and presentation to full commission
Foothills Park Greenfield
LaMere
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Parks Staff held community meeting on Nov. 16th to review 7.7 acres conservation and restoration plan.
Committee has reviewed feedback and staff will advance planning to return to the PRC with a final
recommendation.
Park & Facility Use Policy Cribbs
Greenfield
Reckdahl
Adam
Howard Discussed Pickleball PA residency and Banner policy with Adam. Banner policy will be periodically
communicated to permit holders.
Park Amenities Cribbs
McDougall
Daren
Anderson
Park Dedication Greenfield
McCauley
Kristen
O'Kane
Park Rules & Regulations Greenfield
McCauley
Daren
Anderson
Met with CSD staff and garden liaisons to review revised Community Garden rules/standards. Based on the
PRC's review and input some revisions are being madeto the document and will be coming back to the
Commission for a final review.
Recreation Opportunities Cribbs
LaMere
Reckdahl
Kristen
O'Kane
Urban Forestry
Reckdahl
Greenfield
McDougall
Daren
Anderson
CSD & UF staff will meet next week with Ad Hoc to begin clarify guidelines for our new
working relationship. Hetch Hetchy Bike path Tree Trimming plan sparks community meeting of 40
people to hear options. Work has now begun. (Moss)
2019 LIAISON & OUTREACH – PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
LIAISON & OUTREACH MEMBERS STAFF /
CONTACT 12/10 STATUS UPDATE
Aquatics Cribbs Jazmin
LeBlanc
Community Gardens Greenfield Catherine
Bourquin
Met with Community Gardens liaisons and staff to discuss the new Garden Rules. Updates are in progress.
Friends of Foothills Park McDougall
Friends of PA Parks McDougall
Funding McDougall Kristen
O'Kane
GSI Moss It was discussed with city staff putting Recycled Water Project and Green Stormwater Initiative on a near future
agenda
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 Met with CSD and Transportation staff to discuss a Safe Routes to Parks (SRTP) grant opportunity and
how to pursue at SRTP map, route and parking assessment, and planning for next-gen (e.g. e-bike,
cargo bike, scooter) parking.Stanford LaMere
McCauley
Turf Management Greenfield Daren
Anderson A follow up meeting with staff, Palo Alto Little League, and Commissioner Reckdahl, is being scheduled
to further discuss potential solutions to support a 54/80 baseball field.Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Reckdahl
Youth Council Cribbs
2019 AD HOC COMMITTEES – PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION