HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-23 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.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 23, 2021
AGENDA
7pm
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070.
********BY VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ONLY*******
Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued
on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by
virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast
on Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who
wish to participate by computer or phone can find the instructions at the end of this
agenda. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or
connecting online 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on.
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1(669)900-6833
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 February 11, 2021 Special Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting – Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2.Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 23, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
3.Foothills Park Policies – Daren Anderson – Action (120 min) ATTACHMENT
4.Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Update – Chair – Discussion (10 min)
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR April 27, 2021 MEETING
VII.COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC LETTERS
ADA. 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.
Public Comment Instructions
Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference
meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.
1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to
ParkRec.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, click on the link below
to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions
carefully.
A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser.
If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date
browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet
Explorer.
B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request
that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be
used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.”
The Staff Assistant will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers
will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.
3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through
the teleconference meeting. To address the Commission, download the Zoom
application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and
enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above.
4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed
below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so
we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and
last name before addressing the Commission. You will be advised how long
you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item
and time limit allotted.
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone:1(669)900-6833
March 23, 2021
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
February 11, 2021 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, David Moss, Jackie 12
Olson, Keith Reckdahl, Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Member Kou 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do 16
I. ROLL CALL 17
Chair Cribbs: Good evening, everybody, Council Members, Council Member Kou and 18
Commissioners and staff. Welcome to the special meeting of February 11, 2021, of the 19
Park and Recreation Commission. It’s nice see everybody. Thank you so much for making 20
time for this special meeting. 21
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 22
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23
Chair Cribbs: Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on something 24
not on the agenda tonight? 25
Mr. Do: Chair Cribbs, I’m seeing no hands raised. 26
Chair Cribbs: Good, because I didn’t see any hands raised, either. I was looking, so thank 27
you very much for that. 28
IV. BUSINESS 29
1. Foothills Park Annual Pass and Visitor Capacity Limit 30
Chair Cribbs: Daren, do you have a staff report? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Mr. Anderson: I do, Chair. Thanks very much. We’re here tonight to talk about Foothills 1
Park and the visitor limit and the annual pass option. On February 1, 2021, City Council 2
approved an ordinance for a $6 per vehicle entry fee and a visitor limit of 400 people, not 3
to exceed 500, at any one time in the park, and an At Places memo explained to Council 4
that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be holding this special meeting to 5
discuss these issues – visitor capacity and the annual pass. Staff looked at a range of 6
different annual pass options, based on our neighboring county parks as the main model. 7
The main ones we explored were the $65 to $80 annual pass for non-Palo Alto residents, 8
with a 25-percent discount for either seniors or low income, and a $50 to $60 annual pass 9
for Palo Alto residents, with the same discount. Staff met with the Foothills Park Ad Hoc 10
Committee on February 2nd to discuss these matters, and the Committee recommends 11
providing a 25-percent discount on the annual pass in addition to the two that I already 12
mentioned, being the seniors and people who qualify as low income, but also to active 13
military personnel and veterans. The Committee also felt that the upper range of the annual 14
pass price and structure, the $80 for non-residents, is too high of an expense, given that 15
this annual pass is only good for one park; whereas the models that we had been looking 16
at, of course, are for entire county of parks, or even wider for the state park examples. And, 17
that high price may deter people from coming and visiting the park. The Committee 18
recommends a $65 annual pass for non-Palo Alto residents, and you can see the 25-percent 19
discount for the groups we just discussed, and a $50 annual pass for the Palo Alto residents 20
with a corresponding 25-discount for the groups we talked about. The Committee had 21
shared with me that the feeling was that this pricing structure is reasonable and would help 22
incentivize the purchase of annual passes, which would create a little more efficient 23
process of vehicles entering into the preserve. This list is details on how the annual pass 24
would be managed. It’s, again, based on policies that I borrowed from California State 25
Parks and Santa Clara and San Mateo County Parks, the idea being that this annual pass 26
may be used within a household for up to two passenger vehicles with a capacity of nine 27
people or less, and anyone in the household of this pass-holder could use the pass, although 28
it must be in those two identified vehicles. The vehicle license numbers would be printed 29
on the pass, and the annual pass would be displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard where it’s 30
visible. Annual pass would be valid for one year from the date of purchase, so if you 31
purchased it anytime in February, it would be good until the end of February the following 32
year. The annual pass would be nonrefundable, and if you lost or was stolen, you’d have 33
to purchase a new one. An annual pass would be valid any day of the week and holidays 34
if space is available. Now, there would be no priority given to passholders, and you’re not 35
assured of entry, meaning if were at capacity when a passholder showed up, there’s no 36
special exemption that would let you in when the park is full. The pass is not valid for 37
resale or commercial use and should not be assigned for profit, and it’s void if it’s misused. 38
The pass is valid unless it’s revoked, and it cannot be used in connection with other passes 39
and/or discounts, nor can it be copied or altered in any way. All sales are final – no refunds, 40
replacement or exchanges would be made for any reason. Annual passes would be 41
available online and over the phone, at least to begin with. Staff is certainly already 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
exploring and looking at options to expand, where people could more easily get it, but 1
there are some challenges right now, of course, with COVID, that make it a little more 2
challenging. We’re still figuring out the entrance station operation, where we wouldn’t 3
want to clog it up with people stopping and filling out lengthy forms, but we will certainly 4
be working on that to try to make it as easy as possible. The timeline for implementing 5
these fees – we’re aiming for February 27th as the beginning for collecting fees on 6
weekends and holidays, and we believe we can have the annual pass set up by that time, 7
so people can purchase it online or, again, on the phone. The turnaround time is relatively 8
quick. We’d be running this through our Civic Rec program. This is the Recreation system 9
for reservations. It’s got a lot of power and capabilities, including printing the cards 10
ourselves, which is really helpful. They told me the turnaround time is really quick, so if 11
you did it online or via the phone they could mail it out, sometimes the same day, so you’d 12
get it two to three days. So, we’re hoping for a fairly quick turnaround. Again, the weekday 13
collection would begin later in the spring. We’re still working on some of those scenarios. 14
For the visitor limit, on February 1st Council had set that visitor limit, as I mentioned, to 15
400 to 500 at any one time. Again, the City Manager is authorized to adjust the limit within 16
that range. The 400-person or 160-vehicle limit was used on Tuesday, February 2nd 17
through Saturday, February 6th. I just wanted to share a little bit about what that experience 18
was like up at the park. The park on that Saturday closed three times, due to reaching 19
capacity, and the visitation was still relatively high relative to previous years, with over 20
1,000 visitors for the day. We had shared the feedback with the City Manager that evening, 21
and the following day, and he agreed to raise the limit to 500 people – approximately 200 22
vehicles, 500 people – and on that Sunday we again reached capacity three times. The 23
Rangers did note that that limit of 200 vehicles/500 people seemed to work a little bit better 24
than that lower limit the previous day in terms of not unnecessarily turning people away. 25
They noted that there weren’t any problems parking in the preserve and at no point did it 26
feel overcrowded from their perspective, with a big grain of salt that this is one day at that 27
rate. I want to make a note, I made a mistake on the February 11th staff report regarding 28
the Ad Hoc Committee’s feedback on the visitor limit. I omitted some information that I 29
put in at the At Places memo. Just to clarify, the Ad Hoc Committee supports a Foothills 30
Park visitor limit that does not exceed 650 people, or 260 vehicles, at any one time, again 31
with the authority for the City Manager to adjust the limit lower as necessary. The Ad Hoc 32
Committee also suggested that 500 people or 200 vehicles would be an appropriate starting 33
place for the visitor limit while staff experiment and learn about what the most appropriate 34
limit should be. I also want it noted that I had a conversation with the City Attorney’s 35
Office regarding the visitor limit. The Attorney offered a suggestion in terms of the policy 36
perspective, that the Commission may want to consider a lower limit range in addition to 37
that “do not exceed” limit, so that the City Manager doesn’t have too much discretion and 38
authority over the visitor limit. This would not preclude the City Manager or the 39
Department Head from closing the preserve when necessary for hazards or public safety, 40
like we did during the early days of the pandemic and the wildfire. Staff will return to City 41
Council on February 22nd with any recommendations that the Commission makes this 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
evening, and this lays out the rest of the timeframe. For example, on the 22nd, the City 1
Council, if they take action and pass an emergency ordinance, it would be effective 2
immediately, and if it was a regular ordinance, it wouldn’t be effective until April 8th. 3
When we take up this discussion again, as we plan to February 23rd as the Parks and 4
Recreation Commission discussing Foothills Park, that will be discussion only, and then 5
we’re planning on there being an action recommendation on March 23rd. That would go to 6
Council, most likely the earliest would be May 3rd, and you can see the relative dates for 7
when effective actions will take place. Chair, that concludes the staff presentation. 8
Chair Cribbs: Great. Thank you very much, Daren. I really appreciate that. What I’d like 9
to do now is to, before we go to any members of the public, is to see if any of the 10
Commissioners or Council Member Kou have a clarifying question for Daren, not a 11
comment, but just a question to clarify anything that he said. So, Commissioners, anybody 12
have a question? 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have just a clarification. Was it the City Attorney that said that 14
she wanted a lower limit? 15
Mr. Anderson: No. It was the City Attorney’s Office, not the City Attorney herself, and it 16
was just a suggestion that we may want to consider having a lower limit, meaning that 17
we’ve got a range, essentially so there’s just not too much discretion for the City Manager 18
to go all the way to 100-visitor limit, for example. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now, who makes that final decision? Is it you? 20
Mr. Anderson: No. It’s the City Manager with consultation with the Department Head, and 21
I will provide insight. 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: And the Department Head is you? 23
Mr. Anderson: No, that’s Kristen. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: Kristen, okay. 25
Mr. Anderson: O’Kane, yes. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, we’ll talk later about this. 27
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you. David, did you have a question? 28
Commissioner Moss: No, I just wanted to get a copy of the report via email later. 29
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Thank you. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Commissioner Moss: Of the summary. 1
Chair Cribbs: I don’t see any other questions from Commissioners at this point so Lam, 2
do you have any public – 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: I have a question. 4
Chair Cribbs: I’m sorry. Do you have your hand up? Okay. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, just a quick question on the annual pass and the two license 6
plates associated with the pass. Is it possible for those to get changed? If someone has a 7
pass, and they get a new car, they get a new license? 8
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, I think, especially because we’re making them in-house there’s 9
probably a lot of discretion for us to make adjustments. This starter language I borrowed 10
for the methodology of how to manage them, largely taken, as I mentioned, from these 11
other agencies, and I assume because they’re longstanding and they’ve worked well. But 12
I think there is certainly possibility for doing things like that, especially since it will be all 13
managed in-house. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you, that was all. 15
Chair Cribbs: I think the way we have our two meetings set up, there will be time in the 16
meeting on the 23rd to bring up all of those other questions as well, so that will be good. 17
Now, I don’t see…oh, I do see three hands, so let’s go to the members of the public. Lam? 18
Mr. Do: Yes, and Chair before we do, I think you were going to comment on the time 19
limit.. 20
Chair Cribbs: Oh, yes I was. Thank you. We ask that each member of the public speak for 21
two minutes, please. 22
Mr. Do: Thank you, Chair. Our first speaker will be Hamilton Hitchings [phonetic], to be 23
followed by Carlin Otto. 24
Mr. Hitchings: Hi. I’ve been a resident for 25 years, just put our daughter all the way 25
through high school. My wife and I use the park. We’ve used it before and after. Before it 26
was opened up, a lot of times you’d see turkeys walking around, lots of deer. I haven’t 27
seen any wildlife. I saw wildlife the very first day it was opening, at 10:00 in the morning, 28
but I haven’t seen any deer or turkeys since. I’m sure there’s still deer around someone. 29
And we do go back in the hills, on the trails as well, not just in the main concrete loop. It’s 30
really sad that the wildlife has been scared away. I mean, I think it’s great that the park is 31
open, and that’s a road we’re not going to go back on, but I do think that if you want any 32
wildlife there, and if you want a preserve, you really need to keep the number low. I’m 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
really disappointed that the number proposed goes all the way up to 650. I think that’s way 1
too high. I’d like to see a number around 400 at a time. Four hundred is still quite a lot. 2
Now, I know that you guys are getting a lot of different perspectives, and mine is just one. 3
What I would suggest that might make your life a little easier is you could say 500 on the 4
weekend and 400 during the week. That’s at one time. Remember, when there’s 500, that’s 5
500 at one time, so they’re letting in a lot more people than that during the day. But I really 6
encourage you not to go above 500. Yeah, I mean 650 is just way too high. That’s my 7
comments, and again, thank you for listening and thank you for having discourse on this 8
subject. 9
Mr. Do: Thank you, Hamilton. Our next speaker will be Carlin Otto. 10
Ms. Otto: I’m a long-term resident of Palo Alto. I adore Foothills Park. I can’t tell you 11
how much it means to me, and it has broken my heart the last few months. I mean, truly 12
broken my heart. So, I am going to plead with you to let the limit stay at 400. This idea of 13
650 is just awful. The park cannot sustain that number of people. I would encourage you, 14
I beg you, to ask experts, to rather than driving with no headlights- we’re all driving blind 15
– to find experts to tell us what this nature preserve can sustain. And I would almost 16
guarantee you, their number is going to be 400 or less. You are ruining this park by 17
allowing so many people in. I am ecstatic that we have a wider range of people who can 18
enjoy it, but please, let’s not destroy it. So, 400. I’ll repeat this. I’ve said it so many millions 19
of times – 416 is the 17- or 20-year average. Anything over that will change the park. Five 20
hundred is too many. Please, leave the number low. Encourage the City to keep the number 21
low, so people can enjoy a nature preserve. It’s not the number of people that matter. It’s 22
the quality that each person enjoys. 23
Mr. Do: Thank you, Carlin. Our next speaker is Aram James. 24
Mr. James: Thank you very much. I did send you all the naming city-owned land and 25
facility policy statement revised in 2008. Fortunately, the City Manager has some 26
independent ability to name portions of the park after people, even if you all stonewall and 27
don’t even discuss, which I think is disgusting. You all look kind of like me. I’m a half-28
Jewish guy, white skin, and there’s some implicit bias going on here that you don’t even 29
want to talk about naming the park after LaDoris Cordell. And I’ve got a couple of other 30
women in mind as well. But you know, it’s shameful. You need to look at yourselves and 31
say, “You know what? Maybe we need some implicit bias training.” I’m not, of course, 32
including Lydia Kou, because she’s not on the Commission. She’s a woman of color. But 33
thankfully, you all don’t get to make the final decision anyway. All you get to do is 34
recommend it to the Council, and there’s a lot of people that feel that you all are just not 35
doing your job. You’re just afraid to admit there’s some bias going on here. Some bias 36
going in. I know I’m not going to change your minds, because you’re…There’s some 37
people that have an opinion, and there’s other people that are their opinion, and you simply 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
are your opinion, so nothing I say can make a difference to point out how biased you all 1
are to not even have the discussion about naming this park after extraordinary LaDoris 2
Cordell. Or, we can name it after a person who combines an amazing history herself after 3
a flower and a bird. You think about that for a second. I’ll bring up that controversial 4
woman next time. And there’s another woman who has a nexus to the City and spent a lot 5
of time in the county jail here at one time, who is an extraordinary person that the park 6
could be named after, but you all don’t even want to have that conversation. That’s 7
disgusting. That’s not being democratic. Let’s do something different here, folks. 8
Mr. Do: Thank you, Aram. 9
Mr. James. You’re welcome. 10
Mr. Do: Chair Cribbs, that concludes speaker requests. 11
Vice Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much. I appreciate it, and thank you to all the public 12
speakers. Let’s now go to discussion. I think we’ll start with the Ad Hoc committee. 13
Jackie? 14
Commissioner Olson: I’m in support of all the recommendations that Daren put forth. 15
We’ve discussed it at length. I think they are reflective of all the Ad Hoc comments, to my 16
knowledge. 17
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, and Jeff? 18
Commission LaMere: As Jackie said, as a member of the Ad Hoc, we have discussed this 19
with Daren and given our input. As we go through this I would just like to note that we 20
always want to keep in mind how we best serve the underserved communities, which is 21
one of the reasons we pushed to open the park, so I think that’s extremely important to 22
note as we go through this discussion of park limits and fees. In addition, just keeping in 23
mind how we best serve our school children in our community and in neighboring 24
communities, and it think those are two key points to keep in mind as we balance the use 25
of the park, how open it is, the fees, and then balancing that with keeping a nature preserve. 26
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jeff. Very well-said. I’m glad you mentioned the people that we 27
serve. I think what I’d like to do is ask the Commissioners to first discuss the annual pass 28
and what Daren reported about the staff thinking about the annual pass. Let’s have a good 29
discussion about the annual pass, and then we can move on to the entrance limit. We have 30
two things to do tonight, and that’s to take action on both of those, and give the Council 31
the benefit of what we’re thinking. So, if we could talk about the annual pass first. Daren, 32
could you get that up on the screen again, so the Commissioners can see the details? There 33
we go. Okay, so I’ll just start that off. As a member of the Ad Hoc Committee as well, I 34
wanted to see if we could bring down the price of the annual pass and start it at the $50 to 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
$65 annual pass for non-Palo Alto residents and then bring it down to $49. And then, the 1
$50 for Palo Alto residents and $38 for seniors and low income and active military. I’d 2
like to ask other Commissioners how you feel about those fees, and I’m assuming that 3
everybody is very much in favor of an annual pass, so that kind of goes without saying. 4
Anybody want to go ahead, or should I just call on people? 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: For the low income, how do people qualify for low income? 6
Mr. Anderson: It’s HUD-based, Santa Clara County HUD definition. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: And we use that already in recreation? 8
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: The same criteria that we use? 10
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: And do you know what that is, roughly? 12
Mr. Anderson: No, I don’t. Lam, do you happen to have any information on that? If not, I 13
could certainly bring it to you next time. 14
Mr. Do: I can pull it up. Give me about 30 seconds and then, when appropriate, I’ll share 15
my screen. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it makes sense to be consistent with what we have for 17
recreation for just simplicity, but I’m curious where we get that break. 18
Mr. Anderson: Do you have any other questions we should hit while Lam searches for that 19
number for you? 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: I guess there’s two payment issues. If people call in and order 21
by phone, they can just use a credit card? 22
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, and then at the gate, are we going to be just taking cash, 24
or are we also taking credit cards at the gate? 25
Mr. Anderson: We’ll take both cash and credit card at the entrance. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. That’s good. There’s a couple of reasons for that. One is 27
it will be easier for change purposes. It also may be quicker if the process of swiping may 28
be faster than having to deal with change, so it’ll be both a convenience issue for you, 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
convenience in not having to stock so much cash, and also getting people through there as 1
quickly as possible. 2
Chair Cribbs: Anything else, Keith? 3
Mr. Do: Chair Cribbs, I have the information available if I can share my screen, and Daren, 4
if you could unshare, please. 5
Chair Cribbs: Of course, good. 6
Mr. Do: Okay, I believe my screen is sharing, and it should show a webpage with two 7
tables. This is the City’s fee reduction application. Currently this is used for recreation 8
programs, and it is based on other counties’ Housing and Urban Development Guidelines. 9
It depends on how many people are in the household and what income level, so we would 10
focus on what I’m circling here, the 25-percent discount and the income level respective 11
to each household size. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: So why wouldn’t we just mimic what we do for recreation and 13
also give a 50-percent discount if you’re super low income? 14
Mr. Anderson: We certainly can. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: I mean, that makes it more complicated, but it also makes it more 16
equitable, so it’s a tradeoff there. What do other Commissioners think? 17
Chair Cribbs: Keith, what are you suggesting again? My screen went blank for a second. 18
Could you just repeat? Thank you. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now, we just are proposing a 25-percent discount for low 20
income. For Recreation, we currently offer 25-percent discount at one income level and a 21
50-percent discount at a lower income level. The question is, do we want to consider a 50-22
percent discount, or do you want to just keep it simple and have a 25-percent discount? 23
Commissioner Moss: I would rather allow 50 percent, and I would like it so that it uses 24
the exact same scheme that you have today, so there’s no additional technology changes, 25
such that nobody at the front gate needs to know how much someone paid for the annual 26
pass. So, all of this information is strictly behind the scenes, and as you can see below, 27
how you have to qualify yourself. But I think that it would be so much simpler, technology-28
wise to just do the same scheme. 29
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, David. Other thoughts from other Commissioners about this 30
point? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Commissioner Olson: I would be supportive of adding that 50 percent as well. I wasn’t 1
aware of this differential. I think that would be a great addition, and since these are only 2
available online anyway, I don’t think it adds to the administrative burden that we see at 3
the gate. 4
Commission LaMere: I’m in agreement with my fellow Commissioners on adding the 50-5
percent discount. 6
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Mandy? 7
Commissioner Brown: I also agree. Thank you. 8
Chair Cribbs: Vice Chair? 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, I agree that supporting the two levels of discounting makes a 10
lot of sense for consistency with what we’re doing in the City already for related programs. 11
I do have concerns about the numbers that we end up with when the discounts aren’t round 12
numbers, like the difference in the…The resident annual pass becomes $50, but the non-13
resident discounted rate is $48.50, or whatever it is. It seems like getting to numbers like 14
that makes it more complicated at the entrance gate. I would be in favor of rounding to 15
multiples of $5, particularly if the annual passes will be available at the entrance gate. And 16
I’m thinking this more in mind with the discounts for seniors, discounts for active military 17
as well. I’d actually propose a similar discount for City of Palo Alto staff, but I’m just 18
worried about the complexity of the numbers. It seems like we had three numbers - $65, 19
$50 and $40 for the different tiers and then we’d need to be adding something else for the 20
50-percent discount, which I support, but if we can simplify them, I’m in favor of that. 21
Commissioner Moss: This is why I wanted to have it behind the scenes and not be able to 22
buy it at the kiosk, but you have to go through the normal process and really you can’t tell 23
by looking at somebody how much they paid, and whether or not it was more or less than 24
what someone else is paying in the next car or behind you. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: I appreciate the concern in terms of the privacy aspect. I think that 26
once you purchase your annual pass they all look the same. I think that, from a convenience 27
standpoint, the community, both residents and non-residents, would have a strong 28
preference to be able to purchase an annual pass at the entrance kiosk. And if you’re not 29
able to, maybe you don’t even know that an annual pass is available. For example, if there 30
are seniors that are going up, they show I.D. showing that they’re over 60 years old, then 31
they can purchase an annual pass at the discounted rate. I think the low income discount, 32
where you’re going to have to show some documentation to qualify - 33
Commissioner Moss: That’s what I was concerned about. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s a little bit different. 1
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, as far as seniors, if they can prove it very quickly, then yeah, 2
there’s not many choices, so it would be easy to do that one at the kiosk. 3
Chair Cribbs: It seems like there’s a couple of questions going on. We started this to talk 4
about what the eligibility was for low income, and everybody seemed to be in agreement. 5
Tell me if I’m incorrect with the 50 percent for a higher size of household. I think there’s 6
agreement on that. Daren, are you keeping a list here? 7
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 8
Chair Cribbs: Good, okay. Then we started talking about the differences of the discount 9
and the numbers and the pricing and all of that, and it seems to me that those are good 10
points but that’s a staff situation that the staff should be able to come back and say, “Here’s 11
what we think the numbers should be, and this is what we can manage at the gate.” So 12
that’s another question. Does that make sense to you Daren? I’m bringing up Vice Chair’s 13
point about the differences in the figures. 14
Mr. Anderson: I’m sorry. I’m a little - 15
Chair Cribbs: That’s okay. Jeff, maybe you can go back and explain what you were talking 16
about. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sure, and share that the way I heard you phrase the question, it 18
sounded, to Daren, are you asking him if staff should be setting the price levels or should 19
the Commission be doing that? I’m not sure if that’s – 20
Chair Cribbs: No, I was asking Daren if the staff could figure out what would follow what 21
your recommendation was. That’s all. Not the staff setting the pricing. So why don’t you 22
reiterate what you said, and then we’ll figure it out. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sure. Let me reiterate, taking into consideration what everyone is 24
saying, I think. It seems like maybe it would be best to be talking about two different types 25
of discounts. We’d consider the low income discount separately, and this would be 25 or 26
50 percent of the regular annual pass rate, and it would only be available through a staff 27
office. It wouldn’t be available at the entrance station. And then for the other more 28
straightforward qualifications for a reduced rate – seniors 60 and above, active military 29
and veterans, and Palo Alto employees, as I’m suggesting – that seems straightforward 30
enough that we would want to be able to support that at the entrance gate once staff is able 31
to accommodate the creation of the annual passes at the entrance gate. For those passes, 32
we might want to have simpler numbers that are easier for the gate to deal with. Does that 33
make sense? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Chair Cribbs: It makes sense to keep it simple, for sure, so that’s a good start. Daren, does 1
that make sense to you? 2
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, I think this is a good one for staff to work out. We’ve got a number 3
of other logistical challenges that I mentioned with selling the annual passes at the entrance 4
that I think we’ve got to navigate through first, but I’ll certainly keep that in mind. That 5
will be the long-term thing we strive for, is making it simple as possible for people to a) 6
know about the annual pass, and of course, b) to purchase them. But in the beginning it’s 7
going to be online or over the phone only, and then we’ll transfer as quickly as we can to 8
a different and easier situation. 9
Chair Cribbs: I guess I was hopeful that we would sell the annual passes either by phone 10
or online and not have to do that at the front gate after we’ve publicized the fact that they 11
are available. 12
Commissioner Moss: And if you do go at the annual pass at the gate, that there are limited 13
options for how you pay for it and what you can get. I think that’s what staff can work out 14
is, what are the options that they can do at the front gate? If you’re a non-resident and 15
you’re not a senior, it should be a no-brainer, so that’s what you can work out, is what 16
options you can do at the gate and what options you can’t do at the gate. 17
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you. Council Member Kou, do you have any comments about 18
the annual pass and the pricing that we’ve been discussing? 19
Council Member Kou: No, not at all. Thank you.. 20
Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much. 21
Commissioner Olson: Chair, one more comment from me. I think my preference would 22
also be to not sell the annual pass at the gate, but if we do entertain that idea, I don’t think 23
we can treat any group of people differently. I understand the intent is good, but that still 24
would be seen, I think, as treating a group or a class of people differently. 25
Chair Cribbs: Yes, very good point. Thank you. 26
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me. I’m wondering if Daren could comment on what the 27
process is right now for people to qualify for the low income discount for other programs. 28
Mr. Anderson: The process for the low income discount? 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Mr. Anderson: That’s the screen Lam shared. There is information that they would provide 1
online, and so this online system that I’m mentioning, Recreation staff already uses it and 2
has assured me they’d be able to have submit everything they needed to online to qualify. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s an application process and then it’s reviewed by staff? 4
Mr. Anderson: That’s right. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: This is very different from…It seems reasonable that this wouldn’t 6
be possible to do at the entrance station. 7
Mr. Anderson: I don’t think so, for a number of reasons, not just that. As people come in, 8
there’s no place for them to wait to fill out lengthy forms. It’s just far more challenging. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. Just one last point I’d add. I kind of feel like if we’re 10
not offering the annual passes at the entrance station that, to me it’s a little bit of an 11
exclusivity factor, where we’re less inclusive of people who don’t live in the area that want 12
to get an annual pass. It just seems like we’re making it more difficult to acquire an annual 13
pass. 14
Ms. O’Kane: One thing we talked about, Commissioner Greenfield, I was allowing 15
someone to pay the $6 – assuming the entry fee is $6 – pay that amount when they enter 16
and then if they want the annual pass, they can go potentially to the interpretive center, or 17
make a phone call and buy the annual pass and have that $6 reduced from the annual pass 18
fee. So, they would be able to get into the park that day and potentially resolve it 19
immediately by just going to the interpretive center, or possibly online or one of the 20
community centers when they’re open. So, that’s sort of what we’re thinking and what’s 21
modeled after what other parks do, as well. 22
Chair Cribbs: I really like that, having the opportunity to do that once you’re there, to pay 23
the $6 and then the opportunity to buy an annual pass, and I guess the only thing to work 24
out is if somebody were buying the annual pass using this verification we’re looking at, 25
then that may get a little tricky. But that’s great that you’re thinking about that and in the 26
perspective, “Welcome to Foothills Park,” there can be the information about the annual 27
pass as well. Thank you for that. 28
Commission LaMere: Chair, I have one clarifying question for Daren or Kristen. The fee 29
reduction program and form, that would show up if they had already applied for that for, 30
say, sending their child to camp. They wouldn’t have to then subsequently fill out the form 31
again and provide their tax forms and everything else that this form requires. Is that 32
correct? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. There is, however, Commission LaMere, a cap, I believe 1
$300 total, that you can use towards community service programs and discounts. 2
Commission LaMere: I would hope that this would not apply to the cap of Recreation 3
programs. It would be my preference that this would be a stand-alone discount. 4
Ms. Bourquin: Daren, may I say something? 5
Mr. Anderson: Thanks, yes. 6
Ms. Bourquin: The cap, basically, the $300 is for seniors with low income. It’s $150 for 7
other people, not being seniors. Those were the two caps. 8
Mr. Anderson: Thanks, Catherine. 9
Commissioner Moss: Is that cap something that staff manages, or does that have to go up 10
to the City Council if we wanted to increase it or not have this be tied to that. Because this 11
is half of that. 12
Mr. Anderson: This is all going to City Council for approval, so I think you could say what 13
you would like to do for this program. If you wanted to mirror Recreation it would look a 14
little different. If you want it to stand-alone and not be associated with the cap, I think 15
that’s possible. 16
Commissioner Moss: I wanted to avoid new technology and use the same scheme, but I’m 17
wondering if this would fly in the face of that. It doesn’t seem right, so the question is, can 18
that cap be increased at your discretion, or does that have to go up to the City Council? 19
Mr. Anderson: Well, the fees get approved, as you know, by Council. [gap in recording] 20
…and I imagine this discount would also [gap in recording] that would also need to be 21
approved by Council. 22
Chair Cribbs: Daren, could you start over again? I think you were frozen for just a little 23
bit, please. 24
Mr. Anderson: Sure, my apologies. 25
Chair Cribbs: That’s the world of Zoom. 26
Mr. Anderson: The world of Zoom. The fees are approved by Council, so if we wanted to 27
make a change to this system, it would have to go to Council for their approval, as I 28
understand it. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: That’s kind of moot, because this whole thing has to go to 1
Council, anyway, right? 2
Mr. Anderson: Yes, yes. It’s going to Council anyway, so whatever you put forward. It 3
can be separate from what we do for the other CSD programs if that’s what you would like 4
to recommend to Council. 5
Commissioner Moss: Then I would like to recommend what Jeff LaMere said, and that is 6
to have this not be part of that cap. 7
Chair Cribbs: What do the other Commissioners feel about that? 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. 9
Commissioner Brown: I agree. 10
Commissioner Olson: I agree. I think that cap is awfully low. I know that’s not a topic for 11
the agenda, but it seems very low. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: I support this as well. The only concern would be where the money 13
is coming from, but I think this is a different case, where we’re not talking about 14
Recreation programs that have an inherent cost with them. We’re just talking about a 15
discounted fee, so I support that. 16
Chair Cribbs: I think it is agreement from everybody. I definitely agree, so Daren, can we 17
include this in the motion? 18
Mr. Anderson: Yes. When we’re ready to do that I’m glad to make sure this is part of it. 19
Chair Cribbs: Okay, that’s great. So, it seems like we have agreement about the annual 20
pass, unless anybody has anything else to add. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: I have a follow-up question, too. Originally, there was a desire 22
to make this whole program self-sufficient, or revenue-neutral, so Daren, do we have an 23
estimate of how much Foothills Park is going to cost us? Is that going to affect our pricing 24
to try to make this revenue-neutral? 25
Mr. Anderson: There aren’t any scenarios that we’ve put forward that will break even to 26
the total cost of operating Foothills Park in this pricing scenario. The revenue-neutral was 27
associated with a pilot recommendation, and that’s when Council had provided that 28
guidance. That hasn’t been the case with the pricing scenario in their direction for this, of 29
opening the park. So, it’s two separate things, and to your question, no, it’s vastly short of 30
covering all our expenses. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Commissioner Moss: What about just the expenses associated with these additional 1
changes that we’ve made starting December 17th? 2
Mr. Anderson: I’m not able to break out any incremental increases in cost based on that. 3
Commissioner Moss: I have on more comment, Chair, and that is that I’m going to say 4
this a couple times tonight, but do we want to say in the annual pass that classes, work 5
parties, docents, volunteers, guided hikes and tours, in the future you may not have to pay 6
an entrance fee for some of those? That may help somebody decide if they want to get an 7
annual pass. If they would like to do things with partners that don’t require paying an 8
entrance fee, that may determine if they want to do an annual pass. I know we can’t come 9
up with details today, or even in the next couple months but by the end of the year when 10
the COVID restrictions are done, it could come up. 11
Chair Cribbs: Yes, I was going to respond and say I think that that discussion is for the 12
23rd and also the future when we have more data and COVID is gone. So, I think that it’s 13
certainly worthy of a discussion, but not tonight. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Chair, could I add that there already is a provision that volunteers 15
are allowed free access? That’s people coming into the park for service programs or for 16
docents, is part of what David is addressing. I just wanted to clarify; you were asking if 17
we’re in agreement on the annual pass? I suggest that – 18
Chair Cribbs: I’m asking to…I’m sorry. Go ahead. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: I suggested including the Palo Alto residents in the group that 20
would receive a discount. I was wondering if we could hear other Commissioners’ feelings 21
on that. 22
Commissioner Moss: And my point was just to put some wording in the annual pass 23
request form. That’s all. 24
Chair Cribbs: I guess the way I was thinking about it is that that would be a discussion that 25
we would have in two weeks, based on the worksheet that we’ve been looking at, so I 26
don’t know that we want to include it tonight. I’m anxious to get consensus about the 27
annual pass. Vice Chair, I’m not so sure that we want to expand to talk about volunteers. 28
That was part of the suggestion already. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: I wasn’t suggesting that we expand it. I was just pointing out that 30
that’s already the policy. 31
Chair Cribbs: Right, okay. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I do think there is an opportunity that we might want to weigh in 1
on matters a little bit deeper, including reviewing the entrance fee, since this is the first 2
opportunity that the Commissioners have had to weigh in on park matters officially since 3
November of 2019, and given that anything that we don’t address tonight isn’t going to 4
take effect until mid-June at the earliest, and knowing that this recommendation is getting 5
fast-tracked at City Council, I think there are some straightforward things that we can agree 6
that are appropriate to this, it’s incumbent on us, and actually it’s based on the direction 7
from City Council in their motion on the 19th, they were referring to the Parks and Rec 8
Commission and staff to return with consideration on fees, discounts and rules and 9
enforcement policies, and that was further emphasized in the At Places memo on the 1st. 10
So, I agree. We absolutely need to focus first on the annual pass and on the visitor limit, 11
but I think there’s a place for us to talk tonight about the entrance fee as well. 12
Chair Cribbs: Here’s what I’m suggesting. I would suggest that we focus on the annual 13
pass. I think we’ve got consensus there. Daren’s got a couple additional notes to move on; 14
that we then take up the limits on attendance and have a discussion about that, and then 15
look at the time and see how we’re doing. I’m very much aware that everybody’s been 16
asked to do another meeting in February, and we have a lot of time set aside for these 17
discussions on the February 23rd. If that’s okay with everybody, let’s go ahead and talk 18
about the limit. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Chair. Are we clear on what the fees will be for the 20
annual pass? I don’t think we had the opportunity to discuss that, and also I raised the 21
question of including the Palo Alto city employees within the group that receive a 22
discounted rate on the annual pass. 23
Chair Cribbs: Okay, I thought we were going to wait on the Palo Alto city employees until 24
we got information from both the Ad Hoc and also how other cities handle that. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: I would be interested in – 26
Chair Cribbs: I wasn’t aware we were going to talk about that tonight. We can go back and 27
we have the Ad Hoc feedback for the fees, so thanks for reminding me about that. I felt 28
like we had consensus on the annual pass, but now let’s talk about the fees, and let’s start 29
with Jackie again, with the fees for non-Palo Alto residents and then Palo Alto residents. 30
Jackie? 31
Commissioner Olson: Daren, perhaps we can flip to the slide that has the daily fee? 32
Mr. Anderson: The $6 daily fee? I just have the annual pass one. 33
Chair Cribbs: I’ve got the annual pass up now. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Commissioner Olson: Oh, okay, so we’re reviewing the annual pass fee? 1
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 2
Commissioner Olson: I think the Ad Hoc feedback captures what I think is the right fee 3
structure with the change for low income to have that additional layer. That, in my view, 4
is where I landed on that. 5
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, and Jeff? 6
Commission LaMere: I’m in favor of what is listed right there for Ad Hoc feedback with 7
the additional 50 percent addition for low income, and I’m in favor of the numbers that are 8
listed - $65 and $49, and $50 and $38. 9
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so this is the part that I thought we had agreement on that we were 10
going forward with, so thank you for that. Keith, do you have additional comments? 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I overall am happy with this. I can see Jeff’s point, 12
rounding that $49 to $50 and $38 to $40 might make more sense, or might be easier. People 13
deal with round numbers better, but I don’t feel strongly about that either way. 14
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Mandy? 15
Commissioner Brown: I agree with everything that the Commissioners have said, with the 16
additional discount to be in accordance with the other fee reduction programs. 17
Chair Cribbs: Thanks. David? 18
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, same thing. I agree. 19
Chair Cribbs: Great, and Vice Chair. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: I can go along with this, and I agree. I think the additional discount 21
rate for low income. 22
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so Daren has that in his notes, so I would recommend that we set this 23
aside, because I’d like to put both of the subjects in the same motion when we get to a 24
motion. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Chair. I would like to understand why we wouldn’t be 26
able to consider a different group to qualify for a reduced rate without even hearing how 27
the other Commissioners feel about that. To me, it feels reasonable to discuss this when 28
we’re talking about the annual pass We’re talking about the suggestions for groups for a 29
reduced rate that the Ad Hoc recommended, but just because the Ad Hoc didn’t 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
recommend it doesn’t seem like it’s a reason that the Commission shouldn’t be able to 1
consider it. 2
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well, let’s then consider it. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: And if it doesn’t go anywhere, that’s fine. 4
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well I would just start off by saying that I would like more information 5
before I recommend a decision on that one way or another, so I would like to wait until 6
we do a little bit more research. Keith, thoughts? 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Everyone I work with in the City, no one lives in Palo Alto, so 8
this is really their employer, so to me, I would think it would be appropriate for their 9
employer to give them a discount so I would want with the employees in there. 10
Chair Cribbs: That’s a really good perspective. Thank you for that. I appreciate that. That’s 11
the kind of research, even though it’s anecdotal, that I was interested in hearing, so thank 12
you. David? 13
Commissioner Moss: I’d be okay with adding that clause in there about city employees. 14
Chair Cribbs: Mandy? 15
Commissioner Brown: As a municipal employee myself, I understand why this would be 16
a nice thing for your employer to offer. I am supportive of it. I just ask Daren or Kristen 17
to speak. I’m sure the City gives discounts on other programs and things to city employees, 18
so this is consistent with their practices? 19
Mr. Anderson: I think so, yeah. I think that’s correct. 20
Ms. O’Kane: Yes, city employees, for example, have the same rate as residents when 21
they’re taking for example, a Recreation class or a summer camp. The employees are 22
considered in that fee structure in all our other reduced fees programs. 23
Chair Cribbs: So, to reiterate, whatever price the Palo Alto resident would pay, an 24
employee whose company is in the city would pay that same? Is that correct? 25
Ms. O’Kane: An employee that works…Maybe I missed the point of the conversation. I’m 26
thinking employee, so Daren and I and Lam are city employees. I’m not thinking of 27
employees of city companies who might live in a different town. 28
Chair Cribbs: So, what I heard Keith say was that everybody who works with him doesn’t 29
live in Palo Alto. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: No, everyone that I work with in my various city commissions 1
– everyone. We have a sample of three – Kristen, Daren and Lam. None of you live in 2
Palo Alto, correct? 3
Unidentified Speaker: Correct. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, I think it would be appropriate for their employer to give 5
them the same discount as they give city residents. So, the City of Palo Alto should give 6
the employees of the City of Palo Alto the same discount that the City gives to residents. 7
That was my point. 8
Vice Chair Cribbs: Thank you. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Sorry for being vague, or being imprecise. 10
Chair Cribbs: No, maybe my hearing wasn’t precise. I’m not so sure. Okay. Jeff? 11
Commission LaMere: All I would say is in general I’m for limiting who we give discounts 12
to, in order to not leave a group out or for a group to feel slighted. However, I am in favor 13
of following whatever the City policy is of how they treat their employees in regard to 14
Recreation programs and with other programs. So, if they do receive discounts and are 15
treated as residents in other facets, then I would say that it would be reasonable to add 16
them to this as well. 17
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Vice Chair? 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: This is great information from Kristen, actually, and I guess one 19
question I would have is, if we don’t add a policy on this, would City employees still be 20
treated as residents? Do we need to act on this? 21
Ms. O’Kane: That’s a great question. I think our staff are used to accepting employees as 22
residents, so I think the employees would get the resident rate whether it’s in this policy 23
or not. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: That was slightly different from what I was suggesting. I was 25
suggesting that the employees would qualify for a discount, so if they were a non-resident, 26
they would qualify for, effectively, the resident rate, but that makes sense. This makes 27
more sense. 28
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well it sounds like we’re in agreement about city employees, but 29
because there’s already a policy, we don’t need to add it to this action that we’re taking. Is 30
that correct, Daren? 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Mr. Anderson: There’s a couple ways of thinking about this, Chair. I think Kristen is right 1
that there’s sort of something set within CSD, but as time passes, in ten years from now if 2
it’s not captured in writing, sometimes these things get lost, and I could see someone 3
saying, “Wait a minute. Are you giving favoritism to employees?” So, sometimes it’s nice 4
to capture it. I suppose I can go either way. 5
Ms. O’Kane: I would agree with Daren on that. I mean, it is nice to have something in the 6
ordinance or regulations that explains why something is the way it is. 7
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well are the Commissioners all in agreement that we should add it to 8
this particular motion? 9
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 10
Commission LaMere: If we were going to add it to the motion, I would be most 11
comfortable in it stating in line with City policy. If City policy were to change and not 12
allow discounts anymore to city staff for whatever reason, then I think it should fall off of 13
the annual pass. 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think that’s a reasonable way of looking at it, to say residents 15
get the discount and anyone who gets the resident discount in Recreation programs. We’re 16
consistent with the way that Recreation does their discounts. 17
Chair Cribbs: Any other thoughts? 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: That makes sense to me. The only I have is – and it’s kind of 19
splitting hairs, but it’s important in terms of how we phrase this – if a city employee is a 20
Palo Alto resident, do they get the discount, do they get an additional discount for being a 21
Palo Alto resident, or do they just get the same regular rate as the resident? 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: They get the resident rate. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: So that’s important to sort out. Otherwise, it’s sort of like if you’re 24
a resident and you’re a senior, then you get the reduced rate. If a city employee were a 25
senior, would they get the reduced senior resident rate? 26
Commission LaMere: They would just buy their pass as a senior resident. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. 28
Commission LaMere: If they’re already a resident they have no need to go through a city 29
program. They would just get whatever they qualify for as a resident. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: Good point. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Commission LaMere: Correct? 1
Chair Cribbs: I think so, so it sounds like we have consensus about this. Daren, you have 2
what you need to add it? 3
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I think so. We can finetune it when we get to the motion portion and 4
clarify, but I’ve captured what I heard. 5
Chair Cribbs: Okay, that’s good. I think that was a good discussion. Can you put the 6
numbers up on the screen for entrance limits? Okay, so the Ad Hoc feedback was not to 7
exceed 650 people, or 260 vehicles at any one time, with the authority for the City Manager 8
to adjust below the limit. The Ad Hoc suggested 500 people, 200 vehicles, would be an 9
appropriate starting point for the visitor limit. We have the Ad Hoc feedback. Jackie or 10
Jeff, do you want to add anything to that? 11
Commission LaMere: I do not have anything to add at this point to what we’ve listed. 12
Vice Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie? 13
Commissioner Olson: The same here. No adds from me. 14
Vice Chair Cribbs: All right, well, let’s go to Commissioner Moss. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: One second. Lydia Kou has her hand up. 16
Chair Cribbs: Thank you so much. I don’t have that on the screen. Council Member Kou? 17
Council Member Kou? Thank you and sorry to interrupt. 18
Chair Cribbs: No, please do. 19
Council Member Kou: Just given some of the comments from the public and reading some 20
of the emails that have come through, could the Commission and staff, would you be 21
willing to provide a little bit understanding about why the recommendation to go to the 22
650 number? What does it do, in order to help determination to evaluate? So, if the 23
Commission and staff would do that, maybe the public would have a better understanding 24
of why you’re recommending not to exceed 650 persons in the park. 25
Vice Chair Cribbs: Thank you for that. Daren? 26
Mr. Anderson: Sure. Thanks for that good question. I think the thought behind it is that 27
right now we’ve got a lot of people congregating in these high use areas – the lake, the 28
hill, the entrance and Orchard Glen picnic area, and over time it would be helpful to have 29
flexibility as things change and people change the use of the park, which does happen. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Right now, it certainly seems that everything is in flux, in terms of where people go and 1
when they go that building in some capacity for change makes sense. For example, if we 2
were to make some improvements to the 7.7-acre area – this is at the very end of the park, 3
and there’s a large parking there that’s very seldomly used right now – that’s the 4
approximately 90 parking spaces associated with the Oak Grove picnic area. Well, when 5
no one is picnicking there, that thing is empty, even though every other parking area, near 6
the lake and Vista Hill is jampacked, and I think the thought would be, if something were 7
to change, if we were to develop the 7.7-acre area and make it a point of interest and more 8
people there, there’s a capacity for more folks to come and visit if they were using those 9
remote areas. So, I certainly wouldn’t advocate for starting tomorrow with that limit. I 10
think it would be something we observe and experiment with and monitor the park very 11
closely so that we’re protecting those resources and avoiding that overcrowding problem 12
or any hazards on the roads, parking issues, that we’ve talked about before. 13
Chair Cribbs: Thank you for that, Daren. Ad Hoc Committee, do you have anything to add 14
to that in terms of the 650? 15
Commission LaMere: I would say that, in terms of the park and development of the park, 16
it’s my hope that we can direct more people down to the 7.7-acres parking area, for 17
example, or the Interpretive Center. It’s actually my preference to get rid of any street 18
parking, and I think that would open up areas where people could walk safely. I think one 19
of the problems that we observe now is, especially at Boronda Lake, is you have cars 20
parked as well, around Boronda Lake and you have people walking around them in the 21
street, because there’s no place to walk off of the street. I think there’s some management 22
areas that we can look at that would help people park in different areas and would also 23
help the park seem a little less crowded. I especially feel that it’s crowded when you’re 24
seeing people walk around the lake or walk around Vista Hill, and there’s a lot of cars 25
driving around, but if we can do a better job of steering people to those other parking 26
spaces. Daren, how many parking spaces are in total in the park? 27
Mr. Anderson: It’s a rough number, but about 373 to 375, and the roughness is predicated 28
on the fact that there are several areas that aren’t striped, so it’s dependent on how people 29
park. 30
Commission LaMere: Great, okay. Thank you. 31
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jeff. Jackie? 32
Commissioner Olson: I agree with everything that Jeff just said. The one thing I would 33
add is that a lot of these issues are sort of intertwined, because we are also hoping to move 34
to a reservation system, where you can get information at the time of your reservation 35
about places to visit within the park that will really draw people out into other areas, or 36
maybe even highlight different things to look for in nature to give people something to 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
sort of look for and get away from some of the more crowded areas. I believe that’s why 1
we’re wanting this to be something we can live with for a while and to give staff and the 2
City Manager some flexibility to manage based on their experience. 3
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I would just echo that and say that I was very interested in the 4
flexibility that the staff and the City Manager could have as we see how people start to 5
enjoy the park and have different patterns. I feel like, as we’ve said right now, they’re 6
pretty much at the lake and down in the meadow, and hopefully will begin to explore and 7
get out further, so I’m hopeful we can have this limit now and then review things after 8
COVID goes away. So, other Commissioners, to comment on that limit. David? 9
Commissioner Moss: I think that the 650 limit is high, because I know that it’s going to 10
take a while for these changes and patterns to occur. We can leave it there, but I’m hoping 11
that we can keep the limit, the initial limit to 400, not to 500, and keep it there for a long 12
time, until a lot of these issues have been worked, maybe in a year or two. So, I suggest 13
starting at 400 and we can leave the 650 limits, but I don’t want to come even close to that 14
for quite a while. 15
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Mandy? 16
Commissioner Brown: I raised this issue last time about the thresholds for changing it, but 17
to Commissioner Moss’s point, if the 650 is included in the ordinance, I think there needs 18
to be some clarification on whether it’s performance measures or indicators. There needs 19
to be some communication about what is triggering those changes. I know that you gave 20
me some general answers about what goes into the thought process for adjusting that limit, 21
but I don’t know if you can speak to that any further or if there’s been any thought about 22
the development of those thresholds or performance metrics on the justification for 23
adjusting the limit. 24
Mr. Anderson: I don’t have any additional data from what I last shared on those thresholds. 25
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Mandy. Keith? 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: There’s a lot of reasons…This is not a simple question. It 27
reminds of last year, or I guess it’s been more than a year ago, when we first were talking 28
about this and one of the members of the public said, “Be careful what you wish for, 29
because you don’t want to turn Foothills Park into a mini Rancho San Antonio.” I have 30
not been there since we’ve re-opened, just because between my schedule and worried it’s 31
not going to be enjoyable; I’ve not been up there, but even before we opened, during 32
COVID, it was really crowded. It was a different experience, and it made me feel like I 33
was at Rancho. When I drove by the lake, it was like a herd of bison crossing the road. It 34
was just very, very difficult. So, the one limit is the user experience. Do you want this to 35
be a busy place, like Rancho San Antonio, or do you want it to be a quieter place, where 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
you have a different experience with nature? The second thing is the safety of the 1
pedestrians. Daren talked about that, maybe adding some paths. The third thing is not 2
related to humans at all. It’s all the animals and Hamilton mentioned this before in his 3
public comment, is that we really, again, are driving blind here. We don’t have a good idea 4
of how we’re affecting the nature. Daren, is there any way…? I know that Acterra is 5
looking at the invasive species. But that’s not really looking at the nature itself. Is there 6
any way we can do counts or have some idea, are we displacing animals and hurting 7
nature? 8
Mr. Anderson: Thanks for that good question. It’s a hard one, and Grassroots Ecology is 9
helping with anecdotal observations on wildlife impacts that they’ll see. That’s something 10
that you would see over a long period of time, and you need a great baseline to start 11
attributing impacts. “I saw 15 turkeys on Saturday. A year ago, I came and there were 23.” 12
Saying that’s because of “X” more visitors is a really big stretch. Wildlife is super 13
dynamic. Changes happen all of the time, and pinpointed exactly why is touch, but I think 14
Grassroots would be the main source we’re relying on for assistance in looking at and 15
interpreting impacts to wildlife and doing our best to mitigate them as they come up, and 16
as we see them. 17
Commissioner Moss: I would hope the Rangers would, also. They’re driving by. Would 18
they see the turkeys and the deer, and help with that? 19
Mr. Anderson: Of course. They’ll certainly be, and have been, making observations 20
wherever they can. 21
Commission LaMere: And Daren, have the Rangers given any recommendations about 22
number of people in the park, or any observations? 23
Mr. Anderson: Yeah it’s still pretty new, and we haven’t had a lot of days at a particular 24
setting, so the 750 number that we started with on the December 17th opening date – a little 25
over 280 cars,750 people – felt very busy. That was echoed by, not only the staff, but also 26
the majority of visitors who went on those days and saw it and experienced it, especially 27
in the high use areas – the lake, Vista Hill that we’ve talked about. We dropped it to 400. 28
Again, that was only one week. Those are weekdays, where we didn’t hit capacity. It was 29
slower and the weather was poor. And then that Saturday the 6th where we had the 400-30
people limit. On that day there were a lot of turn-aways. We were shutting down really 31
quickly because you hit capacity so fast, and the repercussions are more people driving up 32
and down Page Mill Road, people making strange U-turns in inappropriate places on Page 33
Mill Road, the park being very quiet, no parking issues at all. Then, the following day, as 34
I mentioned in the presentation, we bumped up to 500 people. No appreciable difference 35
in the experience, in that parking was still available, even in the popular areas, and it didn’t 36
feel overcrowded. Again, the very large caveat, qualifier, that that was just one day at that 37
level. So that was the feedback I got so far from staff. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Daren. I appreciate that. Vice Chair? 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: I support the general consensus and the Ad Hoc recommendation 2
of extending the upper limit to 650 people. I think the reality is, we don’t know what the 3
limit should be, and I think we need to give staff the flexibility to try things out, as they’ve 4
suggested, and trust staff that they’re going to do the right thing. I was up at Foothills last 5
week and on Sunday. The limit was 500. I didn’t know it had changed to 500. I drove 6
around and did a car count. It felt pretty empty. I was there during one of the pockets where 7
it opened up. Sunday, at one point, it closed early in the morning and opened up at 11:00, 8
and closed again at 11:10. So that’s just an example of staff’s working out the process. 9
They need flexibility to change things and make adjustments. This isn’t the only factor or 10
tool that’s changing and impacting the park, as Daren mentioned. So, I’m supportive of 11
that. I’m also supportive of the recommendation which Daren was alluding to, to add a 12
lower limit, and I think 400 would be a reasonable lower limit, based on the observations 13
that staff has seen this week that 400 certainly wasn’t a problem. But it’s probably lower 14
than we want to end up at. Thank you. 15
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Daren, were you suggesting 400 or 500 for the lower limit? 16
Mr. Anderson: I wasn’t suggesting, Chair. I was just mentioning that the Attorney’s Office 17
had said having a lower limit would be helpful. 18
Commissioner Moss: I would prefer the 400 limit until changes can be made to 19
handle…like paths along the road and more striping and less barbecues, and all of those 20
things that you had planned to do over the next six or eight months, or even a year. Until 21
then, I think that the quality of the experience and having quiet environment and also the 22
uncertainty about how many people it’s going to affect the preservation and conversation 23
issues in the park. There are so many unknowns and so much work to be done that I think 24
that a 400 limit now would be more prudent until these things are worked out. 25
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think I’d want to go even lower, because what we’re saying is 26
that the only time that this would matter is if Daren uses his judgement and says, “I think 27
we need less than 400.” And then, the limit has to say no, you have to let 400 people in. 28
Do we really want to violate Daren’s best judgment and force him to let more people in 29
than he thinks is appropriate? I don’t think so. I think I’d want a lower limit and let…I 30
trust Daren’s judgment, and I don’t think we should force him to let people into the park 31
if he doesn’t think it’s prudent. 32
Chair Cribbs: Daren, how do you feel about that? 33
Mr. Anderson: I’m certainly open to that. Flexibility in general is a good thing. I can tell 34
right now, based on the limited experience that I mentioned, 500 feel appropriate, and 35
that’s what we’re using this minute. That’s what we used on Sunday, and that’s what we 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
planned on using this coming weekend and the weekdays as well. And then adjusting as 1
needed, like you say, as things arise, or things pop up. 2
Commissioner Moss: You’d never want the flexibility to go to 400 if you had to? 3
Mr. Anderson: No, I’m not saying that. It’s very difficult to predict. Having a range, I 4
think, is handy. I’m just saying for right now the experiences we’re seeing, based, again, 5
on a very limited sample, that 400 was so constrictive and unnecessarily so. But like we 6
talked about, this is a dynamic situation and things may change where at some point in the 7
future perhaps something lower is appropriate. I can’t predict that. 8
Commission LaMere: And for clarification, ultimately it’s the City Manager that will set 9
it within the range that is given to him by Council. Is that correct? 10
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: An example that come to mind for me would be, suppose we 12
had some heavy rains, and everything was mud-soaked, and we thought that there would 13
be more danger of ruining nature, and Daren wanted to go down to 350 or 300? I think we 14
should let him go down to 350 or 300 if he’s trying to protect the park. I don’t think we 15
should force him to let 400 people in if he doesn’t think 400 is appropriate. 16
Chair Cribbs: I would think that the staff would have the flexibility to do that if there was 17
a dangerous condition anyhow, without a lower limit. Is that true, Daren, or not? 18
Mr. Anderson: I had shared earlier, there’s a Park and Open Space regulation that gives 19
authority for a department head to make certain closures. You can close a facility if there’s 20
a safety hazard to the facility or to the public. And you can close portions of the preserve 21
as necessary for the same reasons. So that already exists in the existing regulations. 22
Commission LaMere: Would that also empower you to go below the set limit of, say, 400? 23
If you close part of the park and you then make a unilateral decision to say, “Now the new 24
limit is 200 today?” 25
Mr. Anderson: No, I would not. 26
Chair Cribbs: So, you couldn’t make a decision? 27
Mr. Anderson: We can make a decision about closing things. The capacity is a different 28
question, and I think, like you say, if there’s a wider range, yeah, we could use that, but I 29
couldn’t say, “Today it’s going to be 200, because there’s a mudslide on Vista Hill.” At 30
least, that’s my understanding. I could close portions of Vista Hill if I needed to. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think our goal is to work towards determining a maximum limit 1
by the end of the year roughly. Once we have data to review on how other things are 2
working out to have full seasons of visitation to review. Given that, I have no problem 3
with going with a wider range and having a lower limit of 300 or 350. This is a temporary 4
measure in that sense, in that we’re looking to set an interim limit, range, and come back 5
with a fixed limit recommendation later this year, I’m happy with any direction. 6
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well let’s do this. It seems like we’ve had some good discussion – 7
Commissioner Brown: Could I ask a question? 8
Chair Cribbs: Of course. 9
Commissioner Brown: I don’t know if you can speak to it, Daren, a little bit about the City 10
Attorney’s thought process or justification for trying to mitigate this risk. Is it to widen 11
that range, or is it to essentially eliminate option for the City Manager to delegate it to go 12
down to zero? 13
Mr. Anderson: I think the latter. He certainly didn’t give a number. He just said you might 14
want to put some range around it, so it’s not absolute authority to go to any number. 15
Commissioner Brown: Got it. Thank you. 16
Chair Cribbs: Let’s see if we can’t put together a motion to take action on these two issues, 17
so would somebody like to advance a motion? Jeff LaMere? 18
Mr. Anderson: Can you bear with me just one second, Chair, so I can pull up a Word 19
document? 20
Chair Cribbs: Of course. 21
Commission LaMere: Chair, I’m unclear if we settled on a lower band for the number. I 22
feel comfortable that we decided upon a limit of 650, but I’m not sure I’m clear on a lower 23
limit to suggest. 24
Chair Cribbs: I thought perhaps you could make the motion, include the lower limit. Then 25
we would have discussion and we could change the motion, but we can do it either way. 26
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with Commission LaMere that it would be good to have the 27
limit set before a motion is made. I am also interested in considering including a little bit 28
more regarding the visitor limit. I think there’s an important question about what are we 29
counting and how are we counting? We’re currently counting vehicles, and this has been 30
the case for decades, and we don’t have the means to accurately count people, so I think 31
that this would be an appropriate time to change the policy to reflect this. I’ve heard City 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
Council mention this subject on multiple occasions. The reason I’m bringing it up now, 1
before a motion is made, is if we’re talking about making a motion about the limit that 2
we’re going to go with, if we would potentially change the limit to be a vehicle limit, it’s 3
important to decide that before we make a motion that’s calling for a people limit, if that’s 4
clear. 5
Chair Cribbs: Comments? 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: And I appreciate our desire to try to get resolution on the two items 7
that we’re talking about first, but I think that this would be something reasonable to 8
consider first. 9
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well let’s go back to some discussion about the lower limit. It sounded 10
like people were starting out at 5 and then moving to 4. Is there a consensus about 400, or 11
not? 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Should we have a discussion first about whether we’re counting 13
people or cars? 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think we can get the lower limit sorted out first, and I think we 15
should recognize that right now the lower limit is 400, so if we’re talking about reducing 16
the lower limit or expanding the range we would be talking about 300 or 350, and I’m 17
happy with either of those numbers. 18
Chair Cribbs: I didn’t hear that we were really wanting to go to 350, but maybe I missed 19
it. Thoughts? I think, Keith, to answer your question, I think we’re counting people at this 20
point. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, I guess we can look at the numbers and then we can 22
convert it after if we decide to go cars. I want to give Daren, for the lower limit, I want to 23
give Daren as much flexibility to let him…We don’t want to tie his hands unnecessarily. 24
Daren has no incentive to drive it too low, because it’s really a pain for staff to close the 25
park, so if we give him the ability to go down to 200, he’s not going to do down to 200 26
unless he really has to. So, I really don’t think we should make that lower limit very high 27
at all. I think we should be, like 300 would be what I would pick. 28
Commissioner Brown: I support that. I think 300, a low one, making it as wide as possible 29
is the right thing to do in terms of safety. Yeah, I agree. 30
Chair Cribbs: Okay, how do other people think about that? 31
Commissioner Moss: I’m okay with that. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m fine with 300. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Chair Cribbs: Jackie? 1
Commission LaMere: I guess I just want to clarify that it’s not the City Manager 2
unilaterally making these decisions, but it’s with input from staff, or the City Manager 3
could make a decision to put it at 300 for whatever reason that he chose, or she chose. 4
Mr. Anderson: Thanks, Commission LaMere. I don’t know that I can speak for the City 5
Manager. I can say only that our current City Manager, Ed Shikada, has been very open to 6
feedback from Kristen and myself on these matters and is certainly a person who visits 7
Foothills Park a lot, so he’s also seeing with his own eyes, but he’s very open to staff input. 8
Commission LaMere: I’m in favor of $300 if that gives staff the opportunity to address 9
based on park closures, so that they could still let people in without closing the park 10
completely and felt that 300 was the safe number at that time. But I really want to voice 11
my support of 500 as being the number that we want to look at to let in, but 300 as a lower 12
limit I could be comfortable with, based on circumstances within the park. 13
Chair Cribbs: Jackie? 14
Commissioner Olson: I’m fine with having that lower limit of 300 and offering maximum 15
flexibility based on all the input and information that we’ll be getting. As we all know, this 16
is new, and we’re trying to figure out what’s right without a lot of information. I’m in 17
favor of that. I would like to note that our intention is to have it be a people number, but 18
to also have that multiplier there for vehicles, because operationally we know that what 19
we’re actually counting is vehicles, but we are equating it to a people number, so we will, 20
I hope, in the motion and what goes to City Council, have both numbers, so people can 21
see what that equates to in cars, because that’s operationally what we’ll be able to count. 22
Chair Cribbs: Yeah. I think good points. Just to weigh in, I’m pretty in favor of, certainly 23
in favor of, flexibility for the staff. I’d like to make sure that we’re not doing things that 24
will really keep people away, and I’m sure everybody is operating in that spirit of both 25
wanting to open the park to as many people as possible, while keeping the environment 26
safe and the animals and plants safe, and the visitor experience be the way we’d all like to 27
see it be, so I have been more comfortable with a higher number, like 400, but I’m okay 28
with the consensus of the Commission. I think we’ve agreed on that bottom number, so 29
can we go ahead and craft a motion? 30
Mr. Anderson: Chair, give me one second, and I’ll share my screen. 31
Chair Cribbs: Council Member Kou, while we’re looking for the sharing of the screen, did 32
you have any comments? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Council Member Kou: No, thank you. It’s interesting listening to the discussion. Thank 1
you for the discussion. 2
Mr. Anderson: Chair, do you want to look that over and see if I’ve captured the feedback 3
correctly? 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: While we’re waiting for this, Chair if you don’t mind, I’d like to 5
mention that there was another suggestion that I have that I think is straightforward 6
regarding the visitor count. Currently, it’s not clarified who is counted or, more 7
specifically, who isn’t counted towards the attendance limit or the visitor limit. City 8
Council had previously talked about not including people with reservations in the count, 9
but ultimately this was left to the Parks and Rec and staff to advise on. I recommend that 10
we should be specific about what groups the count should exclude. Real simply, I would 11
suggest that the visitors with reservations, the total campground or picnic area and the 12
Interpretive Center meeting room, also the permitted Recreation and Education groups, 13
the summer camps, school field trips and the partner groups such as Grassroots and EV, 14
and also the entry fee-exempt volunteers, that they not be applied to the visitor count. I 15
don’t know if that’s something that would be considered. It’s something that I would 16
suggest as an amendment if we don’t have an opportunity to discuss it before a motion is 17
made. 18
Chair Cribbs: I’m going to ask you to restate that, Vice Chair, because my screen is 19
breaking up and I heard about one-third of your comment, so I apologize. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: No problem. That’s what we’re working with. So, I am 21
recommending that we not count the following visitors towards the attendance limit: One, 22
visitors with reservations – Towle Campground, Oak Grove Picnic Area, Interpretive 23
Center meeting room. Two, permitted Recreation and Education groups, summer campers, 24
school field trips, community partner youth groups. And three, entry fee-exempt 25
volunteers. And I would just add, there is a consideration. There is the concern that we 26
might need extra flexibility if something happens and we end up having too many people 27
in the park, in the preserve, but the limit isn’t reached, not including these groups, staff 28
still has the flexibility to close the preserve in the event of an emergency, as Daren 29
mentioned, is already a regulation. That gives me more confidence that something like 30
that, this makes sense. I’m certainly interested in staff’s viewpoint about this. 31
Mr. Anderson: Glad to share my perspective on that one, Vice Chair. We’ve discussed this 32
with staff, including the Recreation staff that lead the summer camps, to understand how 33
many people they come in, where they’re typically located in, how many vehicles they’re 34
associated with, and I’ll share just a little bit of facts, because I think it’s important. 35
Recreation has three camps that use Foothills Park during the summer vacation. They use 36
them five days a week, Monday through Friday. This is 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Those 37
camps are around 100 people. They will typically just come in two busses of about 55 each 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
bus. The busses will park in the most remote area of the park, typically down in Oak Grove, 1
where there’s room for a large bus. So, we talked a little bit about that with the camp 2
directors and their thoughts on what’s their perspective on accounting for or against. They 3
wouldn’t be there on the busier weekends, so that wouldn’t be a conflict, but in the summer 4
maybe the weekday visitation ends up pretty high, and their thought was they’re likely not 5
to have an impact on the other visitors, with the small exception of there are times when 6
they’re in the Oak Grove Picnic Area, so there are quite a few kids using the picnic tables 7
in Oak Grove, or sometimes Orchard Glen. 8
Chair Cribbs: If I may, the Ad Hoc had discussed this, and we had thought to push this 9
discussion to the 23rd of February, along with all of the other subjects having to do with 10
Foothills Park, so we didn’t think that this would go as part of this motion. However, it 11
seems like we maybe have time to discuss it, so is that what you’re asking, Jeff? 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m asking if we can consider this as part of the motion, yes, 13
depending how the Commissioners feel about it. 14
Commissioner Moss: I’m okay with this. I think it’s great. 15
Chair Cribbs: Keith? 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: In general, this seems reasonable. My only concern is, do you 17
ever do stuff at the lake? The lake seems to be the most congested area right now. 18
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I believe on occasion the camps do end up coming to the lake. These 19
are City-led summer camps, so we have input, of course, on what our staff are doing and 20
where they’re taking the campers, but I believe the lake is definitely a spot they will visit 21
during their day. 22
Chair Cribbs: If I could add to that, Keith. When I was a Girl Scout leader at the camps, 23
we would bring the troops up to the lake on a controlled basis, so 20 at a time, not all 100 24
in the camp. But they did go to the lake. 25
Mr. Anderson: We could also work with the camp to select hours of the visit to that part 26
of the park at the less popular times. 27
Commissioner Brown: I’ve got to ask the question. Would this sort of traffic at the picnic 28
tables and use during certain seasonality factor into the decision of what the visitor 29
capacity would be at any given time into the decision-making? 30
Mr. Anderson: I certainly think so, especially in those first couple days. I would intend to 31
be there and see if for my own eyes. The Rangers to monitor it very carefully, and to 32
understand it’ll be new. It’ll be a new experience, and I think we’ve got to look at it with 33
fresh eyes and make recommendations to City Manager based on that. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Ms. Brown: Great. 1
Chair Cribbs: Jackie, any thoughts? 2
Commissioner Olson: My view is that I would really like to stick to sort of the most core 3
issues for this pass, because there’s a lot of tweaking around the edges that we’re going to 4
need to do, and a lot of things that we’ve considered about carve-ins and carve-outs that I 5
think warrant a more full discussion, and I don’t want it to get side-tracked at Council 6
either, because I think we could probably spend a few hours just going through all of the 7
different things that we have discussed in the Ad Hoc about which groups to bring in or 8
out of this discussion. So, I’d be in favor of just sticking to the core issues that we had 9
thought to bring up tonight and then deferring the other things that don’t need to be solved 10
in a more expedited fashion, with lengthier time to consider all the options. 11
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jeff LaMere? 12
Commission LaMere: I’m in agreement with Jackie. 13
Chair Cribbs: Going back to the motion that you asked me to read, Daren. It looks fine to 14
me. What about other people? 15
Mr. Anderson: Chair, were you thinking I would strike this highlighted area? 16
Chair Cribbs: I wasn’t thinking that yet. I was concentrating on the first part, which I 17
wanted to be the core part of the motion to go to Council, which is what we wanted to get 18
done tonight. So, let’s look at the first A and B, and does that reflect everybody’s thoughts? 19
Commission LaMere: Chair, I have a quick question. As we had discussed and some 20
members were more in favor of a 400-person limit to begin with and some of us were a 21
500-person limit, should any of that be noted in this, Daren? Or is it just the fact that we 22
have a range and then the City Manager will set it however they like it, or City Council 23
will direct them? Is there any room for a suggestion of what that starting number should 24
be, or no? 25
Mr. Anderson: Thanks, Commission LaMere. I do think it’s important to have…I don’t 26
know that it needs to be in the motion, but I can pass it on in the body of the report that 27
the Commission supports…. I already have in terms of the Ad Hoc saying this, but if the 28
full Commission feels this way, that they support around 500 people/200 vehicles, being 29
a good starting place, that could be conveyed to Council in the body of the staff report. I 30
don’t know that it needs to fit into the motion necessarily. 31
Chair Cribbs: So, you’re okay leaving the motion the way it is? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Mr. Anderson: I am, in terms of that starting place, I’m certainly open to feedback, of 1
course, but… 2
Chair Cribbs: Well, I gave you mine. 3
Commissioner Moss: I’m thinking that the public may really want to know your starting 4
position, and so having it in the body of the report, will that get to the public? 5
Mr. Anderson: Would you like me to add it to this? 6
Chair Cribbs: Why don’t you add it, and see what we think? 7
Commissioner Moss: I think so. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m going to say that I’m not in favor of adding it. I think we’re 9
already in the middle of a process where staff is making adjustments, and we’re trying to 10
give staff more flexibility to adjust within a broader range, and if they’ve already decided 11
somewhere between 400 and 500 is where they want to be, I don’t think that we have more 12
knowledge than staff does on where that should be set. 13
Commissioner Moss: Okay. 14
Chair Cribbs: My preference for this motion is to leave A and B the way they are, and to 15
take out the information about counting the visitors toward the attendance limits, so the a. 16
and b. underneath B, so that we can address it next time and have more time. This is on 17
the agenda for the 23rd. I’m worried if I look at this, that the Council will want to take up 18
a lot of discussion about this, and I’d rather just get the A and B done as our 19
recommendation or as our motion. 20
Commissioner Moss: And what if this doesn’t get done until June, that A and B part? I 21
guess it’s okay. It’s just part of managing the overall number. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: That’s a good question. I’d be interested in staff’s opinion on that. 23
What happens if we don’t address this until...? If we don’t address it tonight, it doesn’t 24
take effect until mid-June at the earliest. 25
Mr. Anderson: The most impactful will be those summer camps. I think those are the 26
largest groups that you’d see, and if visitation on those weekdays rises considerably, there 27
could be more closures associated with those numbers. So, if we’re counting the hundred 28
kids that are coming for the summer camp – of course, there’s a hundred fewer than are 29
going to be allowed in. 30
Commissioner Moss: And we’ve given you that discretion. We’ve given you that range, 31
so you could manage it without having to go to City Council to get their approval. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Vice Chair Greenfield: That means you’d have to raise the weekday limit higher than it 1
would be on weekends to accommodate the summer camps and the campgrounds, the 2
campground reservation people as well, and then lower it back down on the weekends. If 3
500 was the number you wanted, and you go to 600 on weekdays to accommodate the 4
summer camps, that seems awkward. 5
Mr. Anderson: It would be a little challenging, I think, definitely at first, trying to figure 6
that out. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: How hard is it for you to change the limit? You want to change 8
if from one day to the next. Is it a pain, or is it easy to do? 9
Mr. Anderson: I can only give you the most recent example, and that was this last Saturday 10
to Sunday. It was a conversation with analysis from the Rangers that Kristen and Ed 11
Shikada and I discussed. They made the call, and we made the change the next day. 12
Chair Cribbs: It feels like in the past, Daren, there’s been a lot of coordination between the 13
City staff and the camp counselors? 14
Mr. Anderson: That’s still the case, yes. 15
Chair Cribbs: In terms of where the camps go and where they hike, and what they do. So, 16
it feels like that’s something that the staff could have the flexibility to deal with. 17
Mr. Anderson: To some degree I think that’s true for where they’re at, but their numbers, 18
of course, are what they are. If we have 100 kids in the camp absent something like this 19
exclusion, we would be deducting that from how many people we allowed in the park. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: So, you’re talking about requiring from the Department Director 21
and the City Manager and the Rangers to make the change each time? You might have to 22
do that multiple times a week if you’re changing between weekdays and weekends? 23
Mr. Anderson: Potentially. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: Or am I making it sound more complex than it is? 25
Mr. Anderson: You know, it’s new. I have never done that, so I’m not quite sure exactly 26
what it would be like. But I would imagine it would require some adjustments. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl: But I would think that, for example, if the kids on one day would 28
be way in one corner of park and they’re not bothering anyone, you would not want to 29
count them, but if they’re going to be spending a lot of time up at the lake or in Oak Grove, 30
you may want to count at least half of them, or something like that. So, I’m not sure of the 31
right way to do this. In some ways it’s easier just not to mention this and let you adjust the 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
overall visitor limit to account for what the kids are doing each day. What would be easiest 1
for you, Daren? 2
Commissioner Moss: Especially if you can get them to go to the lake, say, at 4:00 in the 3
afternoon instead of noon. You could manage that kind of thing because this limit is not a 4
daily limit. It’s at any one time limit. 5
Chair Cribbs: I think Keith’s is a good question, Daren. What’s easiest for you? 6
Mr. Anderson: Probably exempting their numbers would be the easiest. And as I think the 7
Ad Hoc had pointed out – and that maybe all the Commission recognized – is that once 8
we get to summer, we’ll have learned a lot more and continue to learn a little bit more and 9
adjust as necessary. 10
Chair Cribbs: I would prefer on this one to delete what you’ve grayed out, at least on my 11
screen, and then we can talk about it in two weeks and just use the motion that we see 12
without the gray stuff. So, if somebody could make that motion, and we’ll get a second. 13
MOTION 14
Commission LaMere: I move to amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to add an annual pass 15
option for Foothills Park with the following pricing structure as listed below, and 16
additionally to amend the PAMC Section 22.04.150(k) to authorize the City Manager to 17
adjust the attendance limit at Foothills Park to the listed numbers. 18
Chair Cribbs: Is there a second to that motion? 19
Commissioner Moss: Can you add the word “rate” or “fee” behind the word Palo Alto 20
resident. 21
Chair Cribbs: David, could you wait until we get a second, please? 22
Commissioner Moss: I’d rather not, because City of Palo Alto employees qualify for the 23
Palo Alto resident what? 24
Mr. Anderson: That was my typo. 25
Commissioner Moss: Okay, now you can go ahead. 26
Mr. Anderson: My mistake. Apologies. 27
Chair Cribbs: Is there a second? 28
Commissioner Moss: I second. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. I guess we should have a voice vote. Catherine, please? 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me. I have a comment. 2
Chair Cribbs: I’m sorry. Wait a minute. I wanted to go to discussion. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yeah, you should go to the maker of the motion and see if they 4
want to say anything. 5
Chair Cribbs: I’m sorry you were breaking up again. What did you say? 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: I was suggesting you first go the maker of the motion and the 7
second to see if they have comments regarding the motion, and then allow other comments 8
if they exist. 9
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you very much. 10
Commission LaMere: One comment based on what David had mentioned in terms of 11
adding “rate.” Should that read something like “City of Palo Alto employees qualify for 12
the Palo Alto resident rate as…” I don’t know what the language is, Kristen or Daren, that 13
it currently says. 14
Mr. Anderson: Per the… 15
Commission LaMere: Per the current regulations, per the current city staff employee 16
regulations or…? 17
Ms. O’Kane: Just say “per City policy.” 18
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 19
Commission LaMere: Thank you, Kristen. 20
Chair Cribbs: David, do you have any other comments? 21
Commissioner Moss: No. 22
Chair Cribbs: And discussion from the Commission? 23
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, I appreciate that a couple people have suggested that we might 25
be better off not having the guidance on who’s not counted, but I don’t feel like the full 26
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
Commission has had an opportunity to weigh in on that, so I’m going to propose a friendly 1
amendment first to add back in the three groups that would not count towards the 2
attendance limit. So, as a friendly amendment, then it’s up to the maker of the motion, 3
Commission LaMere, and the second, to accept that right now. And then if they choose 4
not to accept it, I can suggest this as an unfriendly amendment and seek a second, and we 5
could vote on that, and then it would become part of the motion, or not, depending on the 6
vote. 7
Commissioner Moss: In the interest of simplicity, I’d like to leave it just the way it is and 8
do something additional later, or later on today. 9
Commission LaMere: I’m in agreement with Commission Member Moss to keep the 10
motion as read and as listed. 11
UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay, then I’m going to make an unfriendly amendment to request 13
and seek a second to add back in the changes to the attendance limit, with the consideration 14
that if we don’t address this this evening, it will not be effective until mid-June at best. In 15
addition to that, if we can knock this out tonight, that’s one more thing that we don’t have 16
to talk about the next time. I’m seeking a second. So that’s my unfriendly amendment. 17
Chair Cribbs: And now we need a second to that, but let’s wait until it gets up on the 18
screen. 19
Mr. Anderson: So much respect for the City Clerk’s Office, who manages these changes 20
so skillfully. 21
Chair Cribbs: Daren, you’re doing great. Thank you very much. Is there a second? 22
Commissioner Brown: I’ll second, and to the point of clarity, I agree that I think we’re 23
trying to streamline this as much as possible to go to the Council, but I think it’s sort of an 24
investment in the future by not having so much confusion on, “Well, what’s the limit 25
today?” It keeps changing, having to modify it so often during the summer, I think we’re 26
just sort of getting ahead of the issue. So, I’ll second this. 27
Chair Cribbs: Is there discussion on that? 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: As the maker of the amendment, I’ve added what I need to already. 29
Thank you. 30
Chair Cribbs: Jeff, I’m sorry. Can you say that again? You’re breaking up. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: I have no further discussion on this. Thank you. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you very much. I won’t tell you what I thought you said. Mandy, 1
any further? 2
Commissioner Brown: No. I’ve already said it. Sorry. 3
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Thank you. Catherine, could you do a vote, please? 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can I speak to it? 5
Chair Cribbs: Oh, yes, of course. I thought there weren’t any speakers. 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’m torn about this, because on one hand I do appreciate the 7
arguments about just keeping it simple, and I think this is kind of getting into the weeds. 8
But what I heard Daren say is that he thought this would be easier for him. And that pushes 9
me over to support this. Daren, do you want to give us any more wisdom? Does this make 10
your life better or worse? 11
Mr. Anderson: I do believe that it makes it easier. I think the constant adjustment would 12
be challenging. I think it’s just easier for the Rangers to know we’re not going to count the 13
camps or those few special trips. That’s my hunch, and I think we’ll learn more as we go, 14
but that’s what I anticipate. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. 16
Commission LaMere: Chair, I have a clarifying question. I’m unclear why this would 17
be…if we don’t include this today, why it would not be instituted until this summer? I’m 18
unclear why there would not be other opportunities with subsequent meetings to dive 19
deeper down into all of the policies of Foothills Park? 20
Chair Cribbs: I’m glad you asked that question because that was going to be my question 21
as well. I thought that this would be part of the package that we would talk about next 22
time, so Daren, can you refresh our memory about that? 23
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, thanks Chair. The timeframe would be that we would discuss this on 24
February 23rd, take an action on March 23rd, get to Council at approximately early May – 25
May 3rd, let’s say – and then you’ve got the 45-day wait for the ordinance to take place. 26
We’d be looking at approximately June 17th. 27
Commissioner Moss: My only reason for not putting this in was I thought this would never 28
have to go to City Council, this portion right here that Commissioner Greenfield added, 29
that we would never have to bring this to the Council. Is that true or not? 30
Mr. Anderson: It is not true. If the Council sets a visitor limit, staff would follow the visitor 31
limit that Council sets. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
Commissioner Moss: All right, then I change my vote, too. I would rather keep this in. 1
Mr. Anderson: And let me just make that one qualifier, just so I’m clear. We’d still have 2
the flexibility within the range. It’s just that it seems – and again, we have not used it yet 3
– that that is a complex system to be managing and adjusting. 4
Commissioner Olson: Daren, are these categories listed below, are they inclusive of all of 5
the ones that we had discussed and aligned on bringing to the leader meeting? 6
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I believe so. 7
Commissioner Olson: Okay, great. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me. Daren, I’ll just mention that I emailed you the text of 9
what I was looking to include. Oh, you’ve got it already. 10
Chair Cribbs: If there’s no more discussion, we’re voting on accepting the unfriendly 11
amendment, correct? 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, although if the maker and the second are willing to accept this 13
amendment as a friendly now, then we don’t need to vote. 14
Commission LaMere: I’ll accept it as a friendly amendment. 15
Commissioner Moss: I accept it with friendly unfriendly [inaudible]. 16
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Any discussion? 17
Commissioner Olson: Do we need to hear from the members of the public on this at all? 18
Mr. Anderson: I don’t know that we do it once we make a motion. I don’t think that’s the 19
norm, but I defer to the Chair and the Vice Chair, and perhaps if Kristen has ideas? 20
Chair Cribbs: I didn’t understand that we did need to hear from them at this point. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with you, Chair. Normally the public has an opportunity to 22
comment after the staff report. 23
Commissioner Olson: Did we give them that opportunity? 24
Mr. Anderson: I believe we did, yes. We had the comments on Foothills Park. 25
Commissioner Olson: Okay, great. Just making sure. Thanks. 26
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jackie. Okay, so I guess we can vote now. Catherine, could you? 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
[roll call vote] 1
Ms. Bourquin: Seven to approve the amended motion. 2
MOTION PASSED, 7-0 3
Chair Cribbs: Okay, that’s great. Thank you all for a very thoughtful discussion. I think 4
that’s good. I think the only other thing on our agenda tonight is to discuss the Ad Hoc 5
Committees and also the Liaisons for 2021. Daren is going to put up the list – 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Chair. I’m sorry. Before we close out this item, there 7
are a couple of things that I think are worth the Commission considering, given the 8
timeframe of anything we don’t consider tonight, we won’t be able to consider and 9
wouldn’t take effect until the middle of June. One of the specific ones regards the daily 10
entry fee. And what I consider to be an omission in the current policy, where handicapped 11
visitors, vehicles displaying disabled plates and placards currently are not allowed free 12
entry. They aren’t given a waiver for entry. This is the common practice for the local 13
county parks, consistent with parking in the city as well. Personally, I think it’s worth us 14
reviewing the daily entry volume overall, since that is something that Council had directed 15
us to do, but I think it would be worth weighing in on this potentially as a second motion. 16
The second item I think that’s worth consideration is admittedly more complex, is the 17
number of people that are considered a vehicle, a passenger vehicle, consistent, for 18
example, with what state parks do. The normal entry rate applies to up to nine people per 19
vehicle and then there’s a small bus and a large bus rate of 10 to 24 people and 25-plus 20
people, so I don’t if that’s something that we would want to consider as well, given the 21
circumstances. 22
Chair Cribbs: You’re asking to speak about the handicap access and are disabled access 23
and the vehicle size? 24
Commissioner Moss: Are you asking for an amendment to what City Council already 25
approved that the $6 vehicle fee, there are some exemptions? 26
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes. What I’m looking at is the City Council has approved what 27
they refer to as an interim entry fee policy, and this was with the understanding that staff 28
and the Commission would return with a recommendation on a more detailed entry fee 29
policy. While we briefly talked about it in our meeting two weeks ago as a discussion, we 30
haven’t had an opportunity to weigh in on this as an action, and it seems appropriate that 31
we discuss this. Also, the fact that pedestrians and bicycles don’t pay an entry fee. That’s 32
the current policy. I think that’s good. I think we should recognize that as something to 33
evaluate at a later date. But the specific things that I think that are appropriate to address 34
are the handicapped entry, and then also considering the bus rate. This would be a separate 35
motion. My understanding from your previous discussion is that you wanted to wrap up 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
and make sure that we had a motion clarified on the two primary items. I didn’t raise this 1
at that time, assuming there would be an opportunity for further discussion on additional 2
motions [inaudible]. 3
Commissioner Moss: Daren, do we have to deal with this? Is there a county law or a state 4
law that already takes this into consideration? 5
Mr. Anderson: No, it does not. 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: Jeff, why don’t you make a motion, and then we can discuss it? 7
MOTION 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. I’ll make a motion that the Parks and Rec Commission 9
supports the daily entry rate of $6 per passenger vehicle and also includes no entry fee for 10
vehicles displaying disabled plates or placards. Also included in the group – and I don’t 11
know if this needs to be included in a motion – but there would be no entry fee for 12
pedestrians or bicycles, to be further evaluated at a later date, and there’s no entry fee for 13
volunteers on the day that they’re volunteering in Foothills Park with a city partner, which 14
is also the current policy. 15
Chair Cribbs: Just to respond, I’m a little concerned because we put on the agenda that we 16
were going to talk about the annual pass and visitor capacity level, and this seems like 17
we’re getting a little bit out of range of that, and I don’t know whether the staff is prepared 18
to discuss it right now. Jackie, you had your hand up? 19
Commissioner Olson: I was going to say the exact same thing. This is an item not on the 20
agenda. I don’t think we can take action. We were pretty specific in the agenda tonight. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think, particularly considering that the bus rate, as well, would 22
apply to the annual pass, right now as it stands, an annual pass could apply to a bus. There’s 23
nothing that would restrict that. Also, I think the fact that we’re talking about the annual 24
fee, it’s directly related to the entry fee. I would defer to staff for an opinion on this, but I 25
think that would be within the purview of the discussion and action. 26
Mr. Anderson: Two things, and I’ll also defer to Kristen for some input on this. It’s 27
definitely true that, right now, as we’ve worded this, we don’t have anything separate for 28
larger vehicles. I had shared in the staff report I think the details on how we’d implement 29
the annual pass, but we don’t have any separate cost items for larger busses right now. It 30
would still be $6 as the existing Council motion and what the PRC has proposed tonight. 31
In terms of the agenda and if that creeps too far off, maybe Kristen could help me a little 32
bit if you think this would be appropriate. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Ms. O’Kane: Thank you for that question. I tend to agree. I do feel like we’re expanding 1
the scope a little bit of what the intent was for tonight, understanding that you do raise a 2
good point, Vice Chair Greenfield. I think tonight’s intent was really to fill that gap that 3
was missing when Council made the motion to do the $6 entry fee, and it was a realization 4
that we missed adding an annual fee to that, and this was to fill that gap. I think beyond 5
that, my understanding was intended to be discussed at a later date as a full package of 6
other Foothills Park related items. So that’s, I guess, that’s my opinion on that. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Is changing the daily fee, is that something that the staff could 8
recommend to Council and Council would not need our opinion? For example, if you 9
wanted to charge busses more than $6, could you recommend that directly to Council and 10
have Council directly approve that? 11
Mr. Anderson: I believe so. 12
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, because it seems sort of a management detail. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think that the process that the Council was looking for was for 14
staff and the Commission to review further recommendations before acting to make 15
changes to the policy. Not that they can’t and not that they didn’t do this in the first place 16
in the case of the emergency ordinance to deal with the situation that needed dealing with. 17
I appreciate the concerns of whether it’s appropriate to be addressing this as an action. I’m 18
just voicing how I think the preference of Council would be for the Commission to be able 19
weigh in on this, rather than moving forward with a recommendation from staff. So, 20
perhaps a compromise would be to discuss…I don’t know if it would be reasonable for us 21
to discuss this and not make an action on this, and the discussion could be included in the 22
staff recommendation to Council, but again, that’s not exactly the process we’re aiming 23
for. I don’t see a perfect solution here. 24
Council Member Kou: If I could add one more thing, I think it does warrant a little bit 25
more discussion, only because that fee reduction program that you’ve already approved in 26
your motion, the fee reduction program includes, the reduction is also for seniors, children, 27
people with disabilities and then adults as well. So, we’re already doing a fee reduction 28
for the annual pass for people with disabilities, so then if people with the placard get in the 29
park for free, then I think the monthly pass fee reduction needs to be adjusted, because 30
they’re not aligned. If that makes sense. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m not clear where the fee reduction applies to handicapped or to 32
youth, based on the text of our recommendation and from Council, the fee reduction only 33
applies to seniors, low income, active military, and veterans. 34
Mr. Anderson: The current motion that we just passed does not have disabled in it. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
Ms. O’Kane: Okay, well that doesn’t align with the fee reduction policy. 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we bring up the fee reduction policy, because I want to make 2
that as parallel as possible. 3
Mr. Anderson: Lam, do you mind pulling that up? 4
Ms. O’Kane: If you go to the top, you’ll see that eligible youth, senior and disabled 5
residents, as well, have the $300 subsidy cap, which we talked about, and then $150 6
subsidy cap is for adults. At the top, “Disabled residents of Palo Alto that meet the 7
household income guidelines may also receive a 25- or 50-percent with the subsidy cap.” 8
So, if we’re trying to align with this policy, then disabled residents would be included in 9
this. 10
Commissioner Moss: Does that mean we have to actually spell it out, or it goes back to 11
my original argument that this is behind the scenes, and if you fill this out and you qualify, 12
then you get the discount, no questions asked. No further questions asked. 13
Commissioner Olson: We didn’t say to align with the City of Palo Alto fee reduction 14
program generically. We called it low income, so I would be in favor of amending that 15
prior motion, and either calling it, “aligning with the fee reduction program,” or saying the 16
low income and disabled residents, because I do think the intent was certainly to mirror 17
what we already have in place. 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: This language confuses me. Does it confuse other people? 19
Ms. O’Kane: I can tell you why it’s confusing, is because we never used to have adults 20
included in this. It was for youth, seniors and the disabled. Residents initially. A couple 21
years ago at the request of a City Council member – I can’t quite remember – we added 22
eligible adults. So, I understand. It’s now confusing, because really, if you’re an adult or 23
a youth regardless of whether you’re disabled or not, and you meet the income 24
requirements, you would get the discount. So maybe I should have not mentioned 25
anything, and I just confused everything even more, but I understand why it’s confusing. 26
It’s because the adults was added as a trial a couple of years ago, to see how much interest 27
we would get in it. 28
Mr. Anderson: Kristen, is it correct to say we wouldn’t really be mirroring this program, 29
because this is only for Palo Alto residents and has those two caps, and what we’re 30
proposing for the annual pass applies – and has to apply – to both residents and non-31
residents, and as the Commission noted, they didn’t want that cap limit. So, it really 32
wouldn’t be mirroring this. It is separate on at least those two points. Is that correct? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
Vice Chair Greenfield: I also think it’s a bit of apples and oranges and doesn’t really fit 1
particularly, considering the perspective of a handicapped person in a vehicle. They’re 2
used to having a placard or a license plate and being able to park free wherever they go. 3
That’s, I believe, fairly common policy throughout municipalities. Also, what we’re 4
talking about in terms of the entrance fee to Foothills Preserve is quite different from 5
enrolling in a Recreation program, which is what this primarily geared to, I believe, so I 6
wouldn’t be in favor of pushing forward with that. 7
Ms. O’Kane: Okay. I apologize if I confused and extended the conversation by bringing 8
this up. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: No, I think it’s worthwhile to bring it up. 10
Commissioner Olson: Jeff, would you be in favor of adding a discount for disabled 11
individuals, or are you saying that you prefer that they have a free pass? 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: My recommendation is a free pass. That’s consistent with what 13
San Mateo County parks and Santa Clara County parks do. State parks do something 14
slightly different. You need to qualify for a special handicap card, and then you get a 15
special rate. I think it might be 50 percent off. I don’t recall off the top of my head. 16
Chair Cribbs: I guess I always thought that if you have a handicap placard that the entrance 17
to Foothill would be free, so clearly I misunderstood that. All of this discussion right now 18
is really discussion that we intended to have at our next meeting, so I’m still concerned 19
with the fact that this discussion is really not on the agenda, and it’s kind of expanding the 20
agenda, and I’m not so sure that we can do that. We have a lot to talk about on the 23rd, 21
and it would be nice to get some of these things out of the way. So, I guess we’re a little 22
bit stuck, unless somebody wants to make a motion to include this discussion now. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: It certainly would be within our scope to say to either give 24
disabled people a discount to annual fee, and also change the annual fee for busses or vans. 25
Those both would be within the agenda, so we can discuss that. 26
Vice Chair Greenfield: I guess that means that we could say that an annual fee for disabled 27
would be zero, and that would be the same as having no daily fee, except a disabled vehicle 28
would be required to get an annual pass, which is an extra step that they normally wouldn’t 29
have to do. And it creates an additional workload on staff, obviously. 30
Chair Cribbs: Does somebody want to make a motion, or not? 31
MOTION 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: I would be willing to make a motion regarding the annual fee, that 33
it apply only to passenger vehicles with a maximum of nine people or less. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’ll second that. 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sorry, and I’m still thinking about if we should include something 2
in that motion to address the vehicles displaying handicap, disabled vehicles. I guess I 3
have a question for staff. If we had a policy in place where the annual fee for handicapped 4
vehicles displaying a placard or a plate was zero, could the entrance station interpret this 5
to be that no entry fee would be required, whether they had an annual pass or not? It seems 6
consistent with the spirit of it, it’s equivalent and it’s easily documented in that a 7
handicapped status is clarified with a placard or a license plate. 8
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, I believe so. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: So then, I would add in the motion that annual passes be offered to 10
disabled license plates or placards with a zero fee. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’ll second that, too, so we can discuss it. I don’t know. I 12
certainly think the annual pass should only apply to the small vehicles. The handicapped, 13
I’m not sure whether we should just give them a discount, or give them free access. I’d be 14
interested to hear other peoples’ opinions on that. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: As the maker of the motion, I’ll just add, regarding the impetus for 16
providing free entry to handicapped vehicles, I think this is the norm and the expectation 17
for handicapped vehicles. It’s the norm at county parks in our vicinity, and so I think we’re 18
opening ourselves up to some backlash if we don’t do this, as far as making it free versus 19
discounted. So, I’m in favor of zero fee. 20
Commissioner Olson: Jeff, do you have examples? The struggle I’m having is that we’ve 21
looked at a lot of data at the Ad Hoc, but we have not looked at any data here, so I’d love 22
to see examples of county parks that charge an admission but exempt anyone with a 23
handicapped placard. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren could probably pull up a website of the county parks fee 25
schedule if that would be helpful. 26
Mr. Do: I’ll search for that. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: I can pop it up right now if you want me to share my screen. 28
Mr. Do: Sure, please go ahead. 29
Commission LaMere: I also believe we’ve lost the Chair. 30
[Technical problem] 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
Commission LaMere: I have what Daren wrote in a document that we’ve been working 1
on. He had written that San Mateo County parks do not offer a discount on daily entry fees 2
or annual pass for disabled. Seniors and veterans only. Santa Clara County parks has no 3
fee for disabled daily fee, and state parks has a 50 percent discount for disabled daily fee. 4
Commissioner Olson: So, the ones that do offer it are all on the dailies, not on the annual. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Right. It’s an entry waiver of the daily fee. I’m looking at San 6
Mateo County parks right now. I can share that if you like. 7
Mr. Anderson: Maybe I missed that one. I’ve got the Santa Clara one up. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Go ahead, Daren, if you want to share instead. 9
Mr. Anderson: It’s just to confirm that it says daily fee, disabled, no fee. Vehicles must 10
display either DMV permanently displayed placard, DMV-issued disabled person license 11
plate, etc. So that’s Santa Clara County Parks daily fee, no fee for disabled. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: And for San Mateo County vehicle entry fees, vehicles displaying 13
disabled plates/placard. 14
Commissioner Olson: Again, that’s for daily, Jeff? 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s the vehicle entry fee, which is daily, yes. 16
Mr. Anderson: And it’s zero for that one, for San Mateo? 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, it’s a waiver. 18
Mr. Anderson: My apologies, Ad Hoc, I missed that one. 19
Commissioner Olson: Is that the only waiver of the daily fee? Is that the only category for 20
those two parks that you noted? 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: No. For San Mateo, the entry fee waiver is veterans with proof of 22
veteran status, seniors 62-plus on weekdays, VA hospital-sponsored patient activities, 23
County employees on County business. Then it gets into specific stuff, like Archery Club 24
members and rifle range users, et cetera. 25
Commissioner Olson: I think that’s where I’m struggling is having a graduated discount 26
and treating one group different than others, if it should be separated out in that way. I’m 27
totally in favor of adding folks with a handicapped placard into the discount, and then 28
maybe Council Member Kou can raise this, regarding the daily fee at Council, but it seems 29
difficult in my mind to treat groups differently when we’re talking about discounts 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 48
generally. That’s my early opinion, but definitely this is not an area we have a ton of data 1
on, so I’d love to hear what other folks think. 2
Ms. O’Kane: We lost the Chair, so Vice Chair, could I say something? 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, please. 4
Ms. O’Kane: I recognize this is a very important topic, and I think it should be further 5
explored. Where my concern is – I’m not sure who said it earlier – I just looked again at 6
the agenda item. It doesn’t include this, and I think there is plenty of people from the 7
community who might want to weigh in on this topic. Some of the things we heard at some 8
Council meetings are people who are disabled and have been accessing the park or not 9
accessing the park for various reasons, and I think it would be really important to agendize 10
this, so they would have the ability to participate in the conversation. I think we’re straying 11
a little bit too far. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. Does that apply to discussion on limiting the annual pass to 13
vehicles with nine or fewer occupants? And I see the Chair is back, so I’ll return to her. 14
Ms. O’Kane: The agenda item is Foothills Park annual pass and visitor capacity limit, so 15
if it’s related to an annual pass, I think it’s fine, or capacity limits, I think it’s fine. If it’s 16
related to something else, I think it needs to be deferred. 17
Chair Cribbs: Apologies, everybody. I couldn’t get in. I could listen to you, but I couldn’t 18
say anything, because I was there as an attendee, or something like that. Anyhow, it is life 19
in the world of Zoom. So, where did we get to? The last thing I heard was Kristen saying 20
that we’re straying a little bit far afield, which I had thought, but are there things that we 21
can – 22
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think we were talking about the daily fee, but that was just in 23
context of do we want to change the annual fee to give a discount or a free? My inclination 24
would be to lump the handicapped into the 25-percent discount that we’re giving to 25
military and other people. I think that would be a reasonable way to address this, but this 26
is hard. 27
Ms. O’Kane: Maybe it’s something that staff takes back and redo a little bit of analysis 28
and thought on this and bring it back at the regular February meeting? 29
Commissioner Moss: Or, just bringing it up at the City Council. We’ve made our 30
recommendation, and if you want to legalize it, go to the lawyers and adjust it ever so 31
slightly, that’s okay with me. We’ve done our job. You have our input. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think there is still a place for a recommendation regarding the 33
vehicle size with respect to the annual pass, and I think we can include that. I also think if 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 49
we were to make a recommendation for, bring up the issue of handicapped rate in the 1
annual pass, then this would at least be something for the Council to consider and they can 2
change how it’s implemented as they see fit, so I think including it in an action, along with 3
the vehicle limit would be useful for Council to act further. 4
Chair Cribbs: I’m still back with feeling that these things should be discussed at our next 5
Commission meeting. I’d like to hear a little bit more from the staff about both the vehicle 6
size and the other things on our list that we were going to discuss, so I would actually like 7
to defer this until next time, but I may have missed a motion that anybody made, so I’ll 8
sort of see where we are right now. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: There was a motion made for the purpose of discussing this, to 10
limit this and Keith had seconded. My biggest concern is that we don’t address this, we 11
don’t have an opportunity to get this change implemented until summer. I appreciate the 12
other concerns. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: In particular, I don’t want busses to be able to pay their annual 14
pass and shuttle people up and down, and fill the park with people. That’s technically what 15
they could do. We have no limits on commercial vehicles, no limits on size of vehicles. 16
They can have their annual pass and have unlimited access to the park. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think we have a motion and a second. I don’t know if there’s 18
more discussion on it. Maybe we just move to a vote on it. 19
Mr. Anderson: Would you like me to share the screen, Vice Chair, with that…? 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: It’s really up to the Chair. 21
Chair Cribbs: Would you please? 22
Mr. Anderson: Sure. Please clarify if I’ve captured your thoughts correctly in the second 23
motion here. For what it’s worth, down below I copied all the information I had in the 24
PowerPoint presentation, which is the details on the annual pass that we had discussed, 25
which includes that bit about the two passenger vehicles with capacity of nine people or 26
less. 27
Commissioner Brown: I have a clarifying question about the second part of the motion. 28
The placard counts as the annual pass, rather than applying for it and getting a separate 29
placard? 30
Mr. Anderson: From staff perspective, that’s the way we would handle it. 31
Commissioner Brown: Okay. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 50
Commissioner Moss: I second it. 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think Commissioner Reckdahl has already seconded it. Thank 2
you. 3
Chair Cribbs: You want to speak to it, Vice Chair, or have you while I was off the phone? 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m just looking at the wording. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’d be interested in going around and hearing what people feel 6
about the “disabled.” Do you want to give them free annual pass or do you want to give 7
them the discounted annual pass? That would help me with my vote. 8
Chair Cribbs: Let’s do that. I would prefer to give them a free annual pass. 9
Mr. Anderson: Could I just verify that I probably mis-wrote this second point. Do you 10
want to clarify what you said? I think I might have missed it. 11
Chair Cribbs: I didn’t want to charge people disable with a placard. 12
Mr. Anderson: Okay, I just to make sure I phrase it correctly. What I have written is annual 13
pass at no charge to people with disabled vehicle…? How do you want to phrase that? 14
Disabled vehicles – 15
Chair Cribbs: Well, the vehicles aren’t disabled, so just with vehicles displaying… 16
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 17
Commissioner Moss: Disabled vehicle plates or a disabled placard. 18
Ms. O’Kane: I think it’s license plates or placards. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: Plates is what San Mateo County uses, so either way. 20
Chair Cribbs: I heard something while I was on the phone. Did you have the information 21
about other County parks? Is that the way they treat…? 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes. Santa Clara and San Mateo County parks are free. State parks 23
are different. They’re generally 50 percent off, but that’s a broader range. 24
Commissioner Olson: I think the clarification there is that they are free for the daily fee, 25
along with veterans, seniors, et cetera. They are all treated the same in those others, as 26
opposed to having a different tier for disabled versus everybody else. So, I had stated my 27
preference to add the folks with a disabled license plate or placard in the categories of 28
discounts that we already have, rather than having a new tier of discount for a group and 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 51
treating them differently, but then advocating, since we can’t really speak to the daily fee 1
here, asking staff to maybe raise that with Council. Otherwise, I feel like this is a back 2
door way of having a waived daily fee. 3
Chair Cribbs: Back door way of what, Jackie? 4
Commissioner Olson: Having a waived daily fee. 5
Chair Cribbs: I see. Thank you. Mandy? 6
Commissioner Brown: I support the second motion as written. 7
Chair Cribbs: Jeff? 8
Commission LaMere: I’m in agreement with Jackie in terms of not creating more tiers. I 9
feel like it could also people warrant people to ask why we don’t allow seniors in for free 10
or create more carve-outs and categories. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: I would just clarify, for Santa Clara County parks, the free entry is 12
only for the disabled vehicles, the vehicles with disabled plates or placard. There’s a 13
different discount for seniors. For San Mateo County parks, seniors have free entry on 14
some weekdays, but not on weekends, just to clarify. And also, for San Mateo County 15
parks, veterans with proof of veteran status are free. I would also like to change the 16
wording on the first item and have it say that the annual pass rather than fee, is only 17
applicable for passenger vehicles with nine people or less. 18
Commission LaMere: I am in favor of the passenger vehicle limit, however. 19
Commissioner Olson: Me too. 20
Chair Cribbs: Me too. Everybody in favor, let’s see if we can get one that we all agree 21
with. Everybody in favor of the passenger vehicle limit? I don’t hear anybody objecting. 22
Ms. O’Kane: I’m sorry I have to say that, because we’re doing Zoom calls, the vote has to 23
be taken by each person. Were you just taking a vote on the motion? 24
Chair Cribbs: I was not taking a vote on the motion. I was trying to see where agreement 25
was. 26
Ms. O’Kane: I’m sorry. I apologize. 27
Chair Cribbs: No, that’s okay. David? 28
Commissioner Moss: I’m okay with the wording of both A and B. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 52
Commissioner Reckdahl: My preference would actually…I agree with Jackie and Jeff. My 1
college roommate is legally blind, so he has a placard, but he’s a patent lawyer and is filthy 2
rich, so it’s like well, do we…? I think we should give them a discount, but I don’t think 3
we should give them more of a discount than someone who has very low income or is a 4
military veteran or something like that. I think simplicity of just having the handicapped 5
people in the same category as the other discounts makes more sense. 6
Commissioner Moss: Okay, I change my vote. The same as what Keith just said. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: So, if you’re not in favor of free entry for people with a disabled 8
plate and placard, are you in favor of adding them into the 25-percent discount group? Is 9
that what the group consensus is here? That’s my first question. My second point is, Keith, 10
I appreciate your comment about your filthy rich friend who is blind, but I would also say 11
that there’s other considerations that he has to work with being blind, and he can find 12
someone to get him up to the park to experience it, I’m okay with free entry. 13
Chair Cribbs: Are you guys suggesting modifying the description and putting the disabled 14
into the category with seniors? Is that what we’re doing now? 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Can we split this motion? 16
Chair Cribbs: I was going to say, it might be better to split the motion. Daren, could you 17
take out B, please? 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think that’s a request to the maker to split the motion. 19
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, it is. I wanted to see what it looked like, and then I was going to ask. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Another approach would be for someone to make an amendment 21
to the motion. 22
AMENDED MOTION 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’ll make an amendment that the annual pass for vehicles 24
displaying disabled plates or placard, will be…You say the same as before, or same as 25
the…? Just say a 25-percent discount. 26
Commissioner Olson: Are we able to amend the prior one that already passed, instead of 27
having it be a stand-alone? 28
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, maybe amend the previous motion to include – 29
Chair Cribbs: Amend the first – 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 53
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t know. I’m not clear on what the guidelines are for amending 1
a motion we’ve passed. 2
Mr. Anderson: I’m not either. 3
Commissioner Olson: We’re getting lots of procedural questions tonight, aren’t we? 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. 5
Chair Cribbs: Well then, maybe we should go ahead and work on this motion, and see if 6
we can make a decision about it. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m going to suggest that we split this out into separate motions, 8
because I’m not going to support the 25-percent discount for handicapped vehicles. My 9
thinking in that is I appreciate your point of view, and I am in favor of consensus on this, 10
but I think if there’s a nonunanimous vote on that, that would be something for the Council 11
to look at and to consider other options, and potentially consider how to address this the 12
right way. 13
Mr. Anderson: So, you would like me to remove B? Is that correct? You’re splitting that? 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, please. That’s going to become a separate motion. 15
Chair Cribbs: We’re having two motions now, Daren. 16
Mr. Anderson: And the second motion has been changed to this? 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Correct. 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, and we can probably vote on the first motion. 19
Mr. Anderson: So technically, a third motion here? 20
Chair Cribbs: Let’s vote on the first motion. Catherine, I think we need to do a voice vote. 21
[roll call vote] 22
Ms. Bourquin: Seven to pass the second motion. 23
MOTION PASSED, 7-0 24
Chair Cribbs: Great. Okay, let’s work on the third motion. Do we have a motion for that 25
now? 26
MOTION 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 54
MOTION 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: The third motion will be a copy of the second motion, but with 2
the free admission for the people with disabled placards. 3
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: And then I have amended that to change that to be 25-percent 5
discount, and we have to vote on the amendment. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: I would suggest, in the interest of expediting this that…You’re 7
creating a new motion, so you can make it whatever you want without the amendment. So, 8
make the amended motion to start off with. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. So, 25-percent discount for annual pass for people who 10
are displaying a disabled placard. Is there a second? 11
Chair Cribbs: Is there a second? 12
Commissioner Olson: Commissioner Reckdahl, could I ask a question. In the prior tiers, 13
we had the Palo Alto resident with a discount, and then a nonresident with a discount. Are 14
you adding them to the 25 percent in both categories, as are the others? 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Correct, as are the others. Maybe include vehicles displaying 16
disabled placards in the 25-percent discount categories in annual pass fee structure. 17
Mr. Anderson: Say that last part again, please? 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: Include vehicles displaying disabled plate/placards in the 25-19
percent discount categories in the annual pass fee structure. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Can I suggest for both resident and nonresident? 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, so say in the…Okay. 22
Commission LaMere: I guess it’s plural for residents and nonresidents, so you can take 23
out the word “amendment.” This is a brand new motion. Do we have a second for this? 24
Chair Cribbs: Do we have a second for this motion? 25
Commissioner Olson: I’ll second. 26
Chair Cribbs: Keith, do you want to speak to that? 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 55
Commissioner Reckdahl: I understand the desire to give disabled people a break, but also 1
there’s good arguments for giving other people breaks, and it’s hard for us to judge who 2
gets the best break, and I think it’s simplest just to have one category of discounts. I think 3
for simplicity, 25 percent is reasonable. 4
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie? 5
Commissioner Olson: I agree, and I would also point out that we are limited by what we 6
can do in this meeting to the annual pass. I don’t want to treat folks differently, but I would 7
encourage Council to consider the waiver for the daily rate. 8
Chair Cribbs: Other discussion? 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Commissioner Olson. When you say the waiver, are 10
you meaning a free entry waiver, or a 25-percent discount? 11
Commissioner Olson: I’m saying the daily, because we cannot discuss the daily rate or act 12
on it, which is where I think that belongs that I would encourage Council to take that up 13
as a consideration when they see the discounts that we are offering here and are proposing 14
to offer in the annual pass. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I agree with that, and that’s why I’m going to vote no 16
on this, just to be able to make clear that the reason that I’m voting no is I think there 17
should be no charge for an annual fee for disabled vehicles, or disabled drivers. 18
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 19
Commissioner Brown: I’m sorry. I just think for clarity that maybe for this motion I’d like 20
to essentially offer a friendly amendment that I imagine will become an unfriendly 21
amendment, that it should be at no fee, just so there’s clarity in the record that the minority 22
opinion is no fee, and we’re not voting against a discount for the disabled community. I 23
don’t that to be in the record and be confusing to anybody. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: That goes to the maker of the motion first to accept the amendment 25
or not. 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think we should vote on this amendment. I think that’s the 27
cleanest way to do it. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: So, if you want vote – 29
[inaudible, crosstalk] 30
UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 56
1
2
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, not friendly. This would be unfriendly and have a separate 3
vote on this amendment. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: And I’ll second the unfriendly amendment. 5
Mr. Anderson: How would you like that phrased, Commissioner Brown? 6
Commissioner Brown: Sorry, we had the language before. The annual pass fee is waived 7
for vehicles displaying disabled plates. Sorry, you said that staff would use the placard as 8
the annual pass. That’s just implied. 9
Chair Cribbs: Okay. You need a second to that unfriendly amendment? 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, I offered a second. 11
Chair Cribbs: I didn’t hear that. Thank you. Okay, so I’m sorry. Keith, you made the 12
motion, right? 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yes, and Mandy made the amendment, Commissioner Brown. 14
Chair Cribbs: I’m sorry. I was talking about the other motion. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I made the original. 16
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so if you made the original, you are not accepting the unfriendly 17
amendment, or are you? 18
Commissioner Reckdahl: No, I do not accept it, so it’s unfriendly. 19
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: So, there can either be discussion on the unfriendly, or we can vote 21
on it. 22
Chair Cribbs: Well, let’s have a little bit of discussion. Any discussion from anybody? 23
Commissioner Olson: I guess since I seconded the original, if we were including active 24
military and veterans and the other categories in with the fee waiver, I’d be much more 25
comfortable, but I am not comfortable having a difference here. 26
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 57
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well I don’t have anything to add to the discussion. I don’t hear any 1
other comments, so let’s have a vote on this. 2
[roll call vote] 3
Ms. Bourquin: Five no and two yes to the amendment to the third motion. 4
AMENDMENT FAILS, 2-5 (Cribbs, LaMere, Olson, Moss, Reckdahl – no; 5
Greenfield, Brown – yes) 6
Chair Cribbs: So now we have the third motion to vote on? 7
Commissioner Olson: Do we go back to a vote on the original third motion? 8
Vice Chair Cribbs: Yes, we do. 9
Ms. Bourquin: Would you like me to call roll? 10
Chair Cribbs: Yes, unless there’s any further discussion. No discussion, okay. Call roll, 11
please. 12
[roll call vote] 13
Ms. Bourquin: Five to pass. Two to fail. 14
MOTION PASSES, 5-2 (Cribbs, LaMere, Olson, Moss, Reckdahl – yes; Greenfield, 15
Brown – no) 16
Chair Cribbs: Okay. So, during the time that I was offline, was there anything else that 17
was brought up that we need to discuss now, or can we move on to the Ad Hoc 18
Committees? 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t believe there was anything else. I suggest we move on. 20
2. Commission Ad Hoc and Liaison Discussion 21
Chair Cribbs: Daren was going to put up the Ad Hoc Committees. What you’re seeing is 22
the 2020 Ad Hoc Committees and the people who served on them, and 2020 Liaison rolls 23
and whoever was the Liaison. We took a look at this and, actually the task today is, there’s 24
no action on this. We just want to talk about it and have some discussion. We tried to 25
reduce the number of Ad Hoc Committees, so you see the 2021 proposed Ad Hocs. This 26
is really also in reaction and in response to the Boards and Commissioners Handbook, 27
which asks that the Ad Hoc be for a specific task, and not like a standing committee, so 28
the proposed Ad Hocs for 2021 are the Baylands Tide Gate, the Fund Development, a CIP 29
review that may not be necessary right at the moment, a Foothills Policy ad hoc, a Racquet 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 58
Court Policy, Dog Park and Reservations, and New Recreation Opportunities. Comments? 1
Discussion? 2
Commissioner Moss: I have a serious issue with us single Foothills Policy Ad Hoc. I think, 3
based on the discussion today and ones we had last month, there’s way, way too many 4
issues involving Foothills policy for just one ad hoc to deal with. I feel that almost all of 5
the – maybe all of the Commission – would like a say, or a hand, in doing some of the 6
legwork for Foothills, since it’s such a big, big deal. So I was wondering if we could break 7
that up into two or three and perhaps not have so many other ad hocs this year. 8
Chair Cribbs: I appreciate that, David. Certainly, we have a lot to talk about with Foothills 9
Park this year. I think it’s important for all the Commissioners to have the opportunity to 10
opine and provide their expertise on ideas about Foothills Park. I think that there may be 11
– Kristen can speak to this as well – a Brown Act issue involved, in that we could get into 12
conversations and sort of serial conversations, so the alternative is to continue with the one 13
ad hoc, look at the composition of the ad hoc, and I think we can’t have more than three 14
members. But then as needed – and clearly tonight was very useful – we add special 15
meetings, so that the whole Commission can discuss issues around Foothills. That would 16
ensure that all the Commissioners would have their opportunity and be participating in 17
decisions about Foothills, and also be able to do, I believe, some of the research that might 18
be necessary to assist the staff. I’m worried about the fact that we are down some, in terms 19
of staff, and I’m worried that we’re taking an awful lot of staff time, so I want to be 20
cognizant of that. Kristen and Daren, would you – 21
Commissioner Moss: Could I make one more comment? 22
Chair Cribbs: Absolutely. 23
Commissioner Moss: That is, it was the research that I was most concerned about, and 24
staff time, and when I look at the different things, what I’m talking about is that there are 25
certain things that are health and safety issues. There are certain things that have to do with 26
our partner relations and liaisons regarding classes and special events and tours and guided 27
hikes and work parties and volunteers, et cetera. That’s another whole category of research 28
that needs to be done. Then there’s another whole set of research that has to be done 29
regarding publicity and the Enjoy catalog and the online real time website status and that 30
kind of thing. Then there’s another whole bunch of research to do with technology, like 31
car counters and reservation systems. Then there’s stuff that really the staff can do, like 32
trash and staffing and signage and dog policy and bike policy and things like that. So, can 33
staff comment on that tremendous amount of research that needs to be done and how we 34
could help? 35
Mr. Anderson: I’ll take a stab at answering that one, Kristen, if you don’t mind. To answer 36
the first question of can we have multiple ad hocs, Kristen and I did consult with the City 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 59
Attorney’s Office, and the answer was no, that the likelihood of having serial meetings out 1
of that kind of arrangement is too high and too risky for Brown Act violations. So, we 2
can’t do that. Chair, Vice Chair and I were discussing alternatives, which is essentially – 3
because your point is well-taken. We want to make sure all the Commissioners have a 4
chance…The alternative that is available to us is more special meetings. We can have 5
another meeting wholly dedicated to Foothills Park to do so. The second part that I wanted 6
to address is the tremendous amount of research that you highlighted, I think, really ably. 7
There is an enormous amount. The City Manager had formed a stakeholder group. I think 8
I’ve reference this before in a couple presentations and updates. Within that stakeholder 9
group they’ve broken out subgroups, little task forces, that are looking into many of the 10
issues, if not all that you just enumerated, and they are being remarkably helpful in 11
brainstorming through it. I think also there will end up being helpful in terms of doing 12
research as well. Where this comes back to the Commission is we’ll work with those task 13
forces to develop at least a draft recommendation or something substantive that I can share, 14
and I’ll bring it back to the full Commission for discussion. That way, we’ll make sure the 15
full Commissioners is opining and sharing their feedback on all those different categories 16
that you talked about. 17
Chair Cribbs: David, do you have any additional comments? 18
Commissioner Moss: I want the Commission to be helpful to the staff. That’s our goal. 19
That’s our job. If staff thinks that they can do all the research within their…that I just 20
enumerated, that’s okay. If you need help, tell us how we can do that. You don’t have to 21
answer today. Think about it and come back to us and tell us how we can help. 22
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. I just want to thank you for that. Staff greatly appreciates it. My 23
whole team, I know so many different staff people are working hard on this, and I just 24
want to assure you that the Ad Hoc has been very helpful with doing research and 25
contributing. Chair Greenfield and I have met in the park and walked through things. He’s 26
part of that stakeholder development group that I mentioned and has done a tremendous 27
amount of research, so we are getting a lot of help. There is a need, because there’s such a 28
tremendous amount, so I’ll keep looking for different opportunities to seek assistance from 29
the full Commission. Again, I greatly appreciate the offer, because we do need it. 30
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, David. That was really well-said, and Daren, I think you 31
understand how much the Commission wants to help the staff and wants to be a support 32
for the staff during this time, because I think we all know how much additional work 33
you’ve been doing and how much we appreciate it all. 34
Mr. Anderson: Thank you. 35
Chair Cribbs: Going back to the other Ad Hoc Committees, take a minute to review those 36
and see if you have any thoughts. We’re not taking any action on this tonight. We just 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 60
wanted to bring it to everybody’s attention. Same thing with the Liaison roles. Any 1
comments about the Liaison roles? I talked to Daren and he felt like we had covered them 2
all, but if there were others that people wanted to bring up, we can do that at the next 3
meeting. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think the NVCAP, the North Ventura, is wrapped. It’s possible 5
there might be one last meeting, but for all practical purposes, it’s wrapped up. I guess it 6
doesn’t hurt to have me on that, or to have someone on that. 7
Chair Cribbs: I think it’s really important that as that development goes forward that you’re 8
there or somebody is there to ensure that the parks don’t get short shrift. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, so better safe than sorry. We’ll leave it on the plan. 10
IV. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR February 23, 2021 11
Chair Cribbs: I think so. Okay, well if there’s nothing more about that, I think we could 12
have a motion to adjourn. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, are we talking about our next agenda? 14
Chair Cribbs: I think that the next agenda is Foothills Park and the fees, Daren? 15
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct, the impact fees. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. Since it’s a discussion item, it may not be necessary to 17
narrow down what our priority focus is on Foothills Park, and maybe the first part of our 18
discussion could be to talk about where our priorities are. I don’t know if it would be 19
helpful for the Ad Hoc to hear from the Commission what the priorities that they might be 20
interested in pursuing might be, if that would help moving towards the discussion on the 21
23rd. 22
Chair Cribbs: Are you talking about the priorities for Foothills Park, Jeff? Or priorities in 23
general? 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m talking about, as we consider the Foothills Park agenda item 25
on the 23rd, we have this broad list. Do we need to spend any time – not that I’m looking 26
to spend a lot more time – but do we need to spend any time talking about what the 27
priorities are for discussion at the next meeting? What the top priorities we’re focused on 28
would be. I think we have more latitude since it’s a discussion item and not an action item. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: Will it be agendized as a discussion item or an action item? 30
Mr. Anderson: Discussion. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 61
Chair Cribbs: It’s all discussion. And then the action would be a month later unless we 1
plan to have a special meeting. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, if we want to make a recommendation to Council about 3
something, we can’t do that? 4
Mr. Anderson: You could change it to an action item, if you wanted, for the 23rd. The Ad 5
Hoc and I have looked over the very, very robust list that you had seen before, with green 6
and yellow, purple – breakdowns of different priorities and topics. It’s fairly lengthy. 7
Maybe I could defer to the Ad Hoc, but my impression is there’s so much to discuss, it 8
would be very difficult to make an action item on much of it. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m also concerned about the frequency of action recommendations 10
we make to Council on the same topic and the burden that places on staff to prepare a staff 11
report that goes to the Council for that. And trying to get agendized on the Council slate. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. I just want to make things as flexible as possible, just 13
because tonight we were kind of hamstrung because our agenda was a little too narrow. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: And I’ll also note that we probably wouldn’t have a second special 15
meeting for Foothills next month if we move forward with having our annual retreat, which 16
would already be a second meeting for the month. 17
Chair Cribbs: Thank you for that. 18
V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 19
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 20
Meeting adjourned by motion by Commissioner Reckdahl and second by Commissioner 21
Moss at 10:15 p.m. 22
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
February 23, 2021 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Vice Chair Jeff Greenfield, Jeff LaMere, David 12
Moss, Jackie Olson, Keith Reckdahl, Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Member Kou 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Lam Do 16
I. ROLL CALL 17
Chair Cribbs: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the February 23rd Parks and 18
Recreation meeting. It’s a beautiful evening tonight, and I’m looking forward to a good 19
and fruitful meeting. Catherine, would you take the roll, please? 20
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 21
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 22
Mr. Do: Our first speaker tonight will be George Moxie, to be followed by Arthur Keller. 23
Mr. George Moxie: Hi, Commissioners. Hi, Lam. It’s nice to see you this evening. I just 24
thought I’d come back and give you a very quick update regarding our Baylands project 25
that we’re hoping to do. Lam and I have been in contact about the MOU draft that we sent 26
to the City that he had forwarded to the Attorney’s Office. They’ve come back and asked 27
us to convert that into a Letter of Intent. I have received that back from our attorney today, 28
and I will be reviewing it tomorrow with him. We’ll be forwarding that back to Lam 29
tomorrow, so hopefully things will continue to progress, and we really appreciate your 30
support. Thank you. 31
Mr. Do: Thank you, George. Our next speaker is Arthur Keller, to be followed by Mark 32
Nadim. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Mr. Arthur Keller: I’m trying to extrapolate on my remarks that Adobe Meadow 1
Neighborhood Association is opposed to a dog park at Ramos Park. We don’t want a 2
formal dog park. We are opposed to a dog park, because a formal dog park will attract 3
more owners and dogs than currently use the park. It will also tend to make a dog park a 4
destination or attraction to owners, for dog owners from a further distance. Ramos is a 5
small neighborhood park, and an increase in traffic and people would ultimately alter its 6
neighborhood feel. Many dog walkers use enclosed dog parks as an outlet for dog clients 7
to run around and burn off energy. Based on our [unintelligible] of this park, they don’t 8
always watch the dogs they are charged with watching in the enclosed area. Dog owners 9
have previously used the enclosed park at Mitchell Park and feel that dogs brought to the 10
enclosed park are not well trained and do not respond well to commands. That’s why dog 11
owners take the dog to the enclosed area. A few dog owners have seen more aggressive 12
dogs in enclosed areas and had their own dogs charged at and attacked in an enclosed area. 13
That’s why they will not go back to an enclosed area, because of the experience. Some 14
dog owners have seen them leaving their dog unattended in the enclosed area while they 15
go exercise, basically using the park as a babysitter. Sand and gravel that’s put down in 16
enclosed areas often smells of urine as well as fences due to the nature of the many that 17
have marked the fence. Once an enclosed park is built, that area can no longer be used for 18
anyone else, but Ramos is too small a park to permanently close off that area to others. 19
Mr. Do: Our next speaker is Mark Nadim, to be followed by Grant Elliot. 20
Mr. Mark Nadim: I live on Alexis Drive. In late December and early January, there were 21
a lot of cars on Alexis Drive. At the Alexis entrance to the park. These cars were parked 22
along Alexis and Laurel Glen. We’ve seen as many as 15 to 20 cars parked at that time. 23
The situation has changed at Foothills Park. I believe that the novelty of the park is wearing 24
off and is going to wear off further in the next few months. As COVID restrictions and our 25
lives and sports events open up, less and less people will be coming to the park. We noticed 26
the number of cars at the Alexis entrance at the back of the park have gone down to 27
between one to five cars at a time. I go to the park once or twice a week, and I did notice 28
that the number of people at the park on weekdays is much less than what it used to be in 29
January. Based on all this, I urge you not to have a kneejerk reaction in implanting 30
restrictions and entrance fees. Speaking of fees, the question is, why is it that Palo Alto 31
residents need to pay fees? I was attending a function at the San Francisco Botanical 32
Gardens last week, and when I went to their website to purchase tickets, I noticed that San 33
Francisco residents can enter for free, so why we don’t implement similar things for Palo 34
Alto residents at Foothills Park? Thank you. 35
Mr. Do: Thank you, Mark. Our next speaker is Grant Elliot, to be followed by Tally Catts 36
[phonetic]. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
Ms. Sharon Elliot: This is actually Sharon Elliot. We’re using Grant’s computer tonight. I 1
wanted to just say a few things about the dog park at Ramos that has been projected. I 2
think that constructing a dog park there, where there’s a lovely multi-use green space, and 3
converting it to a single use fenced area that will be used only by a small minority of the 4
visitors is not a fair decision. Many visitors use it during normal times. Of course, with the 5
pandemic it’s different. But usually there’s volleyball there, soccer, catch, croquet, picnic 6
areas are often spilling over into that area. So, we really don’t want to see it become a 7
single use area. The other thing that we’re very concerned about is that the dog park is 8
going to be only ten feet from neighbors’ fences, and that makes neighbor’s backyards 9
almost unusable during lots of times when there will be dogs in the dog park area. If people 10
have pets in their own backyard, it will cause consternation for those pets. So, I’d like to 11
see that proposition taken off of the renovation plans for Ramos. 12
Mr. Do: Thank you. Our next speaker is Tally Catts [phonetic], to be followed by Robin 13
Holbrook. 14
Ms. Tally Catts: I’ve been living on Ortega Court for about 35 years, next to Ramos Park, 15
and I wanted to second Sharon and Grant’s disapproval and opposition to the planned 16
fenced-in dog park as part of the renovations, for the same reasons. I’ll reiterate that it’s 17
planned to be about ten feet away from the residences, which is unprecedented. We’ve not 18
heard of a dog park like that in Palo Alto, or out of Palo Alto, that’s so close to the 19
residences. It’s a small park. Secondly, it’s not in accordance with the Parks Master Plan, 20
which calls for additional dog parks in the northern part of Palo Alto. There are already 21
three dog parks in South Palo Alto, including Mitchell Park, which is only half a mile away 22
from Ramos Park. The planned park is much too small for a park. It’s even smaller than 23
the Greer dog park and the Hoover dog park, which are considered small according to the 24
Master Plan. Thirdly, it won’t be used by the dog owners because of its size and because 25
the dog owners usually congregate there outside of the park. It won’t solve the problem 26
that I think you guys were trying to solve for in the first place, of that congregating. So, I 27
would appreciate it if it would be taken off the table for consideration as soon as possible. 28
Thank you. 29
Mr. Do: Thank you, Tally. Our next speaker is Robin Holbrook, to be followed by Florie 30
Hutchinson. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Ms. Robin Holbrook: Hi, I’m another member of the Adobe Meadow Neighborhood 1
Association Board. I see that we have really come out in force to oppose the dog park in 2
Ramos Park. What I was planning to say is almost redundant at this point, but I would like 3
to reiterate the strongly-made and well-phrased opposition to the dog park. When I first 4
heard of the planned renovations at Ramos, I was thrilled. I am thrilled. I think it will be 5
wonderful to get a bathroom there, to get other upgrades at this small gem of a park. I was 6
originally not opposed to the idea of a dog park, but when I looked at the plans, as has 7
been mentioned, the proposed siting is right next to neighbors, right up against the 8
backyards of neighbors on Ortega Court. It’s such a small park. It’s such a little gem of a 9
park. I go there every single day on my walks around the neighborhood. It is widely used 10
by people in our neighborhood. It’s our neighborhood park, and I have spoken informally 11
with neighbors and people in the park, and no one seems to be…I’ve run into one person 12
who was in favor of having a fenced dog park there, but everyone else agrees that it is just 13
too small for a dog park. It’s a lovely little park as it is. It’s just too small. I’ve been to all 14
of the parks in Palo Alto. I’m an avid walker, and none of the other dog parks are in a park 15
as small as Ramos. It will just impact that other park uses too greatly, I think, so I hope 16
you can make this change. Thank you. 17
Mr. Do: Thank you, Robin. Our next speaker is Florie Hutchinson, to be followed by 18
Michelle Rosengaus. 19
Ms. Florie Hutchinson: Hi there. Thank you so much. I just wanted to voice my concern 20
about the traffic on Alexis Drive as a resident of Palo Alto Hills. We moved onto Alexis 21
Drive about three years ago, and as a mother of four small children who are nine, seven, 22
four and two years old, we regularly walk up Alexis Drive into the entrance to the Foothills 23
Nature Preserve. As I think Mark Nadim mentioned earlier, we as a family of six, have 24
regularly counted upward up 27 cars in the cul-de-sac parking at that entrance on Alexis 25
Drive, and as a mom of four small children and not the only family on Alexis Drive with 26
several small children, it’s highly concerning for us from a safety point of view. The other 27
thing to note in addition to the sheer volume of cars parking up there, because of where 28
we are positioned on Alexis Drive, which is one of big bends, I’ve noticed that the cars, 29
being non-residents, are literally driving between 35 to 40 miles an hour around that bend, 30
which is incredibly dangerous. We’ve seen a higher frequency of car accidents on Alexis 31
Drive in the last couple of months. So, I just wanted to voice my concern, both as a mom 32
of small children and one of several families that lives on Alexis Drive – I believe there 33
are about 37 houses in Palo Alto Hills who personally use that entrance to the Preserve by 34
walking in, which also begs the question of the admission and tariff, given that it is literally 35
like our version of a backyard or park that we have used and certainly, due to COVID and 36
having to be homeschooling my children, the usage from our point of view is nearly daily. 37
That’s what I just wanted to voice tonight. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Mr. Do: Thank you, Florie. Our next speaker is Michelle Rosengaus, to be followed by 1
Meg Winslow. 2
Ms. Michelle Rosengaus: Good evening. I live on Ortega Court. We’ve been here for 35 3
years, and we are the flag lot that is directly next to the fence for the proposed dog park. I 4
am voicing my objection to the construction of the dog park. I know that you have received 5
a slew of emails from the neighborhood and from the Adobe Association, voicing 6
everybody’s objection to this dog park. The site, Ramos Park, is really too small, and the 7
site is sandwiched between our homes and the picnic area, and there is some very serious 8
health issues regarding dogs using a mulched area. You don’t wash the mulch, and it just 9
incubates all the pathogens. If I open my windows, my nose is directly above what will be 10
the proposed dog park. Also, accepted guidelines have to have 120 feet as a buffer from 11
the dog park, and Ramos Park is way too small. Right now, it’s proposed to be 10 feet 12
from my house and 10 feet from the picnic area. Even the houses across the street on East 13
Meadow, I don’t even think are 120 feet from the dog park. I’m hoping that you will 14
remove it from the renovations for the park. It is a really beautiful community park, and 15
we have babies all the way to seniors exercising there, and everybody wants the green 16
space to enjoy some peace and quiet, not a fenced-in, mulched dog park that is going to be 17
used by a few dogs. I hope that you will keep our green space as it is, so we can all enjoy 18
it. Thank you. 19
Mr. Do: Thank you, Michelle. Our next speaker is Meg Winslow, to be followed by 20
Howard Hoffman. 21
[technical difficulty, Ms. Winslow unable to hear] 22
Mr. Do: How about we return to you, if you could join the cue again, and I will bring you 23
up as the following speaker? Our next speaker will be Howard Hoffman, to be followed 24
by Amy Horn. 25
Mr. Howard Hoffman: Hello. I’m the Founder of Palo Alto Dog Owners, representing 26
more than 300 dog owners in Palo Alto. I think the verdict from the neighborhood around 27
Ramos Park is pretty clear. One of my best friends is one of those neighbors, and we had 28
a nice discussion about this. Basically, he would rather keep the status quo, which is where 29
people are using the park off-lease illegally. I tried to point out to him that that really is 30
not ideal, because that makes some of his neighbors into scofflaws. So really, going back 31
around the circle here, the best thing for these smaller parks – and we’re talking about a 32
number of them, not just Ramos – we were talking about having a trial of off-lease hours, 33
and I think rather than constraining dogs in a fence, I think based on the cost and the 34
impact, I think the best thing is to go back and actually give it try to have off-leash hours 35
at Ramos Park. I think that would be better. That’s what’s happening now. It’s just not 36
constrained by time. If we can go back to that concept of having legal off-leash hours, then 37
I think that the neighborhood will be a lot happier, and I think it could be a great model 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
for the rest of the city. Thank you very much. 1
Mr. Do: Thank you, Howard. We will try to return to Meg Winslow. Meg, if you could 2
give it another try, please. 3
Ms. Winslow: Okay, I’m sorry. This may be the wrong place to bring this up, but I just 4
wanted to know if this meeting is being broadcast on MidPenMedia.org? I don’t see it 5
there, and I’ve been having some problems with Zoom. That’s my question. 6
Ms. Bourquin: It’s not being broadcast, because another meeting is happening. 7
Ms. Winslow: Oh, okay. Sorry. Thank you. 8
Mr. Do: Thank you, Meg. Our next speaker is Amy Horn. 9
Ms. Amy Horn: I live on Alexis Drive near Foothills Park. I want to make three points this 10
evening, to follow up on what Mark Nadim said earlier. One is we walk up and use 11
Foothills Park a lot, and we have noticed a growing volume traveling at actually higher 12
speeds than would be expected on a residential street, so we definitely appreciate help 13
monitoring the traffic at the entrance coming through Alexis Drive into the park. Secondly, 14
I did want to say that because we use the park on a very regular basis just walking and 15
family time, we would love to make sure that for Palo Alto residents that the fee, especially 16
for the [inaudible]. The third item I wanted to make sure that we support sharing the park 17
and the resources with the [inaudible] population, but we want to make sure that there is 18
proper signage, to encourage people not to litter on either Alexis [inaudible] toilet paper, 19
dog poop, just trash, food packaging thrown around the parking. The cars parked have 20
parked in the cul-de-sac up at the top of Alexis. And then just walking around the park on 21
the trails. I was just there earlier this afternoon. You see toilet paper, and you just see 22
things that are just now littering what is supposed to be the nature preserve that can be 23
enjoyed by all, so I would encourage proper signage and just education of the bigger 24
number of people that come to use the park to make sure that it stays good for generations 25
to come. Thank you. 26
Mr. Do: Thank you, Amy. Chair Cribbs, that concludes speakers. 27
Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much, Lam, and thank you to all the speakers. We really 28
appreciate your thoughts and your comments and your consideration. Appreciate your 29
being here. 30
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 31
Chair Cribbs: Daren? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. Good evening. A brief update on COVID-19. Santa 1
Clara County is currently in the purple tier. However, on February 22nd, just yesterday, the 2
State issued an update that said that outdoor use sports would be allowed to resume in 3
California counties where the case rates are fewer than 14 new cases per day, per 100,000 4
residents. Both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties meet that threshold. This would take 5
effect on February 26, 2021. However, Santa Clara County hasn’t made any updates to 6
their website to reflect this. We would be obligated to follow the more restrictive of the 7
health orders. So, if County follows State guidelines there would be a number of changes. 8
Some of them, for example, would be that pickleball and tennis, double play, would be 9
allowed. Adult outdoor volleyball and softball would be allowed, and staff will continue 10
to closely monitor Santa Clara County’s website to see when they update their health order 11
to reflect this change with the State, and then I’d be glad to provide another update for the 12
Commission on all the things that would come about as a result of that. An update on the 13
Recreation Division. Got some exciting programs starting in April. For example, there’s 14
indoor cooking classes at Lucie Stern Community Center for youth ages 6 to 13. Spring 15
Cooking with Junior Chef Stars. Classes will be held with one instructor and a stable 16
cohort, a maximum of 14 students. There will be indoor Lego engineering, Spring Break 17
Camp at the Mitchell Park Community Center for youth ages 5 to 10. Jedi Engineering 18
Spring Break Camp with Lego materials. The camp will be held with one instructor and 19
again, the stable cohort of 14. Outdoor sport classes, such as soccer and tennis, will also 20
be offered. The Boost Program, an adult fitness program, is offered in the outdoor patio of 21
the Lucie Stern Community Center, and virtual programs are still being offered every 22
quarter, such as Communication Academy for Youth, Lego for Youth, and Tia Chi for 23
Adults. You can find more programs and full descriptions on the website. Recreation staff 24
is issuing field permits to youth groups provided they adhere to all the requirements for 25
youth recreation and athletics. Most of the youth teams are using the field spaces for 26
practice and skill-building. Cubberley continues to remain closed to indoor rentals; 27
however, there are several Cubberley tenants and artists on the site that are able to continue 28
their programs and operations, while following County and State guidelines. The School 29
District is also operating onsite with special education classes. And as you saw in an email 30
that was forwarded to the Commission, there was the potential imminent domain action 31
by PG&E to take a portion of Cubberley, but thanks to support from the community, 32
PG&E backed out. An update on Youth Golf. The Baylands Golf Links has resumed our 33
very popular Youth on Course Program, where youth aged 18 and under may play for $5 34
on weekday afternoons after 2:00 p.m. Staff is working on implementing a pollinator 35
planting design for the front area of Arastradero Garden. The design plan for the pollinator 36
came from Juanita Salisbury. Dr. Salisbury, you might recall, had done a presentation to 37
the Commission in the past on pollinator gardens that she’s partnered with the City and 38
built and developed along Embarcadero Road and a few other areas that are thriving and 39
doing well, so we hope to replicate that at our Arastradero Community Garden. On 40
February 19th – this was last Friday – the Safe Parking Program at 2000 Geng Road 41
opened. This is an area near the Baylands Athletic Center in the location where the Palo 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Alto Fire Station had temporarily stayed while their fire station at Rinconada was being 1
reconstructed. The site can accommodate 12 vehicles and includes a building with a 2
shower. The nonprofit, Move Mountain View, which oversees five other safe parking lots 3
in Mountain View, will operate and oversee this site. Council approved this arrangement 4
in September. Lastly, I had a request to give an update on the Highway 101 pedestrian and 5
bike bridge. I contacted the project manager yesterday, and she said that she’s working on 6
an updated schedule for the bridge installation and will provide an update to the 7
Commission very soon. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more details on that one just yet, 8
but I will be glad to do so as soon as I have more information from her. That concludes 9
the Department Report. 10
Chair Cribbs: Daren, thank you very much for that really exciting report, as we start to 11
come out of COVID. I’m especially excited that the Baylands golf program for youth is 12
back. Great news on all of what you reported. Are there other Commissioners who have 13
questions for Daren? I don’t see any hands up. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Just a clarification on the status of the dog park and Ramos Park. 15
It’s not on the agenda, so I’m not looking to go into details. Just to understand, when this 16
item last came to the Commission, we were talking about the off-leash pilot program, and 17
then public meetings have progressed, and it sounds like the focus now is away from the 18
off-leash program and considering a formal fenced-in dog park. I thought that we had 19
discussed previously that there was no budget available for that. Could you explain what 20
the current direction is of discussions? 21
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. Let me back up and start with the last Commission meeting where 22
we talked about this, where there was tepid response on the part of the Commission for the 23
off-leash pilot program. There were concerns, numerous, which made staff want to go back 24
to the community and offer other alternatives to see whether a dedicated fenced dog park 25
had any interest, and I think the clear response is no. They do not want a fenced dog park. 26
There seemed to be some interest from the community for the off-leash pilot, but not 27
universal. Then again, that had been discussed with the Commission, and it also was sort 28
of a tepid response. In meeting with the Ad Hoc Committee, with Peter Jensen, who is sort 29
of spearheading this endeavor, the feeling has been let’s not pursue a dog park at Ramos. 30
It is already separate from the improvement project, so it’s not part of that at all. The intent 31
was just to reach out to the community, gauge a response. I think we’ve done so and have 32
our answer that a dedicated site is not appropriate for Ramos. The next steps that the Ad 33
Hoc has been talking about – and I believe Commissioner Moss, who is also on the Ad 34
Hoc, provided this in the Ad Hoc update – is that we’d be looking at other opportunities, 35
areas much further away from residences, as suggested by many of the attendees to the 36
last community meeting. 37
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Daren. Are there other Commission who have a question? Okay, 1
I don’t see any. Thanks again, Daren. 2
IV. BUSINESS 3
1. Approval of the Draft January 26, 2021, Parks and Recreation Commission 4
Minutes 5
. Chair Cribbs: Are there any changes, any additions, to the minutes? 6
Approval of the draft Minutes was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by 7
Commissioner Moss. Passed 6-0. 8
2. Impact Fee discussion and Recommendation 9
Chair Cribbs: Daren, I believe Lindsay Wong or Kristen are going to present this? 10
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. My pleasure to introduce the Community Services 11
Director, Kristen O’Kane, and the Senior Budget Analyst, Lindsay Wong. 12
Ms. O’Kane: Thank you, Daren. Good evening, Commission. I’m actually going to let 13
Lindsay Wong, who is our Senior Management Analyst…You probably remember Jazmin 14
LeBlanc, who was here. Lindsay has taken over Jazmin’s responsibilities on an interim 15
basis, so I wanted to introduce her to you. She is going to introduce our consultant, who 16
will be giving a presentation on this item. I’ll turn it over to you, Lindsay. 17
Ms. Lindsay Wong: Good evening, everyone. As Kristen said, I’m with the Community 18
Services Department. Tonight, we will be presenting the Parks Community Center and 19
Library Development Impact Fee Justification Study that was recently completed by our 20
consultant, DTA, and we will discuss their recommended updates to the fees. They have a 21
presentation for your tonight. Just for some background, Palo Alto has imposed impact 22
fees for new developments since 2001, but the baseline fee levels have not been reviewed 23
or updated in 20 years, nor has the actual cost inflation of land valuation in the city. So, 24
the Community Services and Library Departments hired the consulting firm, DTA, to 25
complete a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study to determine the maximum impact fee 26
levels that would be appropriate for Palo Alto. This was presented to Finance Committee 27
on December 15th, and is expected to be brought to Council in early March. With that, I 28
will turn it over to Nate Perez from DTA, who will present the Justification Study that they 29
completed and the recommended updates to the Development Impact Fees. 30
Mr. Nate Perez: Thank you so much, Lindsay and Kristen. Glad to be here tonight, 31
Commissioners. I’m a Managing Director with DTA. I’ve actually been working for the 32
City of Palo Alto for, I don’t know. I probably started in 2013 or 2014 on a series of 33
projects, so this update felt like a natural extension of some of the work we’ve previously 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
done. I’m going to go through a brief slide deck. Any fee in California is really a function 1
of some pretty simple math. We’re going to try to demystify it tonight. It’s really cost 2
divided by your demographic profile. Costs are driven in the parks space by land. The cost 3
to acquire new acreage, and in a place like Palo Alto and Coastal California and on the 4
Peninsula. I’m a San Jose resident; I’m in Willow Glen right now. That cost per acre is 5
very high, as we all know, especially homeowners. So that’s going to drive a lot of the fee. 6
Palo Alto has two specific kinds of park fees that are in play. I’d like you to keep that in 7
mind as I go through the presentation. Right now, there’s a bit of a disconnect between 8
those two fees. I think the really, really pressing issue here is to create some convergence 9
between those two fees and to bring them into alignment. We will get started and hopefully 10
I can share my screen correctly. Hopefully, there should be PowerPoint with a very garish 11
red. Let me know it that’s not case. 12
[adjusting screen] 13
Mr. Perez: Tonight, I want to talk about process throughout this. Impact fees are sort of 14
enabled, for the lawyers on the Commission, the lawyers in the group, by the Mitigation 15
Fee Act, Government Code 66,000, which was passed in 1987. I’m a recovering land use 16
attorney, so I really attack it from both a financial angle and a legal and process angle. We 17
want to make sure we’re crossing or T’s and dotting our I’s at every opportunity and every 18
juncture there. We’re also going to talk about demographics. Palo Alto is an interesting 19
community. On the scale of new communities – maybe a new Master Plan on one end of 20
the spectrum, and full buildout on the other end of the spectrum – I think we know what 21
Palo Alto, from a land use perspective, is closer to. That creates some interesting elements 22
of any Nexus Study that’s going to be done in the City. For parks, separate from 23
community centers and separate from library, we’re going to talk about inventory, and 24
we’re really going to talk about what people want to hear about, which is what the fee is 25
currently and what it’s going to. A little bit of background about DTA. As I mentioned, 26
we have worked for the City of Palo Alto for quite some time. Founded in 1983. Really 27
specialized in public finance and urban economics. We’ve done over 500 impact fee 28
studies in California alone. I’ve project managed almost 110 of those. I’m brought in a lot 29
to come in as an expert witness, be deposed. I’m going to a trial next month, not for one 30
of the studies we did. So, we bring a lot of multidisciplinary, cross disciplinary, chops to 31
this. We have engineers on staff, hydrologists on staff, land use planners on staff, attorneys 32
on staff. But really, we come at it from the lens of public finance. How do we cobble 33
together money for a public agency so that you guys can build what you need to build 34
and/or maintain what you need to maintain? We specialize historically on special districts 35
as well – CFDs, assessment districts, things of that nature. A little bit of background. As 36
Lindsay mentioned, the City has a host of impact fees, but the impact fees we’re talking 37
about tonight are park, community center, and library, which folks are a little bit confused 38
about, as they are very often grouped together. I call them quality of life impact fees. It 39
makes sense to sort of evaluate them. The usage factors tend to be similar, and the benefits 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
tend to be similar. The City did adopt an impact fee program for those three fees in 2001. 1
It really hasn’t been revisited since, and I don’t know if any of you own your home in Palo 2
Alto since 2001. That was sort of a locked-in assessment, but a lot’s changed, and that 3
needs to be covered. That needs to be addressed, not only for financial reasons, but also 4
for Nexus reasons. We are trying to draw a nexus between the calculation of the fee and 5
the justification of the fee and what your Parks and Rec, Community Center and Library 6
Departments are accomplishing. I usually recommend every five years. Of course, I’m a 7
consultant. That means you hire me more, but at least every ten years I like to see. I think 8
20 years is a bit too long. Really, the key takeaway from this process, which already went 9
to Finance Committee, is the development of…you’ll hear a lot of different names, but the 10
simplest one is a Nexus Study. That Nexus Study is going to define the maximum fee that 11
the City can charge. City Council will hopefully approve that study and adopt it. This 12
doesn’t mean City Council has to charge that maximum fee. Far from it. But, that 13
maximum fee defines the maximum nexus and the maximum cost recovery that you can 14
have. Beginning with a little bit of an overview. Sorry for the graphics. We’re always 15
trying to update our clip art. Really, in the Parks space, Community Center and Library 16
space – and if I start to just say Parks as a proxy for all three, I apologize. No offense to 17
Community Center and Library. It is the bulk of the fee here. But in the Parks space, the 18
first thing they have to do is really figure out where our level of service is in the 19
community. That’s the inventory that I note here. What we did is we surveyed Lindsay, 20
and Lindsay’s team, and Lam’s team, and their counterparts in the various other 21
departments to try to figure out, what do you guys have? Because once we know what you 22
guys have, and we figure out your demographics in our community, we know your level 23
of service. We know your acres per thousand residents. We know your number of ball 24
fields per thousand, things of that nature. And then the goal is to provide that level of 25
service to future residents, so you’re extending it forward. Because if future residents don’t 26
defray the cost and make sure that level of service is maintained, what happens very 27
logically is a deterioration of that level of service. There’s a lot of different ways to 28
calculate impact fees. Some of you guys, I’m sure…I’m not joking. I’ve been in front of 29
Palo Alto City Council enough, some of you may actually be rocket scientists. There are 30
different ways to calculate impact fees. This is the most common in the parks space, this 31
level of service approach. At the end of the day, you end up with a fee that’s calculated 32
typically by unit, or per nonresidential square foot. That’s that final column. Okay, so 33
where do we begin? We begin with an inventory. This might feel familiar. It might not 34
feel familiar, but it’s just figuring out what our existing facilities are, and really 35
categorizing them as best we can. It’s not as intuitive as folks might think, because certain 36
facilities – a pickleball court or a basketball court – may not equal technology upgrades at 37
Cubberley, may not equal sod upgrades at Rinconada. So, there’s a bit of a disconnect 38
sometimes. We do try to use some of these larger buckets to group these things together, 39
so we can manage it. Because in any one of these impact fee studies there might be a 40
thousand inputs. It can become a little cumbersome to review, but really the key elements 41
that are driving your fee and the fee calculation in Palo Alto are really the acres of city 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
parks and the acres of natural open space. This would be just some quick examples of your 1
park inventory, which is discussed in the staff report and in the study as well. Community 2
Center, I think you guys know these five really well. The square footage, what might be a 3
better proxy rather than acreage. Not all square footage is created equal, of course. We try 4
to control for that. Think air conditioning rooms and things of that nature, but at the end 5
of the day we do need to talk with the City’s real estate brokerage to even come up with a 6
number. Libraries are very similar. Square footage is sort of king, or queen. Volumes of 7
textbooks is also very critical. Little note here – this is a very studious group – things that 8
have been noted as integrated units – technology upgrades, furniture, fixtures and 9
equipment – you’ll note that there’s five different libraries. We have five integrated units. 10
We do that to really sort of collapse it for pricing, and essentially what we’re saying is that 11
there’s a level of service related to technology at each of these five, so if those need to be 12
updated, we would roll them out across all five over a 10- to 20-year period. So that’s what 13
that integrated unit means. It’s just helps us cost it out appropriately. We have this 14
inventory. We’re trying to find a level of service which we can extend forward. Inventory 15
is the numerator. The denominator will essentially be our demographics. We look at 16
Department of Finance. We look at City finance documents. We look at ABAG. Right 17
now, in Palo Alto…and there’s been a shift in Palo Alto about housing and priorities and 18
goals. It’s fantastic. A lot of this was really sort of memorialized in the 2017 EIR, the 19
Environmental Impact Report that the City processed. And really, what we understand to 20
be the selected scenario, which is scenario three, what you guys see on the left here – and 21
this is directly from the EIR – is estimates of the city’s population. City employees – as 22
you guys know better than I do – is not that easy of a number to pin down. You don’t have 23
a clicker there. I’m not trying to bring up a sore spot, but if you don’t have a business 24
license tax or per-head tax, if can be a little tricky. What we do is we cross reference these 25
numbers with our own data sources, our own data platforms. We do this in so many 26
communities, we have a pretty good feel for it. And we validate them, and we’ve validated 27
these. On the right side is really there’s some 2030 totals. This impact fee study has a 20-28
year horizon, so it’s going to go 2020 to 2040. We’ve taken those 2030 numbers and we’ve 29
extrapolated them out to 2040. We essentially compare the gap between existing residents 30
and the future residents we created between 2020 and 2040. Excuse me, existing residents 31
and existing employees versus future residents and future employees. These are just some 32
summaries, some nice, lovely tables. Generally, Palo Alto is about 67,000 residents. 33
Numbers may not sum due to rounding, of course. Number of housing units by single 34
family, multi-family. It’s very, very common in the impact fee space to draw a distinction 35
between single family and multi-family just because of, typically, the number of persons 36
you have in each of those households. Also, I think there’s an economic argument about 37
the fee can be borne by each of those product types. So, we see existing equivalent 38
dwelling units, which is just sort of a fancy term for how we standardize different uses, 39
and we use a single family home as our base, and projected future equivalent dwelling 40
units, so it’s really essentially the same metric. What we’re looking at is a 10- to 15-percent 41
growth over the next 20 years. If you grow at one percent a year, it compounds, so you 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
might be at 24 percent at the end of the 20-year horizon. If you grow at about 0.5 percent 1
to 0.7 percent, you end up somewhere between 10 and 15 percent over your current 2
population. We thought that was very much in line with the scenario three. We ran these 3
figures through Finance. We ran these figures through the Planning Department. And 4
through the Finance Committee. A little bit more interesting – or perhaps not – this doesn’t 5
drive a lot of the fees, the commercial component of it. You have to figure out some ratios 6
between commercial and…In this case hotel and motel are the two categories that you 7
guys have historically charged. We try to figure out a way to equalize that with single 8
family housing. We charge these fees on a per-thousand square feet. You can see on the 9
top is your existing portfolio of millions and millions of square feet, and the bottom would 10
be the portfolio of the square footage and the employees that we would expect to add. If 11
you could see that 96,000 figure, that sort of dovetails very nicely with this demographic, 12
this 95,000 figure, which by the way, was in 2014, so it makes sense that it was a little bit 13
off in slide 11. Just trying to figure out that demographic, you can’t really figure out the 14
future until you figure out the base, and then you set those two off to figure out the 15
relationship between them. So now we have a level of service. We apply that level of 16
service to our cost metrics or our cost centers. The idea is that we know what we have to 17
extend forward, the number of acres per thousand people, the number of ball fields per 18
thousand people. Well, what do they cost? Because if you don’t know what they cost, you 19
only have ratio. You don’t have a fee that you can charge moving forward. This is where 20
land valuation becomes a very critical element. Figuring out what that value is and how 21
that compares to communities on the Peninsula, as your peers, is really the number one 22
key component of a park impact fee study, and also, I believe, it’s the most important part 23
of a library and community center impact fee study, although not as predominant as what 24
you see in the parks space. I’m going to pause here, because right here we have a park 25
impact fee and a Quimby fee. I’m sure you guys know the difference, but it can be a little 26
bit confusing and intricate. There’s two legal structures under which you can charge an 27
impact fee in California. Two enabling legislations. You typically charge a Quimby fee 28
for a subdivision, for a subdivision map, to someone who has a tract map for more than 50 29
housing units. That would be the classic Quimby fee. The classic Quimby fee would apply 30
in Fresno County, Madero County, Riverside County, where you see massive subdivisions 31
of land into residential product. Where a Quimby fee doesn’t really work very well is when 32
you’re under 50 units. Actually, it doesn’t work at all, legally. Or when you have a mixed 33
used project. So, you have this disconnect. So, there’s another enabling legislation which 34
is Government Code 66,000 the Mitigation Fee Act, which is how you typically charge 35
traffic fees, fire fees. I did the City’s Public Safety Fee a couple years ago. That is under 36
the Mitigation Fee Act. You can very much end up on the same space, but the City is using 37
– and Kristen or Lindsay, step in if I’m mis-speaking – but it is sort of a bifurcated 38
approach, and you’re going to see a little bit of the tension, which this fee study hopes to 39
resolve between these two fees. Into both calculations go a sort of base valuation per acre. 40
I know this is a big number, somewhere between $4 million and $5 million an acre. I assure 41
you it’s not based on comps. We use CoStar data. We use Nielsen data. We spend tens of 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
thousands of dollars a month on data platforms, basically for this purpose. We smooth out 1
the data. We remove highs. We remove lows. We don’t look at the most prime residential 2
developments either for the acreage we're looking at, more so, the kind of acreage you 3
would purchase to acquire a park, and that needs to be updated. It’s in your Quimby fee. 4
It's been somewhat updated, but in your park impact fee, it really hasn't. That's what 5
created this tension, that we need to resolve. You’ve seen this final bullet point. What we're 6
proposing is to update the mitigation fiat fees, and then also update the land valuation in 7
the Quimby park fee. They are separate code sections in your municipal code. We'd like 8
to clean them both up and call it a day, so that's that's sort of the process-related element 9
of it, but that land valuation factor is critical. So, what we have now is, as we mentioned, 10
this $3.9 million figure, that is what’s in your code. That has been updated. We understand 11
that figure is approximately, for your Quimby fee, about $5.1million per acre. You can 12
see, some other communities on the peninsula, you can see our suggestion of taking it to 13
about $5.7 million. I would argue, that's not a very large adjustment because this fee, this 14
element of your fee program is much closer. We did the Campbell update. They ended up 15
selecting $3 million. We actually recommended closer to $4 million. Santa Clara was 16
recently done. Saratoga’s is being updated. Mountain View’s is being updated, and 17
actually, San Jose has currently just issued an RFP and should be issuing an award very 18
soon to update their land valuation. You want to be close to your neighbors, of course, but 19
your neighbors are always updating their fee studies as well. You do it every 10 years. 20
There's this tendency to sort of surge and fall behind a little bit. I would argue that I don't 21
think your surge here is really unwarranted. I would also argue that as far as the community 22
and land value, Palo Alto, even with these peers, is actually unique. I've found that in my 23
previous work with the City over the past seven or eight years. What does this mean? What 24
does this land valuation mean for you guys? Because right now it's just a number. This is 25
the tension, and this is the tension between the Quimby fee and the park fee, and you can 26
see right here is right now, the fiscal year 1920 Quimby fee, is about $62,000 per home. 27
It's not low, but it's a function of the value of land. It's a direct output of the value of land 28
in your community, but right now the actual AB1600 park fee from 2001 is stuck in the 29
past. And we see this. We see big updates when we do this. We don't get hired to do three 30
percent updates. You can fix that with CPI. So, we have a little bit of this tension where 31
we have a gap, where certain folks with big projects who were subdividing, would be 32
paying a Quimby fee, and folks with smaller projects or with a mixed use project would 33
be paying this lower sum, so we identified that, and we thought of that as something that 34
needed to be brought into alignment. Now it doesn't mean that you necessarily need to 35
charge the $62,000. We're setting maximum fees here, and you can charge lower. Actually, 36
we could update that $12,000 figure and the city could continue to decide to charge it. 37
Obviously, it's been a very interesting year, with COVID, but we feel that, from a Nexus 38
justification perspective that we would like to bring these into alignment. What our fee 39
program actually has done is, by updating that base land valuation, whether it's $5.1 40
million…We've actually selected $5.7 million, both in our Quimby fee and in the AB1600, 41
the mitigation fiat fee. The first column is your Quimby fee, the result of a slight update 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
from 5.1 to 5.7, and the second column would be essentially – and I’m going to go back. 1
I'm sorry. This would be an update 20 years in the making, and that's a big change. We're 2
going to talk about that, because it needs to be talked about, but because all the costs are 3
essentially stuck in late 90’s dollars, both land value…I think the imputed or implied land 4
value in the old study is about a million bucks an acre. Construction costs, similarly, all of 5
these things are just are from 20 years ago. I mean, really it's not unique. It's not even 6
surprising. It’s just when you don't update something for 20 years, and you see 5 to 10 7
year-over-year growth, and housing prices, if not higher, in Palo Alto, you end up with a 8
bit of a disconnect. So, what we've done here is by recalculating the AB1600 - excuse me 9
the mitigation fiat - I don't, want to use too many different acronyms and codes. I 10
apologize. And updating the Quimby fee, we see better convergence between the two. 11
There's some slight distinctions between how the fees are allowed to be calculated, under 12
state law, so it's hard to arrive at perfect convergence, but we feel that this is definitely a 13
step in the right direction to sort of tidy up the house. So, what does this mean? You guys 14
saw that $12,000 figure. Now I'm showing you a $57,000 figure. Holy cow. Sticker shock. 15
You know, I've somehow stopped talking about community centers and library, as well, 16
for a little while. Community centers and library, we see the construction costs driving a 17
need for an update. We don't see it…You're not acquiring fresh acreage in quite the same 18
way, and it is sort of much more difficult. You tend to see tear downs and rebuilds rather 19
than the acquisition of new acreage, and then the installation of a park on that acreage. So, 20
the increases in the community center, library fee that we're proposing are much smaller, 21
but you are really reflecting the increase in construction costs and labor trade over the past 22
20 years. The park is driven by that and the increased land valuation, so the new mitigation 23
fiat fees that we're proposing, while now converging with the Quimby fees that you're 24
charging, that you have been charging, are very close. It is, in some respects, you know, 25
two times, if not three times increase. So, we took a look at that. We met with Finance 26
Committee. We know that that is sort of an eye-opener. I mentioned the other cities and 27
agencies on the Peninsula. Their fees are much closer to this one that we're proposing now 28
than they are two years old. The old fee of $12,000, and I believe that information is in the 29
staff report as well. So, in many ways you're really sort of leveling up, but what we've 30
proposed – more of what we're thinking about proposing to Council, and we’d love your 31
feedback – is coming up with a sort of a four-year tiered approach and phasing in any 32
increases. This is sort of a busy slide. My colleague, Kyle [phonetic], is on, and she did 33
her best to try to put this on one slide. It’s four quadrants, and the idea is that we're just 34
sort of tapering measured increases and phasing in those increases – 25 percent of 35
maximum cost recovery, 50, 75, and then 100. We like this approach because it helps with 36
sort of that noticing function with the development community. Anyone who has a map 37
that's currently in process, they're not going to be surprised. And it gives time, provides 38
people an opportunity to just adjust to the change and to sort of phase in that change. This 39
was something that we've recently come up with since we met with Finance Committee. 40
We thought four years was appropriate, because ultimately, at the end of four years, you're 41
getting back to fully justified cost recovery levels, and if you don't get back there quick 42
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
enough each one of these years, you're sort of, essentially, subsidizing the fee program 1
through other channels and other avenues. So, at the end of the day, this would sort of 2
be…This fee program this is not your entire fee load, as I mentioned. We worked on your 3
public safety fee. You have a traffic fee. You have an affordable housing fee. Affordable 4
housing fees everywhere tend to be large. I'll leave it at that, but this is one that needed to 5
be updated – 20 years old – and needed to be brought into line alignment with your Quimby 6
fee. It needed a Nexus refresh. But given the given the change and given everything that's 7
going on in the world, we felt we felt that phasing in, that approach, is probably more 8
appropriate as a recommendation. Of course, the Council is well within their discretion to 9
say, “We accept the report,” if they choose to accept it. Of course, we're going to charge 10
less than that out into the future, or something like that, especially with everything going 11
on in the world. I know I keep saying that, but it is very real, so Council will have full 12
discretion every year to revisit these fees and to decide really what's best – more fee 13
revenue, more money, of course, for parks. I’m with the Parks and Rec Commission. I 14
would be loath to not bring that up. It will provide additional revenue. Lindsay and I had 15
tried to estimate. It's not perfect. The fee tends to get collected all at once. A lot of projects 16
are paying the Quimby fee which is very close to the proposed new Quimby fee, but we 17
estimated – and Lindsay or Kyle, please jump in – potentially it would be an additional 18
about a million bucks a year to sort of bring online, to fix this, what I view as a gap. By 19
the way, and just with staff and everyone, I want to be very clear. I do this all over 20
California. These gaps are common. This isn't a particularly interesting topic for most 21
folks. It's what I do, but it's not it's something that everyone loves to do, so if you remember 22
how I mentioned, I recommend every five years. Most folks aren't doing this any more 23
frequently than every 10 years. What happens is staff transitions, things like that, so I have 24
plenty of communities that I have been working with, we're looking at fees from the late 25
90s. So, I do want to make that point clear, but those are our recommendations. It's a path 26
for additional revenue which, you know, and I know, sales tax and TOT is a huge part of 27
Palo Alto’s general fund, and I think you know, I know, all staff has been working hard to 28
be really creative there. This would contribute to that. Does it fix anything? Does it build 29
a project on day one? No. Because you need permits to collect these, and then you have 30
multiple permits, you have dozens of permits and hundreds of permits to collect these 31
funds, because they are pay-as-you-go revenues. So then, you develop a bit of a revenue 32
account that's finally big enough to do something. Then you draw it down, and that's sort 33
of the common practice with impact fees. I've been blathering on for a while, so let me 34
open up to questions and comments. I will just be muted, and will stop sharing my screen. 35
If anyone has a question about specific slide I’m happy to jump back and pull up that slide. 36
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Nate, and thank you, Lindsay and Kristen. I think what we’d 37
like to do is see if any Commissioners have specific questions or comments, and then 38
Kristen, you’re asking for an action tonight? So, we are going to need a motion? 39
Ms. O’Kane: Yes. I’ll just confirm with Daren that that’s how the agenda item was written, 40
that it would be an action? 41
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. It’s a action. 1
Ms. O’Kane: So, this is going to Council on March 8th, and what we’d like to do is include 2
a recommendation from the Commission on whether you support the fees, or the tiered fee 3
approach, so either way we would like to include a recommendation from the Parks and 4
Rec Commission in our staff report. 5
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thanks for clarifying that. It was very interesting to get this staff report 6
and go through it. Actually, it brought up several questions from me about why we haven’t 7
done it for 20 years, and now I understand that. And why Palo Alto seems to be out of line 8
more than other cities, and the fact that other cities are going to be catching up and that 9
kind of thing. It was very interesting how parks were treated and community centers, so I 10
appreciate having some of this. I’m sure that there are questions from other 11
Commissioners, so if you would raise your hand. Vice Chair, I would ask you help to look 12
for people who have their hands raised, because I’m clearly not seeing them, and I keep 13
missing people. If you would kick me under the table. Since you can’t do that, let me know 14
if you see any hands that are raised. Let’s start with David. 15
Commissioner Moss: I think what I saw briefly is as 157-percent increase for a single 16
family home over the four-year tiered fee approach. Is that correct? 17
Mr. Perez: Yes, that’s correct. 18
Commissioner Moss: I’ve been on this Commission for five years. Is that right, Anne? 19
Five years? 20
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 21
Commissioner Moss: Several years ago, we created the Parks Master Plan, the 20-year 22
Parks Master Plan. The first question that the City Council and the Mayor asked us was, 23
“How do we pay for it?” so, I’m all in favor, even though I own a single family home, I’m 24
in favor. Thank you. 25
Chair Cribbs: Thank you very much. Commissioner Reckdahl? 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: I had some clarifications. Can you go back to slide 13? Okay. 27
I’m confused about the “employees per 1,000 square feet,” the fifth column there. That 28
“0.8 employees per 1,000,” that seems very low. How are you calculating that column? 29
Mr. Perez: That would be when it’s ran through an adjusted employee factor, so really that 30
would be times five. Because those adjusted employees in that middle column, we’re 31
accounting for the amount of time in the week that an employee could theoretically or 32
hypothetically visit a park. We believe it’s usually around 15 to 20 percent. So, we’re 33
taking those employee figures and we’re reducing them, because an employee is not the 34
same as a resident under this structure, because they have less of an opportunity to visit a 35
park. So, those employees per 1,000 square foot, should really be adjusted employees per 36
1,000 square feet, so you would see 4.0 in the commercial/industrial space, which might 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
feel a little bit more like some of the office and retail metrics that you guys might be 1
familiar with. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: Even 4.0 seems…Oh, that’s the time barrier. 3
Mr. Perez: Yes. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: How many square feet per employee are you using? 5
Mr. Perez: Actually, a lot of studies use ratios. Sometimes you’ll see some 250 square foot 6
per employee or 500 square foot per employee. In the industrial space you might see 7
around 1,000 square feet per employee, up to 2,000. We actually are using existing 8
building square footage, figures from CoStar, and then we have assigned your employees 9
to those next codes associated with those, so we believe the ratio is actually not sort of an 10
industry standard ratio that we would use in a lot of places where it was hard to nail down. 11
We would believe – if you would follow me – a 0.8 ratio for commercial/industrial would 12
be an adjusted ratio, so times five – because we have a 20-percent reduction – would be 13
about four employees per 1,000 square feet, so about 250 square feet per employee. Which 14
you would see more in the high density office space. Remember, this is smoothed out 15
across all kinds of commercial and industrial, of course, but that was if you would invert 16
the numbers, that’s how you would end up there. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, 250 square feet. That’s a lot of space. Most new 18
companies are much less than that. You don’t see anything above 200 anymore. The ones 19
that opened in San Francisco in the last year, too, they’ve all been like 150. That has a 20
direct issue, because when you’re talking about…we’re not billing this per employee. 21
We’re billing this per square feet, but all your calculations are assuming what uses will an 22
employee make of a park. So, we’re off by a factor of 40 percent now, because we are 23
assuming that there’s going to be less employees than there really is. They’re going to 24
pack them in at 150, and we’re assuming 250. So, we’re not going to be billing that 25
development enough to account for its park use. 26
Mr. Perez: Perhaps. I think there’s a tension between the residential and nonresidential. 27
An impact fee study is a little bit like whack-a-mole. The costs are covered. This would 28
just change the ratio between the various land use types. It doesn’t leak out. It is the 29
existing ratio. I do think you make a great point about the future ratio, though, and how 30
that may be high. I can work with Kyle Martinez [phonetic] and my staff and Lindsay to 31
provide some feedback on what that might do to the figures. I think the total EDUs, if 32
you’re following the column far to the right, that’s the actual figure that gets baked in to 33
the denominator. It’s not a big component of the fee study, so I think the change would be 34
pretty small, but we can absolutely evaluate it, and I think it’s a great point. I think you 35
definitely agree – 36
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don’t know for sure, but this is the maximum that we can 37
charge, and you want to be as pessimistic as possible, because you’ve tied your Council’s 38
hand. They can’t go higher than this, but they can go lower. So, if you’re being too 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
generous in saying that every employee gets 250 square feet, you’ve tied the Council’s 1
hand to not be able to build enough parks to accommodate when the employers have 150 2
square feet per person. 3
Mr. Perez: Agreed. I know Palo Alto’s sort of commercial/industrial stock is vastly office 4
and office of a particular kind of quality. It is blended across all categories, including retail, 5
including food service and things of that nature, but I do hear you, and I do agree, as a 6
lease-holder in the Bay Area of multiple office properties for DTA, I do look at these 7
things. We can pack them in more than we used to. What I can do is, I don’t think it adjusts 8
the base ratio, but that future ratio, we can get you some feedback on what that might do 9
to the figures. I do think it’s going to be compressed, but we can provide you that feedback, 10
definitely. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, thank you. I had another clarification. The amount for 12
land value, your estimate of $5.7, that also seems very low. You can’t buy anything for 13
$5.7 million per acre in Palo Alto. How did you come up with that? 14
Mr. Perez: What we’ll do when we look at the stock is we control typically for residential 15
transactions and remove those. So, we’re looking at typically Class B kinds of transactions 16
and land that would be less valuable because of its location. I know that may not be exactly 17
what folks want to hear, but because you’re not going to go buy Zuckerberg’s land to put 18
a park on. Then we control for highs and lows, typically try to carve out anywhere from 19
five to ten to sort of smooth out the averages. We did arrive through a couple different 20
methodologies, at a $5 to $6 figure. However, I do think that the City could very easily 21
justify a higher figure. It will just, 20 percent higher here, the fee will be 20 percent higher. 22
I do think that this is conservative, but we felt that with the percentage increase that 23
Commissioner Moss noted, over 20 years, we felt that it was sort of important to maybe 24
take this is manageable chunks. If a 150-some percent increase is a manageable chunk. 25
But I don’t disagree with you. I think that $5.7 figure is probably on the conservative side. 26
Chair Cribbs: So, Nate, you see where this is all coming from. Obviously, we’re very 27
passionate about parks and having enough money to generate new parks and pay for 28
existing parks. Keith, thank you very much for that. Do you have another quick question? 29
I’m anxious to move us on a little bit. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: This is important. 31
Chair Cribbs: Good. It is important. 32
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah. The $5.7 I think is low, but it’s very much low. If you 33
look at recent transactions, most of our parks are surrounded by residential area, so if we’re 34
going to expand any parks, we’re likely going to be buying neighboring houses. 35
Chair Cribbs: Right. 36
Commissioner Reckdahl: And if you look at the recent sales, they are all in the 37
neighborhood of $20 million. In North Palo Alto, $30 million-breaker. So if those are the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
lots that we’re going to have to be buying to expand the parks, we really shouldn’t be 1
booking $5.7. We’re going to be way off and won’t be able to buy the parkland that we 2
need. 3
Mr. Perez: Yes. Well put. Well made. I do think that there is an opportunity to increase 4
this a bit. I think our recommendation from DTA was, given the time that has passed, 5
perhaps to sort of right the ship, so to speak, we could always come back very quickly 6
thereafter if this is not cutting it, and do a further update. It’s actually quite easy and quite 7
affordable for the City to do that. We were a little reluctant to push on that 157-percent 8
increase, but if that is the Council’s direction, I think that that – the Commission’s direction 9
and the Council’s direction – I think that $5.7 figure could very easily and justifiably be 10
$6 to $7. I think beyond that, I would suggest that we’re looking at more prime acreage. 11
But I have seen folks attempt to do that, so if staff and the Commission and the Council 12
would like to see that push, we can take a look and come back. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: Again, we’re not buying mythical lots. We’re buying real lots, 14
and if those lots are $20 million an acre, we should be booking $20 million an acre. 15
Chair Cribbs: Keith, is that something that you’d like to see in the staff report? 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: This is something that has to be addressed. You have my point. 17
Thank you. 18
Chair Cribbs: Yes. We do have your point. Thank you very much. Commissioner Brown? 19
Commissioner Brown: I have four fairly quick questions. The first one is on slide 10, about 20
ABAG that was part of the information that you used. Are you using the latest RHNA 21
numbers, and since those are not final, how are you going to deal with the updated RHNA 22
numbers? Because I appreciate Commissioner Reckdahl’s point about buying houses, but 23
we also have RHNA numbers that City needs to live up to. 24
Mr. Perez: So, the RHNA numbers, yes. It’s more than the elephant in the room. It’s going 25
to be the room for 2021 and beyond. Commissioner Member DuBois had a similar 26
question. Right now, because they’re preliminary, we haven’t utilized it. We felt like 27
looking backward to the 2017 EIR, which was the product of a lot of discussion, was a bit 28
safer. But once those numbers are finalized – and not only finalized but internalized, 29
probably in an update housing element – I do think it would be appropriate to provide an 30
update at that time. What’s exciting about it is that the pressures are sometimes 31
counterintuitive. You add more units and everyone’s “Oh, we’re going to get more 32
money.” You’re going to get more money because there’s more permits, but the actual 33
per-unit amount may drop when you re-run those figures. So, we probably don’t want to 34
jump the gun to avoid some of those counter pressures. But the RHNA figures absolutely 35
have to be addressed once they’re finalized. Because if HCD is going to continue to be 36
that forceful, I think we’re going to see every housing element in California updated. I 37
wish I had a better answer. I think we’re all struggling with that. It would be the perfect 38
time. I think a general plan update was classically when we would redo impact fee studies. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
I think the RHNA finalization is going to become another point where we redo all of the 1
studies. 2
Commissioner Brown: Okay, fair. In a similar vein, ADU’s, my understanding is impact 3
fees are generally waived for a certain point in Palo Alto. Does that mean that the impact 4
fees are offset to the other uses, just by nature of what we’re legally allowed to do? 5
Mr. Perez: Yes. Yeah, ADUs is one of those policy discussions that we used to see in the 6
senior housing space and the below market space. It is difficult…so yes, because they are 7
relieved in such a leakage out of the model and out of the fee structure that’s not recovered, 8
if we knew exactly how many ADUs were going to be built in a community, we could 9
estimate and try to build into the mathematics. I don’t think it would be significant enough 10
that it would really adjust the bigger line item figures at the end. 11
Commissioner Brown: Unless something like SB9 were to pass, and then essentially this 12
would all need to be reevaluated. 13
Mr. Perez: Right. Yes.. 14
Commissioner Brown: Just wanted to note that. 15
Mr. Perez: I don’t want to sound like an ex-lawyer, like, “Oh yeah, new legislation. Let’s 16
redo the numbers.” But there are those certain pressure points and inflection triggers, 17
which I think do require…Right now all communities have been managing their impact 18
fee, application of ADUs through resolutions and ordinances. Because it’s still such a 19
small component of what’s happening. 20
Commissioner Brown: My other question is on slide 16. Just trying to understand the 21
different between Quimby and a park fee. Let’s say a micro-unit, 50-unit building, if it 22
was condo-mapped, would it subject to Quimby fees? And park fees, if it was a rental? 23
Mr. Perez: I think it would be subject to the Mitigation Fee Act fee. 24
Commissioner Brown: Okay. I was just wondering if it was sort of unintentionally 25
incentivizing a certain type of development. The last question is about the four-year tiered 26
approach. Because you’ve been working with so many other municipalities throughout the 27
state, is that four-year timeframe something you’re seeing that’s common, not just with 28
this type of fee, but all fees? Or are people looking toward a longer horizon? 29
Mr. Perez: It’s a great question. I typically do three. The adjustment here, in absolute dollar 30
figures, the way it sort of broke, I felt that in maybe year one, modification a bit jarring, 31
especially to someone who is sort of mid-process, so we extended it out to four. But I 32
would usually, 75 percent of the time, do three and then occasionally, as here, do four, 33
with bigger changes in absolute dollars. I’ve never particularly done longer than that, just 34
because I recommend updating every five years, and there’s also some reporting that’s 35
required every five years. The City has to do an annual report for their impact fees, but 36
every five years there’s a special report that has to be done, where you have to demonstrate 37
that you were doing what you were supposed to be doing, and I think it’s hard when the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
phase-in period is the exact length of that reporting period. So we try to keep it less than 1
that. 2
Ms. Brown: Okay. Thank you. That’s all my questions. 3
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Mandy. Jeff, your hand is up. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, I certainly support the comments that Commissioner 5
Reckdahl made regarding the question about why the Palo Alto valuation of land is so low. 6
To put it in context, why is the Palo Alto land valuation lower than Sunnyvale? Why is it 7
not similar to Los Altos? 8
Mr. Perez: Not knowing the exact specifics of the Sunnyvale fee – it’s one of the few on 9
the list that I didn’t know – I think they were more aggressive and wanted to push the 10
envelope, perhaps, a bit more. There is some play in this data selection. Reasonable minds 11
can differ. It also is one of the more recent updates. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thanks. I don’t know if staff has any comment as to why that might 13
be rational to consider, with a better understanding of context here. 14
Ms. Wong: I actually do want to jump in here. I have some notes in going through this 15
process that the Planning Department also had their own internal fair market value land 16
calculation, but they also placed it around $5.5 to $5.6 million, so it’s pretty aligned with 17
what Nate has presented here, and I’m happy to follow up with Planning to get more 18
information on how they came to those calculations as well. I’m not sure if that helps this 19
conversation a little bit. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. That’s helpful to hear that the Planning Department has 21
come up with it, but can you put it in context to help me understand why Palo Alto’s land 22
valuation would be similar to Sunnyvale and not similar to Los Altos? 23
Ms. Wong: I’m going to see if maybe Kristen or any other staff on this call have some 24
more context. 25
Mr. Perez: I’m happy to pull the Sunnyvale fee program and evaluate it. Different 26
consultants sometimes do different methodologies, and sometimes they’re charged with 27
being more aggressive than perhaps in other communities. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: That’s fine. I don’t want to get bogged down in this. Next question. 29
I’m not seeing any data regarding the impact fees of neighboring cities. I’m seeing the 30
impact fees of similar sized cities to Palo Alto, which don’t seem to be as contextually 31
applicable. Is this information that’s available, and will this be provided to the City Council 32
when the matter goes to them? 33
Mr. Perez: Which cities would you guys like to add? 34
Vice Chair Greenfield: You could get a map and draw a circle around us. It seems like it 35
would be appropriate to understand Los Altos, Menlo Park, Redwood City, Mountain 36
View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos Hills. I mean, I think staff could help me with that if you have 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
further questions. The next question, is there any way to differentiate between what we 1
charge to commercial retail versus commercial office as we’re looking to expand the 2
impact fees that we’re charging, particularly given the COVID impacts everyone is dealing 3
with right now, it seems like there would be a lot more reticence to hit retail development 4
harder, potentially, than commercial office. And is that a distinction based on the way the 5
City has things structured, or is that something that can change? 6
Mr. Perez: It is something that can change. It’s something that we could evaluate. The City 7
has used this structure previously, so that provides the best process and legal safeguard, 8
because you’re updating the rates more so than the nonresidential structure, but we could 9
absolutely look at bifurcating commercial and provide some feedback on what that looks 10
like. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay, and is that a question that’s left to staff, or the Council, to 12
provide guidance on? The reason I'm asking, if it’s something that Council would dictate 13
and policy, then it could be something for the Commission to consider as part of our 14
recommendation. 15
Mr. Perez: For example, if this fee program were brought to Council and Council voted 16
on it, we couldn’t then bifurcate it. It would have to be brought before. But if Council and 17
Commission and staff direct us to, we can take a look at it and provide feedback on what 18
that might look like. If folks liked what they saw, updating the report is not very difficult. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay, and am I reading correctly that you’re suggesting moving 20
away a tiered single- and multi-family residence fee structure? 21
Mr. Perez: Yeah, I am, just because we didn’t feel that those square footage breaks 22
reflected the reality of the housing stock in Palo Alto anymore. It’s also something that I 23
have not seen in many communities. I don’t want to say it’s not industry standard right 24
now, but the distortion around 900 square feet on the multi-family, we felt was too great. 25
An 800-square-foot apartment isn’t categorically that much different than a 950-square-26
foot apartment. Perhaps on the single family side, you could see a little bit of a distinction 27
there, but folks haven’t done impact fees like this in quite some time, so we wanted to 28
refresh that a little bit. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thanks, and does staff have any input regarding the tier structure 30
existed to begin with 20 years ago? And is staff recommending that we do away with that 31
now? 32
Ms. O’Kane: I don’t have any background on why that existed. I think we’re relying on 33
our expert consultant to advise us on this. As Lindsay said, our Planning Department has 34
been involved in this process, and as far as I know, has not objected to this change. 35
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thanks, that’s helpful. Last question. In looking at the ramped-up 36
schedule, ramping from 25 percent to 100 percent over four years, I'm curious why the 37
first-year fee would be 25 percent of the maximum instead of taking the different between 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
the current fee and the maximum and increasing/adding in 25 percent of the increase. In 1
fact, what it looks like is the single family fee would actually go down in the first year. 2
Mr. Perez: It would go down for the biggest homes, but for the medium-size tier it would 3
go up a little. That’s certainly a path, and if staff would like us to do that…We had a varied 4
conversation last week, whether you’re phasing in the delta. I felt that the optics, if you 5
will – I know folks don’t like that term – but the optics for the year one adjustment was a 6
little cleaner in this path, but I’m really pretty agnostic between the two. You get to the 7
same point. I think they’re both defensible. And both are utilized. I’ve done both ways. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: Because that way, you have a smooth and similar increase each 9
year. 10
Mr. Perez: Sure. Certainly.. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay. So that was a conscious decision to do that. 12
Mr. Perez: It was, yeah. Not every Commissioner, not every Council Member is as pro-13
fee as others, so I think we were trying to provide a smooth adjustment and a smooth 14
refresh of the fee program, but we can definitely take a look at that and maybe provide 15
what the tiered alternative…as you mentioned, it’s unbelievably easy to calculate, if 16
staff…It doesn’t need to be in the study, either. It can just be something that’s adopted by 17
staff, so it will be very easy, and we’ll provide that. 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. 19
Chair Cribbs: I wanted to see if there were any members of the pubic who wanted to speak 20
on this particular item? I don’t see any hands, but just in case, Lam, do you see anybody 21
who wanted to speak? Okay, I guess not. Council Member Kou, did you want to say 22
anything about this item? 23
Council Member Kou: No. Thank you so much, Chair. 24
Chair Cribbs: You’re very welcome. I’m listening to all of this and some of the questions 25
that I had on my initial sheet have been answered. I wanted to ask, given everything that’s 26
going on right now, is this the right time for the Council to do this? Is it because we haven’t 27
done this for 20 years that you’re recommending that it be done now? How fast is the 28
timeline? Because it feels like the Commission some, not unanswered questions, but some 29
thoughts about the valuations that we’d like to get understood before we make a 30
recommendation. Is that sort of the consensus of the Commission? 31
Mr. Perez: I would like to note, it’s pretty proportional the way the fee has been calculated, 32
so I think a 20-percent increase in land value, you would generally see a 20-percent 33
increase in the fee. Sort of to demystify that, so you guys can plug-and-play right there. I 34
just wanted to mention that. 35
Chair Cribbs: Okay. In terms of timing, any comments about that? Maybe, Daren, do you 36
have a comment about the timing? 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Mr. Anderson: No, I don’t have a comment. This is an action, so we want to get this motion 1
tonight. The timing is you’ve got to do something this evening, because this moves on 2
very quickly. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: And I think the timing consideration is that this is already on 4
Council’s agenda. 5
Chair Cribbs: Yes. That’s why we’re having this tonight instead of pushing it off like we 6
wanted to do, to the March meeting or even April. Let’s see if we can put together a motion 7
to recommend this, and is it possible to put in the staff report that Commissioners had 8
questions, or do we not want to do that? Keith, I’m looking to you for thoughts. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, I mean, I don’t think it’s ready for prime time. I will not 10
be supporting this report. I think there’s too many holes in it, but I don’t know what the 11
other Commissioners think. 12
Chair Cribbs: Thank you for that. Jackie? 13
Commissioner Olson: I think we received a lot of good feedback tonight. I’m curious 14
whether there is room to make a recommendation on the report, but have some of that 15
feedback incorporated for going to Council, or if it’s just sort of a take-it-or-leave-it right 16
now. 17
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, we’d look to Kristen for the answer for the answer to that, but I think 18
I know what it is. Kristen? 19
Ms. O’Kane: Sure. We can certainly add the outcome and summary of this meeting, 20
including your comments to the staff report. We can certainly do that. I just want to remind 21
the Commission – you probably know this – but this has already gone to the Finance 22
Committee. From that meeting, it was a recommendation to come to the Parks and Rec 23
Commission. We recognize that that was in reverse order. We should have come to the 24
Commission first, and then Finance Committee. But that’s the order we did it. We can 25
easily put in a summary of your comments into the staff report. If you want to include 26
something in the motion related to that…for example, you could say you support the 27
report. You don’t support the report, and say why you don’t or do, you could certainly add 28
that into the motion. So, whatever you want us to put in the staff report, we can certainly 29
do that. 30
Chair Cribbs: Okay that sounds fair. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: Kristen, could you clarify when this report went to Finance? When 32
did Finance approve this report? 33
Ms. O’Kane: Lindsay, do you know the date on that? 34
Commissioner Reckdahl: It was December. 35
Ms. Wong: Yeah, it was December 15th. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
Chair Cribbs: I just sort of feel like these Park Impact Fees have a direct bearing on the 1
work that we are all trying to do. In reading the report today, I just had a lot of unanswered 2
questions, and I felt like we’re being a little bit rushed to get this done, understanding that 3
it’s already on the Council agenda. It’s already been approved by Finance, so it would be 4
great if the rest of the Commission and we could make a motion, if we could move to 5
support the report, but also include our concerns about it. Would somebody like to make 6
that motion? Daren, can you put that up on the screen, do you think, so we can see it? 7
Mr. Anderson: Yes, bear with me just a moment. 8
Chair Cribbs: I think at the end of the day that I’d like to support this report, but I’d also 9
like to outline the concerns about that we talked about, about the valuation, and are we 10
asking for enough money? Would we include the concern that, maybe the request, to 11
increase the land valuation and some of the other things that have been mentioned? Well, 12
let’s try, then, if we use this as a motion to get a second on this motion, so we can discuss 13
it. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Has someone made the motion already? 15
Chair Cribbs: No, Daren is just putting something on the screen for us to respond to. Maybe 16
we don’t even have anybody to make a motion. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: While we’re in this limbo place, I think I’m siding with Keith at 18
this point. I’m not seeing that this is something that I would support without more 19
information, and I’m not exactly clear what the urgency is for this to go to Council and to 20
get approved immediately. It sounds like it’s been 20 years, and it seems like it would be 21
more appropriate for us to be asking some questions to get vetted before it goes to Council 22
for consideration. 23
Commissioner Moss: Can’t we just put wording in here with the caveat that you look at 24
increasing the valuation per acre and decreasing the square footage per employee, et 25
cetera? Can we just say that? 26
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I think that was what our suggestion was that we could say that. Are 27
those the only two things that we’re wanting more information about, or were there others? 28
I didn’t write anything else down. 29
Commissioner Moss: And a three-year tiered fee instead of a four-year tiered fee? What 30
else did we have, Keith. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl: Well, I agree with Jeff’s point about moving the difference. It 32
makes no sense to go backwards for the first year and then move forward. I would want 33
roughly three different spots. But the big ones for me were the square feet per employee 34
and the land value. I think we’re maybe doing the Council a disservice by dropping this in 35
their lap without the answers to the questions. That’s part of the reason they have us do it, 36
is so the questions have been vetted, and the big questions have been answered. 37
[crosstalk] 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Commissioner Moss: I thought it was to spell out the questions and have staff go back and 1
get them answered before the Council. 2
Chair Cribbs: I think it’s matter, in that case, of timing, in terms of when this is scheduled 3
to go to the Council. So, I think we’re perfectly free, Kristen, as a Commission, to not 4
recommend, from our perspective, that this be recommended right now. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree, and I think we don’t recommend it, then that’s something 6
for City Council to consider. If we’re not recommending it, because we’re looking for 7
more information, another item that I think is very important that wasn’t mentioned is the 8
splitting of the commercial between retail and office. I think that’s very important to get a 9
better understanding of before this proceeds. 10
Ms. O’Kane: Chair Cribbs, could I make a couple of comments? 11
Chair Cribbs: Please. 12
Ms. O’Kane: In response to Vice Chair Greenfield’s comment about why it needs to go to 13
Council. If this is going to move forward, we need to do it relatively soon, so it can get 14
into our formal budget process. If not, it won’t be for another year. You can certainly make 15
a motion to not recommend it. I think we would likely still go to Council, partly because 16
this is considered a public hearing, and as a public hearing, when it goes to Council it’s a 17
public hearing, it has noticing requirements that have already begun. So because of that, it 18
would likely still go to Council on March 8th. But you can certainly not recommend that 19
we move forward and delay this as part of your motion. 20
Commissioner Moss: I don’t want to delay it, because then we’re saying we don’t want an 21
increase at all, and I don’t want then to get that message. We do want an increase, so we 22
need to move this needle forward somewhat. 23
Chair Cribbs: I think David has a good point. I think we certainly want to see the fees 24
brought up to where they should be. We just don’t have the information to go ahead with 25
it. There are lots of unanswered questions, but I’m happy to just have somebody make a 26
motion to recommend that we move this forward, and then we’ll see how the vote goes. 27
MOTION 28
Commissioner Brown: I’ll make that motion. 29
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Is there a second? 30
Commissioner Moss: I second. 31
Chair Cribbs: Okay, discussion? 32
Mr. Anderson: Do you mind verifying that I’ve got the motion correct? 33
Chair Cribbs: Yes. I was going to ask you to do that. Thank you. 34
Commissioner Brown: Looks good. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 1
Commissioner Moss: I thought we were going to add those other things at the bottom. 2
Commissioner Brown: I don’t think that dictating the land value increases…I think that a 3
lot of it comes from the data that’s supplied if we want to give the information saying 4
additional information on neighboring or adjacent cities be added, that’s fine, but I don’t 5
think saying to increase land value just to increase land value is the right direction I would 6
want to include. 7
Commissioner Moss: I guess I’m okay with it, so we’re basically saying we want an 8
increase, and you figure out how much. You figure out how much between now and the 9
time it goes to the City Council. You figure out how much. We’ll take anything you can 10
give us. 11
Commissioner Brown: I think if we want to give them feedback on some of the comments 12
that were mentioned, I’m open to that sort of discussion. I think saying “raise it”, just to 13
raise it is not necessarily the best message to send. 14
Commissioner Moss: The feedback we’re giving is outside of the motion. The minutes of 15
this meeting are the feedback. 16
Chair Cribbs: Yes. I think that’s what we mean, that we would put the questions or 17
comments in the staff report, and the motion would be separate, instead of listing the 18
concerns in the motion. 19
Commissioner Moss: Okay, then I’m fine. 20
Ms. O’Kane: The Council staff report will be published on Thursday, so there may not be 21
time for Nate to do some of this additional work for the staff report, but I think he could 22
include it in the presentation to City Council, so we can say, “This was the Parks and Rec 23
Commission’s main point of concern.” Sorry, Nate, if I’m putting more work on you 24
without talking to you first, but then you could include that, Nate, in your presentation to 25
Council what the outcome of that was. 26
Mr. Perez: Yes, certainly I’m happy to take these three main points of feedback and 27
provide essentially maybe an alternative scenario before Council, and then add a slide 28
addressing tonight’s meeting and show what some of those suggested arrows would do. 29
We’ve done low, medium and high approaches before, as well. The land valuation discuss, 30
we’ll just have to discuss with staff, because we can’t raise it once we’re already at 31
Council, but if we provide direction we could update that rather easily. We can definitely 32
address tonight’s questions before Council. In advance of that, hopefully, but definitely in 33
front of Council on March 8th. 34
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m sorry. Could you please clarify that regarding the land 35
valuation? You’re saying once this goes to Council for consideration, the land value 36
number can’t change? Or, it can’t change after they approve… 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
Mr. Perez: From a process perspective, yeah, the Council would be voting on a Nexus 1
Study, and it’s very difficult and inadvisable to change it that evening, but it could certainly 2
be rejected, and we could come back with an updated report, which is not cumbersome. I 3
don’t want to suggest that it’s all that difficult to update. I would probably just need to get 4
some direction from Kristen and Lindsay and staff in the next couple days on the acreage 5
component, definitely. That is the most significant piece. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. I appreciate that. That clarifies how I will vote on this. 7
I will not be supporting this motion, because I do agree with Keith that I'm concerned abut 8
low-balling our max number and limiting the flexibility that Council has to consider a 9
higher figure in the future, particularly both now and however this number scales up over 10
time. 11
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jeff. Other comments from other Commissioners before we vote 12
on the motion? Okay, Catherine, could you do a roll call vote, please? Let me see if Council 13
Member Kou has anything. 14
Council Member Kou: No, thank you. 15
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Thank you. 16
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Brown? 17
Commissioner Brown: Yes. 18
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Cribbs? 19
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 20
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Greenfield? 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: No. 22
Ms. Bourquin: Commission LaMere? 23
Commission LaMere? Yes. 24
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Moss? 25
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 26
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Olson? 27
Commissioner Olson? Yes. 28
Ms. Bourquin: Commissioner Reckdahl? 29
Commissioner Reckdahl: No. 30
Ms. Bourquin: Five to pass, two to reject. 31
MOTION PASSES, 5-2. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you very much. Nate and Lindsay, thank you very much for 1
being here tonight. Kristen, do you have anything you want to add before we move on? 2
Ms. O’Kane: No, I don’t think so. Thank you. 3
Chair Cribbs: Okay, great. Thanks, everybody, very much. 4
Mr. Perez: Thank you so much. 5
3. Foothills Park Policy Discussion 6
Chair Cribbs: It feels like we should all get up and exercise and then sit down again. This 7
will now move us. We’re quite behind schedule. We have allocated 90 minutes for the 8
Foothills Park discussion. It’s going to make it pretty late, so let’s see if we can keep our 9
comments, I want to make sure we get them all, but let’s try to make sure that we keep 10
them as pithy, as Daren says, as possible. I wanted to just mention before we go to Daren, 11
that he will summarize the Council’s decisions last night, but I also wanted, for those of 12
you who didn’t listen to the meeting last night, to say that the Council was very 13
appreciative of the Commission’s work and the Ad Hoc’s work on Foothills Park to date. 14
Everybody, I think, is understanding that this is a work in progress and that people are 15
working very hard to make this whole thing work out. I, for one, and I know everybody 16
else, really appreciates the work of the staff. I’d like to turn it over to Daren now, and then 17
we will go to the public after that and then back to the Ad Hoc, and then to the 18
Commissioners for what I’m sure will be a very good discussion. Daren? 19
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. Good evening. This item is a discussion item. The 20
Commission will not take action or make a recommendation this evening. The 21
Commission does plan on taking action on this topic at the March 23rd meeting. Yesterday, 22
February 22nd, City Council discussed Foothills Park and the recommendation that the 23
Commission had made at the special meeting on February 11th. Last night City Council 24
adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve. 25
Council also adopted an emergency and regular ordinance to amend the Municipal Fee 26
Schedule to add an annual entrance fee for Foothills Park that includes the following: Fees 27
for veterans, low income visitors, student drivers, and persons with disabilities are waived. 28
Although not part of the motion, our attorney stated that it is reasonable to infer that the 29
Council meant to include active military in this list. Council also amended the Municipal 30
Code to authorize the City Manager to adjust the visitor limit from 300 people, 120 31
vehicles, not to exceed 660 people, 260 vehicles at any one time, and not to count persons 32
with disabilities towards those attendance limits. Also, part of the ordinance is that the 33
following persons shall not count towards that limit: That is, visitors with reservations at 34
Towle Camp, Oak Grove and the Interpretive Center, City-sanctioned recreation and 35
educational groups, including City-run summer camps and field trips, et cetera. Group 36
permit holders, volunteers and visitors in a vehicle with a valid disabled person parking 37
placard or license plate. This is a summary of the fees that are now in place. That’s the $6 38
vehicle per day, daily fee, and free for City’s designated volunteers volunteering that day 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
in the Preserve. Active military, veterans, students with I.D. who are driving, and vehicles 1
with disabled person placard or license plates. And then the annual pass, the $65 non-2
resident, $50 resident and City employees, 25-percent discount for seniors and free annual 3
pass for active military, veterans, and low income visitors. Just a reminder, the discount 4
and free pass can be applied to both resident and nonresident. I should note the Emergency 5
Ordinance, again, took effect immediately, while the Regular Ordinance takes effect 31 6
days after the second reading, or April 8th The Foothills Park Ad Hoc met multiple times 7
in February to discuss Foothills Park policies, and the Committee focused on providing 8
feedback on this list of policies you see before you. Some of the policies appeared to the 9
Ad Hoc as ones that are a little less complex and may not require as much Commission 10
discussion, such as the policy consideration about using the term “vehicle entrance fee” 11
versus “parking fee.” While other policies, such as the daily vehicle entrance fee and the 12
discounts and waivers associated with that are more complex and may require significantly 13
more Commission discussion. I have slides for each of these policy considerations, and as 14
you discuss them, I can go to whatever slide you would like, or we can go in the order in 15
which you see them. With that, I’m going to pause and turn it over to the Chair and the Ad 16
Hoc, to continue however she advises. 17
Chair Cribbs: As everybody understands, we’ve had a very long list of things to discuss. 18
At one point, we thought a little bit about putting priorities on this list. I think, given the 19
way the meeting is going tonight, that what I’d like to do is to have Daren go through the 20
first slide. Actually, no, I’m sorry. I’d like to have the Ad Hoc speak as Daren puts the 21
slides up. Then we would consider whether we can make, not an easy decision, but a 22
decision right now, or this is something that needs to be put in another bucket for later on. 23
Let’s try that with the first one and see how it works. Daren, given the fact that we’re doing 24
this this particular way, should we go to members of the public now and then come back 25
to the Commission? 26
Mr. Anderson: Sure. I think that’s fine, Chair. 27
Chair Cribbs: Lam, I don’t see anybody who wants to speak, but – 28
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Chair, before we move. I just have a question about 29
what you just said. We’re going to go through the list. We’re going to see if it’s something 30
we can agree on right now, of if it should go in a bucket for later consideration. Would 31
there be separate buckets for – 32
Chair Cribbs: The second bucket would be the ones that maybe we need more research, 33
we need more information. 34
Vice Chair Greenfield: Is the second bucket items that we would not consider for the 35
March recommendation we make? 36
Chair Cribbs: No, I would like to see if we could get the ones that we can develop 37
consensus on tonight, and then perhaps get to the ones for March also in the second bucket. 38
The third would be the things that we’re pushing off to either September or December. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: Great. I just wanted to clarify that, because I know that the Ad Hoc 1
did recommend that some of the things on this list not being considered for March, so 2
those would effectively go to the third bucket. 3
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, and the Ad Hoc also was very interested in making sure that we have 4
the flexibility to review the data that’s going to be coming in, and there would be other 5
decisions, and there would be other things that are going to come up. This list obviously 6
is not complete yet. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: Great, thank you. 8
Chair Cribbs: You’re welcome. Okay, I don’t see any member of the public wishing to 9
speak, so Daren, let’s go back to the daily vehicle entrance fee. 10
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. The Ad Hoc started by looking at different pricing 11
options for larger vehicles, in particular, busses. You can see before you the different 12
methodologies and pricing structures that state parks and our two adjacent county parks 13
use for busses. The Ad Hoc made the recommendation you see before you, that the $6, 14
which is already in place for the vehicles with up to nine, and then $30 for the small busses 15
and $60 for the large busses, mirroring the California State Parks model. 16
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 17
Commissioner Moss: I agree. 18
Chair Cribbs: Let’s see how this works. Let’s go to either Jeff or Jackie on the Ad Hoc and 19
see if you want to add anything from the Ad Hoc’s perspective, or if this is what you want 20
to express. Jeff? 21
Commission LaMere: I don’t have anything to add other than what is shown here. We 22
thought it was smart to mirror what the California State Parks does as we discussed the 23
tiered pricing structure. 24
Chair Cribbs: Jackie? Thank you. 25
Commissioner Olson: Same here. The only thing I would note is that we do call out later 26
some of the waivers, like the handicapped placard that are not part of this, so I think this 27
is what we all aligned on. 28
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Daren, let me ask just one thing. Is somebody in the staff taking any 29
notes that need to be kept track of? 30
Mr. Anderson: I’m taking notes, yes. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
Chair Cribbs: And doing everything else, too. Okay, other Commissioners comments? 1
Commissioner Reckdahl: Overall, this looks good. I’m happy with it. There was some talk 2
about whether we allow busses at all. Daren, did the Council ask that? Is that something 3
that we’re going to debate? What does staff feel about busses? Do you feel good about that 4
or not? 5
Mr. Anderson: Very fair question. I was going to note that that did come up with Council 6
last night, and I think it is something we should debate. I think there are still a couple of 7
things outside of the considerations we’ve already looked at in this document, or in this 8
presentation, that we’ll still need to discuss. So that’s one of them. I think you’re right that 9
if you choose to ban a certain size or weight category of vehicle that maybe it makes this 10
unnecessary. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. The second question is, does this apply to people, like 12
school trips that make reservations? Or, is this just for busses that show up at our front 13
door unannounced? 14
Mr. Anderson: Good question. You’ll see one of the future recommendations from the Ad 15
Hoc is that school groups, permitted school groups, are not charged a fee. We can get into 16
more detail on that in a subsequent slide. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay. With those caveats, I’m happy with this, then. 18
Chair Cribbs: Great. David, you said you were good with all of this, right? 19
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 20
Chair Cribbs: Vice Chair? 21
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with Keith. Hearing from Council considerations and 22
concerns that we should be looking into potentially limiting large vehicles, I agree with 23
the general approach that the Ad Hoc has here, and overall, I think the Ad Hoc has done a 24
great job in preparing all of the items in this report. Thank you. It gives us a great starting 25
point for the discussion today. I think we could…I would easily support the $6 per vehicle 26
fee if we wanted to split this off into two items or we have the basic daily entry fee, and 27
that was approved today. That went into the bucket one, and then we had a separate bucket 28
for a large vehicle policy, because I think that’s really what the consideration here is that 29
we’re talking about. What is the policy for large vehicles? Are we letting them in, and if 30
we are, what is the fee structure for them? 31
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Mandy? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
Ms. Brown: Daren, you said that Baylands has a policy for banning the vehicle limits at 1
the Council meeting last night. Would the small busses and large busses both not be 2
allowed in this case, or how this is written right now, or is it just the large busses? 3
Mr. Anderson: I believe it would apply to the small busses as well. It was a fairly modest 4
– and forgive me, I don’t have it in front of me – but I want to say 10,000 pounds or 5
something to that effect. I believe that would apply to most of your small busses. 6
Ms. Brown: Okay, thank you. 7
Chair Cribbs: Daren, was there a conversation with the Attorney’s Office, or were you 8
going to have one about the kinds of busses that would be able to come in? 9
Mr. Anderson: No, we haven’t had that, and I think we could put disclaimers that you 10
want, either the size and less permitted, or something to that effect. I think we have some 11
latitude and flexibility on that. 12
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so the only discussion on this one – and I think everybody is agreed 13
with this – is that we need to find out about the very large busses. I think we’re all, in our 14
mind, thinking about giant tour busses with lots of people. 15
Mr. Anderson: That would be really helpful, Chair, to confirm this, exactly what kind of 16
homework you want staff to do in this point about the large vehicles. Is it the intent to find 17
a way to exclude busses over a certain size, or weight, and still allow in our permanent 18
busses, like school groups and that kind of thing? 19
Chair Cribbs: That would be my intention. Anybody have an objection to that? 20
Ms. Brown: I agree with that. 21
Chair Cribbs: I think we can move on to the next slide, Daren. 22
Commissioner Moss: One more question. The huge recreational vehicles, you know, 23
vehicles that are as big as busses, but only have two people in them. Do we care? I mean, 24
you can’t park just anywhere. You’ve got to park at the very end, and you’re going to take 25
up about three or four parking spaces. Maybe this has nothing to do with this slide, but do 26
we prohibit them? I don’t know. 27
Mr. Anderson: Thank you for that, Commissioner Moss. I agree that if we’re talking about 28
it, it would be good to have that clarity if that’s where the Commission wants to go. If RVs 29
should be lumped in there, please let me know, and I could do some research on how to 30
make that happen. 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with David’s point. I think that would be worth getting 1
some staff input on. Daren, I was also just interested in a clarification. The current policy 2
at the Baylands, you’re limiting the medium and large busses, but are school bus field trip 3
busses permitted? 4
Mr. Anderson: They are. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Okay, so that’s really the type of policy consideration that I think 6
Council was referencing and that I think we’re articulating. So, what I’m hearing is that 7
already exists in the Baylands. 8
Mr. Anderson: I would just say, it’s not the most nuanced policy. That sign went in 25 9
years ago. Yeah, I think it would behoove us to think this through and have a well-vetted 10
and explained process behind it; whereas the Baylands, I think, is a little more opaque. I 11
will follow up on that. Just to clarify, Chair, if we end up going with the other route, do 12
you still want the small bus fee at all, or for…? 13
Chair Cribbs: I would prefer the small bus fee, unless there’s a big impact on staff then, 14
Daren. 15
Mr. Anderson: Okay, very good, and in addition to staff doing a little research on this – 16
and perhaps the Ad Hoc can meet again and digest this and work through it a little bit more 17
to – 18
Chair Cribbs: But this is one of the ones that we would want to have be an action as part 19
of a motion for March. 20
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 21
Chair Cribbs: So, we could mark that as such. 22
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 23
Chair Cribbs: Okay, good. 24
Mr. Anderson: Bear with me just a second. This slide is just to reiterate that the $6 fee 25
applied to both residents and nonresidents, to help make things a little faster. I don’t think 26
Commission action is necessary on this, since Council has already made this, in effect, but 27
perhaps it’s something you want to discuss very briefly tonight? 28
Chair Cribbs: I think it’s worth a brief discussion. I’m certainly in favor of supporting the 29
fee, although in my dreamworld, I would like us not to have a fee at all. But I don’t believe 30
that that’s possible right now. So, I support the $6 fee. Other Commissioners? Let’s go to 31
the Ad Hoc. Jackie? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
Commissioner Olson: I think this is one where we thought this would be kind of the low 1
end of what we could support, so I’m curious to hear the other Commissioners reaction to 2
that. 3
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jeff? 4
Commission LaMere: I have nothing else to add. 5
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Council Member Kou? 6
Council Member Kou: No comments. Thank you. 7
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think I agree that this is something we can support. I think, given 9
the action that Council took yesterday to offer free entry to a number of groups, it really 10
kind of takes away the discussion about having the same fee apply at the entrance. It 11
impacts staff, if they’re looking at potentially charging different discounts, or if we’re 12
offering different discounts for different groups for daily fee. Previously we had only 13
considered it for the annual pass, so given that, I think this makes sense to approve and see 14
how things go and provide some feedback in the summer, next time we get back to this. 15
Thank you. 16
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. 17
Mr. Anderson: Chair, this one is – do I understand correctly – not an action item for our 18
March meeting? 19
Chair Cribbs: I don’t think so, because it’s already been decided, but I think we just wanted 20
to make sure that the Commissioners had an opportunity to weigh in. 21
Mr. Anderson: Very good. Would you like me to move forward? 22
Chair Cribbs: Yes, please. 23
Mr. Anderson: This is, of the many discounts and options that the Ad Hoc had looked into 24
was the free Library pass idea. The concept being there would be a limited number 25
available at Mitchell and Rinconada Library. The conversation started with five passes 26
available at each library. This would be a physical pass, at least in the beginning, that the 27
person could check out and post in their windshield when they come visit the Preserve, the 28
idea being they could check it out for a few days and then return it shortly thereafter, like 29
you would, perhaps, a video or something along those lines. I did have a conversation with 30
the Library staff. They were very generous and eager to help and support this. I should 31
also note that the Ad Hoc was interested in ways to make this simpler and easier for folks 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
to get. For example, the “check it out online and print it at home,” and I think that’s 1
certainly something we could look into. There’s just a little bit of trying to figure how we 2
could make sure that wouldn’t be easily copied and maybe used inappropriately. 3
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Daren. Jackie? 4
Commissioner Olson: I am very much in support of using our libraries in this way and 5
having a way for people to wait and have a way to come to the park for free, but also I 6
think it’s a great way to engage more people with Libraries. 7
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jeff? 8
Commission LaMere: I agree with Commissioner Olson, who brought up this idea. I think 9
it’s a wonderful idea and a way to engage more citizens and allow more access to our 10
parks. 11
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I’m just very grateful to the Library staff, too, for being willing to 12
take this on. I think that’s great. It’s wonderful. Other Commissioners comments? Jeff, do 13
you have your hand up? 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m sorry. That’s because I never lowered it. 15
Chair Cribbs: Well, at least it works now. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yeah, thank you. I’m generally in favor of this idea. Just trying to 17
understand – this has been fully vetted with the Library staff, and staff believes this is a 18
workable solution? Is there any more research that is required on this before staff would 19
be comfortable moving forward with this? 20
Mr. Anderson: Thanks, Vice Chair. I think so. It was a very brief conversation with the 21
Library staff, and as I mentioned, the general willingness to help make this successful in 22
any way, but the fine details have yet to be worked out, and I’m glad to take any notes 23
you’ve got, the Commission has on this, in terms of number of days, how long the check-24
out would be, details like that. A lot of it I would be looking for guidance from the Library 25
staff on what’s effective from their perspective as well as yours. 26
Commissioner Moss: I’m in favor – 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: That suggests that we should discuss this item a little bit further at 28
the next meeting to clarify some of the details. Or is that something that would be best left 29
to staff? 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
Mr. Anderson: If I can take your feedback tonight and try to work those things out with 1
the Ranger staff, the Librarians, that would be really helpful, and I think, yes, it would be 2
an actionable and hopefully a brief discussion on the 23rd. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Great. Thank you. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, especially with COVID, I’m worried about the Librarians 5
having a lot to deal with right now, and do we want – even if we like this – do we want to 6
delay it for two or three months and let the Libraries ramp up and get back to normal? That 7
would be one question. I just don’t…If the Librarians are happy doing this, then go ahead. 8
But I do think we need some more talk about duration, so I agree with Jeff that we should 9
postpone the official endorsement until we’ve talked about it. 10
Chair Cribbs: So, you’re suggesting to postpone it maybe until this summer and maybe 11
until COVID gets a little bit more understandable? 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would want to give the Librarians that option. And if they think 13
that would be a good thing, then I would think that’s a good thing. If they’re not bothered 14
by this, then we don’t have to wait. But I do think we should talk about this more. For 15
example, do they have to return it within 24 hours, 48 hours, one week? We should talk 16
about that, because there’s pros and cons to that. 17
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 18
Mr. Anderson: Commissioner Reckdahl, if possible, some of that feedback would be really 19
welcome tonight, if you wouldn’t mind sharing some additional thoughts on what would 20
be, perhaps, the idea in your perspective. 21
Commissioner Reckdahl: The tradeoff is that if you let them have it for a whole week, 22
since there’s a limited number of passes, but then less people can use it. But if you make 23
it too short, then they may actually have to take an extra drive over to the Library and 24
return it, so giving them, say, 48 hours to return it allows them to make another trip to the 25
Library, kill two birds with one stone. So, both from a traffic standpoint and also just from 26
a convenience standpoint, having a medium, like a two-day checkout seems reasonable. 27
But I could be convinced otherwise. That’s just my off-the-cuff response. 28
Commissioner Moss: Daren, my recommendation along those lines is that maybe this is a 29
paper that has an effective date and an expiration date, and you could adjust it to, say, three 30
days, and it expires right there on the piece of paper or a QR code or something like that. 31
It basically automatically expires in three days. That way there’s not all this passing of 32
paper, and you could even do it possibly online. That would be my only suggestion. 33
Otherwise, I think it’s a terrific idea, and we should do it as soon as possible. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Commissioner Moss. I’m glad to discuss that with the 1
Librarians and pick their brains on how to do it. I guess that’s sort of in keeping with the 2
Ad Hoc’s hope that ultimately it could be check out online, print it at home, bring it in and 3
it’s short term. I’ll talk that over with the Librarians, too, to see how we might make 4
something like that work. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: Just a quick question for the Ad Hoc. Where are you envisioning 6
that this would be a multi-day pass, or it would be a pass that would just be used for one 7
day? 8
Commissioner Olson: I envision it being a pass just used for one day, so I wouldn’t 9
envision needing a lengthy term on it, but maybe one overnight in case they can’t get back 10
to the Library to return it. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you. So, given that it’s a single day pass, and also taking 12
into consideration Keith and David’s feedback, especially regarding COVID, it seems like 13
maybe the idea of a laminated pass that has to get returned is a bad idea, particularly given 14
COVID, where the Libraries have a 72-hour policy, where you return a book and it sits in 15
a holding location for a period of time. It seems like if we were able to authorize Libraries 16
to print out passes for five for each day, and the date was included on it, that would be 17
better. Then it wouldn’t have to be returned, but then that increases the complication that 18
they have to have these passes printed out. Anyway, things for staff to consider. But if it’s 19
not possible to…If we have to use a laminated pass, we might want to consider doing this 20
post COVID. 21
Commissioner Moss: I actually think a laminate would be fine, because just like a credit 22
card you could put the “goop” – 23
Chair Cribbs: Hand sanitizer. 24
Commissioner Moss: Hand sanitizer. Just wipe it off, just like you would a credit card. It’s 25
not the same as a book. A book you can’t do that to, but a laminated thing you could. So, 26
keep that as an option. 27
Chair Cribbs: This, then, rests with Daren, with the staff and the Librarians to figure out 28
the details, so this gives you enough to talk with them about? 29
Mr. Anderson: I think so. Thanks. 30
Chair Cribbs: Hopefully we get the answers, and we can include that in the March 31
suggestions. 32
Mr. Anderson: Yes. This next one that the Ad Hoc had supported was limited free entry 33
days. This was modeled off the National Parks standard, where they have six free entry 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
days. The days you see before you were my suggestions, so if you don’t like them, please 1
blame me. I was trying to find a way to offer different days of the week, one holiday, one 2
weekend day, and avoid some of the peak days of summer, where there might be a concern 3
that you’re coming on a day where you’re going to get turned away, because the crowds 4
are at such high visitation levels. I could share if you like – I don’t have it on the screen – 5
but the National Park days were mainly oriented around holidays, so in addition to MLK 6
Day, they had the first day of National Park Week, the one-year anniversary of the Great 7
American Outdoors Act, National Parks Service Birthday, and Veterans Day. 8
Commissioner Moss: What about Earth Day? 9
Chair Cribbs; This was a really fun one to put together, and to discuss. Jeff, you want to 10
comment, and then Jackie, and then we’ll open it up to the Commission, because I’m sure 11
there will be some great ideas. 12
Commission LaMere: We all thought this was a great idea, to encourage people to the park 13
and allow them to come in for free. Hopefully, it reaches people who can get there on 14
different days. We thought it was nice of Daren to think of different days that people might 15
have off and also include a holiday as well, certainly realizing that park visitation may be 16
high or people may be turned away, but we thought this was a great idea to incorporate. 17
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie? 18
Commissioner Olson: Same here. I think my main concerns were having a holiday, a 19
popular holiday at least, like our New Year’s, et cetera, and having overcrowding at the 20
park, but I think MLK day, being in January, that that takes some of that concern off. But 21
I’m happy to hear other thoughts from our Commission. 22
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. I thought Daren did a really good job of going through the 23
calendar and staying away from some typically well-traveled days in the summer and in 24
the fall. So, I thought it was good work. Other Commissioners? 25
Commissioner Moss: This is great. When you go to the de Young and it’s always the first 26
Thursday of the month, or something like that, but I think this is much more equitable. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl: I do wonder, though, whether we should have at least one in the 28
summer. I know it’s going to be the chance of them being turned away, but again, if this 29
is for equitability, then we are kind of banishing them to the season where they have 30
school. So, for school kids, the only one they really could do is the Saturday and MLK. 31
Do we want to move one of these into, let’s say, June? So that you could at least have one 32
shot of going outside of school days? 33
Chair Cribbs: That’s a good point, Keith. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Commission LaMere: I would support that. 1
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with Keith. The related concern I have is that it’s six months 2
in a row, so if somebody comes around to June, the only way they’re going to get in the 3
park on a free day, they’ve got to wait six months, at least. I’d look this diagram a little bit 4
more, like maybe drop the February and the April one, or February and May, to have a 5
summer weekday, and also a weekday sometime in October or November. But overall, I 6
really like the approach. I think six days is great. The fact that we’re modeling after 7
National Parks, that’s great. I really like the sentiment. 8
Commissioner Reckdahl: Daren, if you look at the historical visitation, does it match up 9
with schools, or does it match up with seasons? 10
Mr. Anderson: A season is always the highest, the summer being the peak and then spring 11
and fall sort of starts to taper off, with the lowest in the winter. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: So, if you’re going to add some outside of school days, but you 13
don’t want to hit high visitation days, are we better off going, let’s say, in June to get it in 14
the spring after school is done? Or do it before they go back to school? Does that make 15
sense? 16
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. Both are viable and legitimate. I could see a lot of value of having a 17
day in June, too, where the weather is so nice. 18
Chair Cribbs: Maybe we should just add a day, just add the first something in June and 19
have seven days instead of six. I like the continuity of it going every…starting in December 20
and going through June. 21
Commissioner Moss: School doesn’t end until like June 15th. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t understand why we would leave October and November 23
out. Just to have such a long gap between whenever we’re doing and the first Saturday of 24
December. I appreciate the eloquence of how it’s set up now, every month, and it’s rotating 25
days. But it doesn’t strike me that that’s the most equitable and practical overall for people 26
who want to take advantage of these days. 27
Chair Cribbs: The other thing that we could do is to leave the days the way they are right 28
now and then as we revisit this in August, if it’s been very successful, start some new days 29
in the fall. If not, just leave it be. 30
Commissioner Moss: Well, you’re going to miss the summer then. So, maybe the first of 31
August, just before they go back to school, and then we can worry about the fall later. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 42
Mr. Anderson: Just one bit would be helpful. That idea of staggering and spreading them 1
out a little more. Right now, we’ve got it into consecutive ones. If you think we’d be better 2
served staggering them every other month, is that something you’d like me to pursue? 3
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, why don’t you go ahead and do that, Daren? What about the Ad Hoc? 4
What do you think? 5
Commission LaMere: I’m not opposed to that. I’m actually not opposed to adding more 6
than six for the entire year. 7
Commissioner Olson: Same here. 8
Chair Cribbs: So, would we like to add a day per month for the year? 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think my preference would be let’s start slow and start with 10
six, and if it works out really well, then we can add one. I guess we have seven days of the 11
week. Maybe add a Sunday, and we can have seven days. 12
Commission LaMere: Or else we add one for the summer, but that allows us to revisit this 13
after the one that would already be added for summer. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: Are we trying to wrap up discussion on this item? 15
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Tonight? 17
Chair Cribbs: We are. Because it’s a fun item, and I’m sure we can reach consensus very 18
soon, and then we’ll have this done. And it’s a great thing to announce, too. 19
Commissioner Moss: I don’t see the magic with six. I think you could add seventh one 20
maybe in August, early August. I don’t see what’s so special about six. 21
Chair Cribbs: Let’s add a seventh one in June. School goes back really early, like the 15th 22
of August for elementary school kids in Palo Alto. 23
Commissioner Moss: Yes. 24
Mr. Anderson: Forgive me, I might have missed this. The beginning of June they’re not 25
out of school in some places, and so we might not want the 1st of June? Did I hear that 26
correctly? 27
Chair Cribbs: Yes. Some schools are out really early around here, and some of them go 28
through the end of June, so it’s hard to know. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 43
Mr. Anderson: Okay. Or we could have that one be a Sunday, and that way – 1
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, make it a Sunday. 2
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Or, later June might be better to avoid graduation-type conflicts. 4
Chair Cribbs: And Father’s Day. Yeah, don’t put it on a Sunday in June and Father’s Day, 5
Daren. 6
Mr. Anderson: There was some discussion amongst my staff of just having some 7
simplicity so people could know, okay the first of these months, it’s easy to remember, put 8
on your calendar. As it starts to be moving days, it could be a little more challenging for 9
folks to remember. 10
Commission LaMere: Then maybe choose August and avoid June. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: And if we’re adding a Sunday, do we really want to be adding a 12
Sunday during the summer? 13
Chair Cribbs: No. 14
Vice Chair Greenfield: I thought the consideration for summer would be a weekday. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Yeah, kids are out, and also there’s less competition. 16
Mr. Anderson: Okay, so perhaps the Sunday is on a different time of year? 17
Chair Cribbs: Like December. 18
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: Could I suggest that Daren takes our feedback and works with the 20
Ad Hoc to put together a list for us to approve next meeting? 21
Commissioner Moss: Yeah that would be great. 22
Chair Cribbs: Yes, with the goal of being able to recommend this in March. 23
Vice Chair Greenfield: Absolutely, and when I was asking if you were trying to make a 24
decision, I meant are you trying to make a final decision tonight versus next month. 25
Chair Cribbs: I knew what you meant. 26
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 44
Ms. Brown: Can I just make one comment about, maybe not for this first iteration of it, 1
but if we do go to expand future days beyond six or beyond even seven, maybe picking a 2
specific calendar day, like the 23rd or the 24th, and looking at where it doesn’t fall in the 3
summer and not saying, “All right, this is the date for the entire year.” Because I think 4
what I heard from the Council last night was that they wanted it as simple as possible for 5
the public to remember. The 23rd just happens to be the day Palo Alto was incorporated, 6
so that could just be an easy one to start off with, a day they celebrate it. 7
Mr. Anderson: I had debated that, too, Commissioner Brown, because that’s the model 8
National Parks uses. The only challenge is, of course, it’s moving all the time and then 9
you don’t have equity amongst the days of the week staying consistent and potentially 10
falling a lot on weekends, but maybe that’s just not a big concern. 11
Commissioner Brown: And maybe it’s not the same year to year. At least you have one 12
date to message for the entire year as a little bit of clarification, and you can ramp up the 13
communications toward the end. It’s just another thought that maybe the Ad Hoc can 14
discuss. 15
Mr. Anderson: And that, again, is how National Parks does it. They’ll issue, I think, every 16
year the new list as you noted. Very good. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: Maybe the day of the week you pick is the day that MLK day falls 18
on that year. So that you still have the holiday included. 19
Mr. Anderson: Okay, great. Any other feedback on this item? The Ad Hoc, as I think the 20
whole Commission knew, was interested in pursuing this and recommended free daily 21
passes. Council has already addressed this. I don’t believe there’s need to go into this any 22
further. Chair, do you agree? 23
Chair Cribbs: No. I think we’re good on this one. 24
Mr. Anderson: Pedestrians and bicycles. The Ad Hoc believes making free daily passes 25
for pedestrians and bicycles would help make the entrance process a little bit smoother. 26
There is a concern, a very real concern, about whether this would add to problems with 27
people parking outside and trying to walk into the Preserve, which you’ve heard tonight. 28
We’re having some issues with that at Alexis Drive. Most regional parks aren’t charging 29
for pedestrian and bicycle entrance. There is an element of it being impractical to collect 30
fees from pedestrians and bikes, especially the ones coming in from other gates. 31
Impossible at the other gates, challenging at the main gate, but it is possible. 32
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie, do you want to speak to this one? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 45
Commissioner Olson: Yes. I’m supportive of staff’s view here and prefer to prioritize 1
safety on this one. 2
Chair Cribbs: Jeff? 3
Commission LaMere: No additional comments. 4
Chair Cribbs: I certainly support having the bikes and pedestrians without an entry fee. 5
I’m not so sure that we can resolve this next time, because I think that there still needs to 6
be some discussion outside what we have to opine on, and that’s understanding what other 7
City staff, like Traffic Enforcement and Parking and all of that can do to help out some of 8
the complaints and the comments that we’re hearing both from Los Altos Hills and from 9
neighbors on Alexis Drive and other places, to mitigate their parking. I’d be interested in 10
thoughts on that, Daren. And I don’t know whether that needs to be part of this or not. 11
Maybe it’s just enough to say that we support daily entry for pedestrian and bicycles. 12
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Chair. Just on the comment of how to address those other 13
problem areas – Alexis Drive, Los Altos Hills, side streets – it’s complex, and I don’t have 14
the solution yet. We’re in communication with Los Altos Hills staff. We’re just starting 15
conversations with our Transportation team to get them more involved in helping us figure 16
out the best ways to address those. I also need to meet with, talk to the folks, at Alexis 17
Drive to figure out their thoughts on how to best manage that. 18
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, if there’s some sort of a parking sticker that they get, and then you 19
ticket everyplace else. But sort of that’s not what we do, so we’ll leave that to you, but I 20
think it is a big concern. Do we know if any law enforcement is ticketing on Page Mill 21
Road? 22
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I heard from Los Altos Hills that they have requested extra service in 23
their areas around Altima, so I know that the Sheriff’s Office was issuing some citations. 24
The Rangers haven’t had as many problems on Page Mill Road with the illegal parking. 25
The majority of it seems to be either drop-offs or walking from a little further away. But 26
Los Altos Hills did say there were people parking in front of driveways. One person had 27
to get towed. So, it is problematic. 28
Chair Cribbs: But are they parking in front of Los Altos Hills driveways? 29
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 30
Chair Cribbs: So, why would their law…Are they Sheriff law enforcement? 31
Mr. Anderson: That’s right. Yes. 32
Chair Cribbs: Do we know that they are ticketing? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 46
Mr. Anderson: Yes. 1
Chair Cribbs: Okay, thank you. 2
Mr. Anderson: I guess what I’m saying is it hasn’t solved all of the problems. 3
Chair Cribbs: Sounds like it hasn’t. Other Commissioners? 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think we’ve got to keep our eyes on this. I don’t think there’s 5
anything we can do now, but if there are problems down the road, we can address it then. 6
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I’m sure we’re going to be hearing about them on a continual basis, 7
which is good. We want to know that. 8
Commissioner Moss: I can see the creative people getting Uber rides up there. Then, 9
because of lack of internet access, not being able to get an Uber back. But anyway, being 10
able to get up there with an Uber, or the only other thing is whether Palo Alto would like 11
to start a shuttle service, where you park down at the bottom of the hill, and you pick up a 12
bus, get on a little shuttle bus and get driven up to the top there, and the shuttle bus runs 13
back and forth all day on Saturday and Sunday. Is that a business we want to be in? 14
Chair Cribbs: That sounds like to me something for a later on discussion. 15
Commission LaMere: One other thought, Chair, that I had was, is this not necessarily 16
something impacted by fees, but rather something that might happen if the park is full 17
more often, where then, people are looking for ways into the park, because they can’t go 18
through the front entrance. As opposed to something that would happen if they’re trying 19
to avoid the fee? 20
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, so as Keith says, we’ll just need to keep track of all of that. 21
Mr. Anderson: Just to clarify, in my experience in working for state parks, various 22
municipal parks and county parks, is yes, people will, on both accounts, when there’s a fee 23
they’re going to park outside and try to walk in for free where they can. Likewise, when 24
it’s full, they’ll look for those alternative entry points. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think this item is a perfect third bucket item, something to keep 26
on the list of things to consider and it seems like we’re kind of digressing into entry point 27
consideration discussions – 28
Chair Cribbs: Which will come later. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yeah. And I don’t know if it’s better to consider entry point 30
considerations, but I think it does beg the question that we review the bike policy and 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 47
clarify the bike policy. Not a lot of people understand or are aware that you’re not allowed 1
to ride a bike between Foothills Nature Preserve, as it will soon be known, and Arastradero 2
Preserve and the reasoning for that. I think that’s something that we ought to discuss. 3
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 4
Commissioner Brown: I agree that it’s something that we should monitor but as we’re 5
getting feedback from the public, I think there should be a clear direction or phone number 6
or a form for folks to be able to provide feedback in one place. Because I feel like some of 7
it is going to go to different public safety agencies. So, if there’s a way to consolidate all 8
that feedback, so we make sure we’re giving as a clear picture to consider moving forward 9
that would be helpful. Or, to invite them to come and give us feedback at a future meeting 10
as well. 11
Mr. Anderson: Very good. I’ll spread that with the Los Altos Hills staff, because I know 12
they are receiving calls from their community, and invite them to write and attend meetings 13
with the PRC, as well as passing on any information I get from my staff and other agencies 14
as well. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: Daren, regarding Alexis Drive, has the Transportation Department 16
been notified of the potential for increased cars parking there when we start implementing 17
the entry fee? And is that something that the Transportation Department would be working 18
on as opposed to Community Services? 19
Mr. Anderson: I think it will be collaborative, and yes, I have emailed Transportation staff 20
with the complete list of all the things we’re looking at. So that’s inside the park issues – 21
do we have enough ADA parking? Do we need speed bumps? The outside of the park 22
elements. Is there a crosswalk that’s needed on Page Mill? Do we have the right No 23
Parking areas? And how do we address people parking where they shouldn’t? 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sounds like I opened a box. 25
Commissioner Moss: Yes, a whole lot of stuff. 26
Mr. Anderson: What would be helpful, Chair, is to understand that this pedestrian, bike 27
free thing, is an actionable item for our March 23rd, or is this not? 28
Chair Cribbs: I was just going to say, so where are we with this? Because I think the 29
intention is that pedestrians and bicycles are free now, and yet we want to be concerned 30
with unintended consequences and review this as we go into the fall and December. Jeff 31
and Jackie, is that what you’re thinking, too, when we discussed it? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 48
Commission LaMere: Yeah, I was thinking that we have what we had written and have it 1
free and we monitor. A lot of these things may need to be revisited that we have as we 2
gather more data. 3
Chair Cribbs: Good. Thank you. Me too. Jackie? 4
Commissioner Olson: Yes, I agree. 5
Chair Cribbs: Daren, does that provide what you need? 6
Mr. Anderson: Almost. So, is that part of our action on the March meeting, as affirming 7
this, or are you saying that you don’t want to address it yet? 8
Chair Cribbs: No, I would like to have it be part of our action. If the motion doesn’t pass, 9
it doesn’t pass, but I’d like to have it part of the action, and I’d like to have the flexibility 10
to make changes as we go through the year, but I don’t want to start in with a fee for bikes 11
and pedestrians, and how are we going to count them, and all of that right now. I’d like to 12
have the free, and see how it works out. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: I have a quick question regarding that. I support what everyone is 14
saying. I’m just trying to understand procedurally, this is kind of a passive action. I think 15
Daren is asking, do we want to include this as part of the motion, even though we’re not 16
going to be recommending any change as a result of this? This sounds very similar to the 17
previous, regarding the $6 entry fee for residents and nonresidents where you were 18
suggesting that you wouldn’t want to include that as part of the action. It seems like we 19
should be doing the same thing for what I was referring to as passive actions, or whatever 20
is a better way of phrasing them is. 21
Mr. Anderson: Chair and Vice Chair, one option could be, we could summarize in the 22
body of a staff report, as opposed to part of a motion. 23
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 24
Commissioner Reckdahl: I prefer this not to be a motion, just to keep it simple. We have 25
so many other aspects of it. The more we throw in, the harder it’s going to see – 26
Chair Cribbs: To pass that motion. Yeah. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl: Find the needle in the haystack. 28
Chair Cribbs: Okay, that’s fine with me. Daren? 29
Mr. Anderson: Got it. So, school field trips, the Ad Hoc had discussed this and wanted to 30
make sure we were providing opportunities for students. And this was the methodology 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 49
that we thought made the most sense, was to allow them in via the permitted school trips 1
for free. Now, Council has taken this separate action for students driving into the Preserve. 2
But just to reiterate, I’ve got just a little bit of extra data. This had not yet been shared with 3
the Ad Hoc, but there was a couple questions we asked. How would we run the reservation 4
system like this? And the JMZ staff very graciously said they would be happy to handle 5
reservations for all school field trips, be they guided and programmed like the one JMZ 6
currently offers, or self-guided. So, they would help with that element. They also said that 7
in their opinion, waiving the fee for a school already participating in a programmed field 8
trip made a lot of sense, but they were open otherwise – meaning, schools that hadn’t paid 9
for or a part of a permitted program – would pay an admission fee, perhaps at a reduced 10
rate. They also suggested maybe waiving the admission fees for Title I schools. They also 11
agreed on keeping this to weekday only, which has been the case, but it would bear 12
clarifying, which I don’t believe we’ve got that captured anywhere. 13
Chair Cribbs: I like all of that. That’s great. Jeff? 14
Commission LaMere: I agree with those recommendations. I just think it’s important to 15
remember how this all started. I mentioned, I think last meeting, in terms of the pilot 16
proposal and trying to get more kids into the park, and more schools, I think this is great 17
and would certainly rely on the expertise of the JMZ, who have done this, and what their 18
recommendations are as they have seen what works, particularly favor waiving the fees 19
for Title I schools. 20
Chair Cribbs: Great. Jackie? 21
Commissioner Olson: I agree with that. I have a question on the recommendation. Are 22
they suggesting that school trips be charged a fee if they didn’t previously have a permit 23
or some other fee, Daren? 24
Mr. Anderson: Yes. If they were already participating in a programmed field trip, yes. But 25
otherwise, that school should pay the admission fee, perhaps at a reduced rate, was their 26
recommendation. So, this would be the self-serve models where a school just wants to 27
come up and they’re not paying for the JMZ or part of some subsidized program the JMZ 28
has. 29
Commissioner Olson: So, even if they notify us in advance and request a permit? 30
Mr. Anderson: That’s their suggestion, the JMZ staff. I realize that is different from what 31
the Ad Hoc had discussed, where we just thought, to make it simple, any permitted school 32
group that comes in, meaning they make their reservation with the JMZ whether they’re 33
part of a program or not, would get in free. That was the Ad Hoc recommendation. I had 34
just gotten this feedback from the JMZ staff and wanted to share it with you. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 50
Commissioner Reckdahl: Let me play devil’s advocate. Being against school kids seeing 1
the park is kind of like being against puppies or being against apple pie. But there’s a 2
reason we’re charging this fee. It’s because we need the money. The park has a lot of costs 3
associated with it, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We have all these 4
good intentions about giving a break to here and a break there, and at the end, we may 5
actually end up with such little fees that it’s not worth the hassle for collecting the fees, 6
because we’ve given so many breaks to people. That’s one thing that I’d be worried about. 7
Chair Cribbs: Other thoughts? 8
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m just trying to understand. The JMZ is suggesting that not all 9
school bus permits would be free? 10
Mr. Anderson: Right. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield: And on a broader scale, it seems like we need to have a policy in 12
place – with staff’s input, of course – on how many school bus field trip permits we permit 13
each day. Beyond that, we really don’t want to see busses coming in. I guess we wouldn’t 14
be able to inhibit school groups coming in in a combination of private vehicles, but it 15
seems like you want to avoid getting overloaded with the school groups for both staff’s 16
sanity and for the environmental side of things as well. 17
Chair Cribbs: We talked about it at the Ad Hoc, though, it seems like there was a number 18
of permits a day that were issued, Daren? 19
Mr. Anderson: No, not that there are a fixed number, because it’s highly variable, 20
depending on what they want to do and how many are in the group. It’s just that there’s 21
control mechanisms where staff is looking at a permit request, understanding what they 22
propose to do and where and what time and can say, “Oh, you’re looking for a Friday in 23
the afternoon. That’s a very busy time. Here’s what’s available.” So that kind of 24
adjustment based on Ranger and eventually JMZ staff, would certainly be in play. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: It sounds like staff needs to work with the Ad Hoc to come back 26
with a recommendation on this for us to try and get in our March recommendation. Is that 27
right? 28
Chair Cribbs: Yes, we could do that. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield: Is there more input you need, Daren? 30
Mr. Anderson: It’s a very good question. There are a lot of nuances depending on the size 31
of the groups that make it difficult to wrap up into a neat policy package. I wonder if 32
there’s an element where some degree of staff discretion on the number of school trips 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 51
could be managed that way, as opposed to trying to craft something now. I’m glad to try 1
and work with JMZ and the Ad Hoc. 2
Chair Cribbs: Well, I think this is an important one for us to decide in March. Let’s go 3
back to the Ad Hoc and we’ll have the discussion about it and see if we can get a little bit 4
more information, since we’re just learning about the JMZ, and then come to a conclusion 5
that we would present in the March meeting. 6
Commissioner Olson: Yes, and in particular, I would like to know why they would 7
recommend imposing a fee on school trips that are outside of the parameters that they are 8
suggesting. And also, whether there would be any markup to the schools for running their 9
reservation through JMZ. 10
Mr. Anderson: I think the answer to the last part is no, they wouldn’t, meaning just to go 11
through the reservation system and get booked and put into a time slot. No, there wouldn’t 12
be a markup or a fee there. I think they were only proposing some entry fee if you’re not 13
Title I and you’re not going through a paid program, albeit a reduced one. They didn’t 14
provide details on that, but certainly we can discuss this with the Ad Hoc and involve 15
someone from the JMZ, to pick their brains and work through that issue. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: Do you envision that the JMZs role will be changing at all with 17
respect to field trips? 18
Mr. Anderson: I don’t know that for sure. I’d have to converse with their staff, but glad to 19
bring that up. One new part is obviously in the past they would be scheduling their own 20
trips, and this would be a little different for other schools who now could come to them 21
and they would be sort of just playing that role of squeezing them in and managing the 22
reservation system. To that degree it would be new. 23
Chair Cribbs: Daren, can we move on, and can you tell me how many more slide there 24
are? It’s 10:00 right now, and I’d like to see how much more we can get through tonight 25
before we really tire everybody out. And I’d also like to make sure that we can discuss the 26
Ad Hoc Committee assignments and take action on that tonight, so that we don’t have to 27
do it at the retreat. 28
Mr. Anderson: Yes. In addition to the one you see before you – visitor capacity – we’ve 29
got the online reservation system, the Hillside barbecue reductions, the dog policy, the 30
photography and videography policy, the group permit policy and the Grove picnic policy, 31
and the environmental monitoring data collection, and lastly, the vehicle versus parking 32
fee terminology. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 52
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well I think a few of those we can knock out pretty quickly and then 1
some of them push over, because some of them aren’t meant to be reviewed until even the 2
wintertime. Is everybody okay to proceed for a little bit longer? Okay. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sure, and maybe anything that’s not simple, we can just agree that 4
we’ll have a discussion at the next meeting for the items that we’re aiming for in March 5
just to move things along more quickly. 6
Chair Cribbs: Right, okay. 7
Mr. Anderson: Very good, so this was just about not counting the pedestrians and bicyclists 8
towards the visitor capacity limit. The Ad Hoc had noted that pedestrians and bicyclists 9
don’t have as significant an impact on the Preserve as vehicles do. They also noted that 10
there is no accurate way of knowing or controlling how many pedestrians are entering 11
Foothills Park, given that pedestrians are allowed to enter the Foothills via the Bay to 12
Ridge Trail, through Pearson Arastradero Preserve and Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. 13
Chair Cribbs: Jackie or Jeff, any comments? 14
Commissioner Olson: I think that was a great summary. Nothing else – 15
Commission LaMere: Nothing additional. 16
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Other comments? 17
Commissioner Moss: I’m okay with this. 18
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with this. I think this fits in with a group of things that we’re 19
listing at the bottom and not including in the motion. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl: In practice, I agree. In theory, I don’t. If we had 500 pedestrians 21
walk in, we should be able to close the park, and if we don’t count them towards the visitor 22
capacity limit, the staff doesn’t have any way of closing it unless we have enough cars in 23
there. So again, to get the staff enough flexibility, I think in theory, we should count both. 24
In practice, I don’t think we’re going to have 500 people going through, but I think we just 25
shouldn’t paint ourselves in a corner. 26
Commissioner Moss: We can count them, but not count it towards…well, we can count 27
them, but not count them in the same way. I think that this is sort of a moot point for now. 28
We don’t have a huge number of pedestrians and bicyclists, so can we revisit this later in 29
the year? 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 53
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I think that we look at it when we make our report back to Council 1
and see how we’ve done with it. Because you’re right, Keith, we might have 500 people 2
walking in someday. 3
Commissioner Moss: Not likely, for now. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. 5
Chair Cribbs: Daren, do you have enough? 6
Mr. Anderson: I think so. 7
Chair Cribbs: Great. Let’s go to the next one. 8
Mr. Anderson: The Ad Hoc Committee discussed some of the merits and challenges with 9
the reservation system for vehicle entrance to Foothills. There’s concern that a reservation 10
requirement may limit visitation unnecessarily, especially for people with limited online 11
access. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that staff continue to investigate options for 12
how a reservation system might work for Foothills Park, but not implement one at this 13
time. They recommend discussing reservation system again towards the end of calendar 14
year 2021. 15
Chair Cribbs; Jackie or Jeff, any additional thoughts? 16
Commissioner Olson: No. 17
Commission LaMere: Nothing additional. 18
Chair Cribbs: For me, I’d certainly like to push it off and discuss it at the end of the year. 19
Other Commissioners? 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t think we have enough information to consider making a 21
recommendation on this a month from now. I don’t know that we’re necessarily talking 22
about the end of the year. It could later in the year, but this one actually might be the end 23
of the year. Third bucket, yes. 24
Chair Cribbs: Yes, third bucket. 25
Commissioner Moss: I would love a reservation system as soon as possible for like 50 to 26
75 reservations per day, or maybe even less, but it’s impractical for right now until we can 27
investigate options. So, keep working on those options. 28
Commissioner Brown: I agree with everybody. I think we do need more information, but 29
I strongly support the idea of a reservation system and look forward to discussing it moving 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 54
forward. However, I don’t think it’s part of the clean-up of our initial approach, so I 1
support talking about it later on. 2
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. 3
Mr. Anderson: We did speak with Yuba’s County staff, who have implemented a 4
reservation system for very similar reasons that most parks systems are experiencing, the 5
super high level of visitation that they don’t have that much parking. So, we’ve picked 6
their brains a little bit on how they’re using theirs. We’ve got a bunch of follow-up 7
questions that we haven’t received answers to yet, but we’ll keep working on that and 8
trying to learn from them, as well as from a few other agencies that I think have had their 9
for a little bit longer. So, we’ll try to learn from all them and try to understand what might 10
fit well for us for discussion, as you said, at a later point. Any other comments on 11
reservation system? 12
Chair Cribbs: No, I think we got it. 13
Mr. Anderson: The Ad Hoc Committee supports removing nine hillside barbecue pits at 14
Foothills Park to help improve fire safety in the Preserve. I had shared in the attachment 15
and in our previous January meeting a report that we had generated that showed where 16
these are. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that staff continue to evaluate the 17
remaining Foothills barbecue pits for fire safety. Just to note, this was in response to the 18
extreme 2020 wildfire season that Open Space staff had analyzed our picnic areas in 19
Foothills for fire safety. That report had made note of the six different day use picnic areas 20
and staff had looked at those hillsides and noted that they’re not very frequently used, very 21
infrequently rather, and staff believed that removing them will not have a negative impact 22
on the visitor experience, but it will make fire safety improvement at the park. I should 23
note one other thing, that removing these nine barbecue pits would still leave 28 barbecue 24
pits located at the Orchard Glen picnic area, and the two large group barbecue pits at Oak 25
Grove. 26
Chair Cribbs: That’s good to know. Thank you. Jeff, comments? 27
Commission LaMere: The only comment I would have I’m actually in favor of removing 28
more barbecues just because of the fire danger, really evaluating the use of fires at all in 29
the park. But definitely endorse removing the ones on the hillside as soon as possible. 30
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie? 31
Commissioner Olson: Same here. I think it’s important to take these ones out and see how 32
it goes. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 55
Chair Cribbs: I certainly agree with that. This has been on our agenda for quite a while, so 1
it would be nice to get it done in March. Other Commissioners, comments? 2
Commissioner Moss: I strongly agree with Jeff LaMere about getting rid of these nine, 3
and getting rid of more later. Absolutely 4
Vice Chair Greenfield: I agree with the same. 5
Ms. Brown: I agree also, sort of a pilot removal. 6
Chair Cribbs: A pilot removal. That’s good. We’ll see how the fire system goes this year, 7
but I think it would be good to revisit it in the summertime and see as well. Daren, is that 8
enough for you? 9
Mr. Anderson: Yes, it is. 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: Darned if we aren’t going to get a pilot program. 11
Mr. Anderson: The dog policy – the Ad Hoc did not support making any changes to the 12
existing dog policy for Foothills Park, and those are that dogs are required to be on leash 13
at all times and not permitted in Foothills Park on weekends and holidays. the Ad Hoc did 14
agree, just like the previous one, that this should be reviewed again at some point later on 15
in the year. 16
Chair Cribbs: Ad Hoc, any comments? 17
Commissioner Olson: My only comment is we’re changing a lot of things all at once. It’s 18
like, love to not change another rule and use our studies to really inform further changes. 19
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jeff? 20
Commission LaMere: No additional comments. 21
Chair Cribbs: Other Commissioners? 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: Third bucket. 23
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, I would love to see all dogs left out of the park, but this will 24
do for now. 25
Chair Cribbs: I think that in some of the work that the stakeholder group is doing, there is 26
some educational tools that we will be able to use about dogs in the park, too, and behavior, 27
so hopefully that will help. Okay, I think we can move on on this, Daren, unless you need 28
something else. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 56
Mr. Anderson: No, just to confirm that this would fall under the category where we’re not 1
making a – 2
Chair Cribbs: We’re not making any changes. 3
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 4
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, keeping it just the same. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl: The thing that bothers me is that we don’t know if dogs really 6
affect the wildlife. We don’t have any insight into that. But that’s a long term questions, 7
so don’t do anything now, but we really should get some experts to talk about the impacts 8
to the wildlife – of all this park visiting, not just dogs. 9
Commissioner Moss: It’s not so much the dogs. It’s the dog owners and picking up their 10
waste and not letting their dogs go so far off the trail. That’s what’s so frustrating, not the 11
dogs. It’s the owners. 12
Chair Cribbs: Usually the case. 13
Mr. Anderson: The photography and videography policy, the Ad Hoc notes that there is 14
an existing Parks and Open Space regulation pertaining to commercial photography and 15
filming and did not feel any additional policy action was necessary at this time. I include 16
the links on that, but if you would like, I am glad to share some of the highlights from the 17
policy, if that would be helpful, or turn it back to the Chair. 18
Commissioner Moss: Does that have anything to do with weekends and holidays versus 19
weekdays? 20
Mr. Anderson: It does not. 21
Commissioner Moss: So, they could come anytime? 22
Mr. Anderson: Not any time. If it’s a commercial enterprise – and that’s what we’re talking 23
about with this policy – in certain situations they’d need a permit, and we would govern, 24
like we do with all our permits, when and where and how many, and all those details. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: But there’s currently not a fee structure for permits? 26
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would want to mimic all the surrounding parks. What do Santa 27
Clara and San Mateo do? 28
Mr. Anderson: I can do some homework on that. 29
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 57
Vice Chair Greenfield: Thank you, fees, and I would suggest that we put this into the 1
second bucket and do some research on it and consider a recommendation for March. 2
Commissioner Moss: I ran into a large commercial photography team at Arastradero about 3
a month ago, so you’re already doing something with them already. I didn’t ask them how 4
much they were charged for their permit, but they took up a lot of real estate. 5
Mr. Anderson: We do have, in our Municipal Code, the ability to charge a fee for this. It’s 6
variable on how much staff time it takes and nuances, but it’s not spelled out. It’s $50 if 7
you’ve got three cameras and $75 if you’ve got five people operating the camera boom. It 8
has none of those details. It’s just a range where staff can determine how much staff time. 9
Commissioner Moss: Footprint and number of hours in the park. 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: I would point out that this is an issue that City Council has raised 11
in previous discussions, so I think it would be worthwhile for us to do some research on it 12
to understand what the consequences of the actions are and clarify what our neighbors are 13
doing. 14
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, but given the amount of work right now that the staff is doing on 15
Foothills Park, I would recommend that we keep the policy the same, and just wait and do 16
some research when staff can do that, but not as a really high priority and have a decision 17
or revisit it in December. 18
Commissioner Moss: Okay. 19
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t know how others feel, but I think we ought to put it on the 20
“maybe” list for March, given that this is something that Council has brought up. 21
Commissioner Moss: It depends on if they can do any research before then, because I don’t 22
want it to come up again with no more research. 23
Commissioner Reckdahl: Correct, but my concern is that if other people have fees and we 24
don’t, it may attract people, and I don’t want to be attracting more people. Or more 25
[crosstalk] prices is the big thing. 26
Mr. Anderson: And again, we do have fees, so if someone comes and says, “We want to 27
shoot a commercial,” they don’t do it for free. We do charge them. Again, it’s variable, 28
depending upon what they want. They go through a Special Use Permit, through PD, with 29
Open Space weighing in, and different fees are assessed, but I can come back with details 30
on that and try to pick two or three neighboring agencies to find out what they’re doing 31
specifically, and see if we can borrow best practices if you’d like. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 58
Commissioner Moss: But if you don’t have time before March, then I’m happy with 1
moving it out. So, pick your battles. 2
Commissioner Olson: And maybe, Daren, it would be helpful just to know, how often does 3
this come up? Because if it’s pretty few and far between, then it may not be something that 4
we need to prioritize. 5
Mr. Anderson: Very good. Just off the top of my head, I would say it probably happens, 6
that we get about six requests a year. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl: Before they couldn’t go into Foothills Park, I don’t think. 8
Mr. Anderson: Right. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: And Foothills Park is a lot prettier than Arastradero, so we may 10
have more demand coming. 11
Mr. Anderson: Very good. I’ll put in the staff to research and come back and work with 12
the Ad Hoc in more detail. 13
Chair Cribbs: That would be great, Daren. Thank you. 14
Mr. Anderson: The Ad Hoc reviewed the existing policies on group gatherings and the 15
Oak Grove picnic area, and the Committee is in favor, in particular, for the Oak Grove. I 16
think we mentioned before that there is 150 people max for that picnic area, and there’s 17
adjacent parking and the restrooms there. So, it’s 150 capacity for that area. We had 18
discussed, I think in one of our previous meetings, should we be restricting corporate 19
action there? The Ad Hoc Committee noted that they weren’t in favor of restricting 20
corporate use of Oak Grove at this time. They felt that restrictions should focus on the 21
number of people and how the facility is used, rather than which people use it. Just a quick 22
recap on what the group permit policy is. A gathering permit is required for any group 23
greater than 25 people, and that’s for Palo Alto Parks and Open Space. I mentioned the 24
Oak Grove. There’s just one more detail in the Oak Grove policy that’s worth noting, that 25
all members of the party, including guests and caterers, musicians, et cetera, must exit the 26
park before closing. Equipment may not be left after the event, and examples of activities 27
that are not permitted are things like bouncy houses, petting zoos, climbing walls, video 28
boards, laser tags, et cetera. Those are often the kind of requests we get for people who 29
have rented Oak Grove, so the Rangers will ask those details. That is listed in the sign-up 30
sheet as you register for the reservation. It says if you have any non-Open Space type of 31
request, discuss it with the Rangers, so the Rangers could say, “Unfortunately, that’s not 32
allowed here in the Preserve.” 33
Chair Cribbs: And Daren, tents were in that list, right? 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 59
Mr. Anderson: No. It’s not in this example list, but yes that would probably fit in, 1
depending on what they were proposing. 2
Commissioner Moss: I’m thinking back to the Palantir event at Cubberley where they had 3
floors and they had tents and they had music, boomboxes and all kinds of stuff. I don’t 4
want that. 5
Chair Cribbs: Thoughts, Jeff? 6
Commission LaMere: Just that we didn’t want to restrict who was using it, as Daren had 7
said, but the Rangers have experience and discretion in understanding what’s allowed and 8
best use of the park. One question I do have, and I don’t remember if we covered this, with 9
reservation policies, are we doing anything to give residents priority over reservations of 10
group areas, or anything in terms of like we do with Enjoy, where residents have a week 11
ahead of time of registration, or anything like that? 12
Mr. Anderson: Yes. It’s part of the lawsuit settlement. All of the reservable areas in 13
Foothills Park, residents have a priority of 25 percent of the reservable time. So, in the 14
case of Towle Camp, Oak Grove and the classroom, they’re a year in advance reservations. 15
It’s a year in advance for residents; nine months in advance for non-residents. 16
Chair Cribbs: Thank you. Jackie? 17
Commissioner Olson: Nothing to add. 18
Chair Cribbs: Other Commissioners, thoughts on this? 19
Commissioner Reckdahl: I agree. There was public backlash with the whole Palantir stuff, 20
and we got so many people mad at us. I think we need to look at the lessons we learned 21
from Palantir and make sure that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. 22
Commissioner Moss: Luckily, with them, it took them about a week to set up and four 23
days to shut down, so the idea that you can’t have anything overnight, I think that will 24
help. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: I think we should further consider the pros and cons of corporate 26
group reservations, particularly since this is something the City Council raised last night. 27
If we don’t have a position on this and do some research and provide some data on it, it’s 28
possible they could choose to act on their own without our input. So, I think it’s something 29
we should consider. 30
Commissioner Moss: What did they say, specifically? 31
Vice Chair Greenfield: There were some general – 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 60
Chair Cribbs: Just asked about any corporate policies, if that would be discussed. Jeff, did 1
you have other information? 2
Vice Chair Greenfield: No, that’s all And Daren, just getting back to the reservation policy, 3
it sounds like there isn’t any need for the Commission or Council to develop further policy 4
on it that that’s spelled out within the terms of the settlement. So that’s enough for staff to 5
go on? 6
Mr. Anderson: Yes. That’s my understanding. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield: Great. Thank you. 8
Chair Cribbs: Good. So, do people want to try to put this on for March, or do you want to 9
get more information? 10
Commissioner Moss: Put it on for March. 11
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, me too. Okay, Daren let’s move on to the next one. 12
Mr. Anderson: Sure. Is there any other feedback that might be helpful so I could check 13
with other agencies? Are there any other Commissioners that feel that we should be 14
banning corporate? It would just help me a little bit. 15
Commission LaMere: Chair, if I could just say one thing. Obviously, the Palantir sticks in 16
everyone’s mind, so there needs to be a belief and trust of the decision-making of those 17
that are handling these permits to appropriately look out for the park and the correct uses. 18
I guess we’re certainly deferring and relying on that expertise and trusting in that. I think 19
some of it is that how much do you need to put in writing to ensure something like Palantir 20
doesn’t happen again? 21
Commissioner Moss: I’d even go one step further. I think I heard Daren mention the word 22
“musicians,” and I’m thinking of musicians or deejays and boom boxes, even PA systems, 23
where you’re going to have the CEO making speeches. How loud can it be, and how much 24
amplification do you want? The Rangers have to have some guidelines, and I don’t know 25
what’s happened in the past. 26
Mr. Anderson: We have existing noise ordinances that are already in place to protect from 27
that. And the use of Oak Grove, by the existing policies, couldn’t exceed 150, so whatever 28
Palantir, if they wanted to rent Oak Grove, they would be doing the same thing that 29
someone would do on a birthday party, if they had 150 people. So, there would be no 30
exceptions or extra things allowed as it stands with the policy as it is. I think the thing I 31
was trying to understand is are we looking at just banning corporate altogether? 32
Chair Cribbs: I would not be in favor of banning corporate altogether. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 61
Commissioner Reckdahl: What is the policy right now for Mitchell Park, for example? 1
Mr. Anderson: I don’t believe there is a policy that prohibits a company from renting a 2
picnic area at Mitchell. Likewise at [crosstalk] Hills. 3
Chair Cribbs: Or at Rinconada. 4
Mr. Anderson: Yeah. 5
Commissioner Brown: I think what might be helpful for the March discussion, maybe even 6
more so than outside agencies, comparing what other agencies are doing, is looking at on 7
an identity level what the different parks permit within Palo Alto. So, how the Oak Grove 8
policy compares to Cubberley or Rinconada or the other parks. Just so you can see how it 9
differs. 10
Commissioner Moss: I would like to know about Rancho San Antonio. I would like to 11
know about Cuesta Park. Are we the only game in town, or do they allow these things as 12
well? And what about the Baylands, and what about Arastradero Preserve? They don’t 13
have picnic table. You have that one picnic area at Baylands. Have you ever had an event 14
out there? 15
Mr. Anderson: No. It’s sized according to the associated amenities, so there are enough 16
picnic tables at Oak Grove and associated parking and restroom, that for our history at the 17
park, it has accommodated 150 without trouble. Baylands is very different. There’s no 18
adjacent restroom. There’s lots of parking, but there’s only four picnic tables and four 19
barbecue pits. It’s really small. We don’t have large groups out there, and I think the same 20
could be said for most of the other picnic areas. It’s highly variable, depending on which 21
area. At Mitchell where you’ve got some group picnic areas, I could come back with the 22
numbers, but it’s really dependent on how many trash cans, picnic tables and parking you 23
have available, associated with that picnic area. 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: I don’t think we want to ban corporate groups altogether, but we 25
may want to put some constraints on it and perhaps require approval for a for-profit 26
corporate group renting the area to go through the Community Services Director. For 27
example, if a company has a service day organized in the park, and they’re going to do 28
some cleanup and want to have a barbecue afterwards, absolutely we want to support that. 29
We want to encourage that. We may want to have some guidelines beyond that, but I think 30
it’s something that merits some consideration. I don’t know if we get this done by the end 31
of next month or four weeks from now, or not. 32
Chair Cribbs: Well, we can try. How’s that? 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 62
Commissioner Reckdahl: When we talk next month, let’s talk about what the noise 1
ordinance is, because I’m concerned that if it’s so many decibels, that’s really hard to 2
enforce. But let’s not talk about that tonight. 3
Mr. Anderson: It is, by the way, decibels. Is there any other, aside from Oak Grove, which 4
we’ve mainly talked about, other group permits that you want to discuss? 5
Chair Cribbs: For Foothills, no. 6
Commissioner Moss: You said there were six picnic areas. I didn’t know there were six. I 7
only know of two. 8
Mr. Anderson: I can pull them up if you’d like me to toggle down to the picnic area. I’ve 9
got photos of them if you want to see it. For example, Oak Grove, Orchard Glen, Pine 10
Gulch – 11
Commissioner Moss: Oh. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: But I think we’re talking about group permit policy right now. Oak 13
Grove is the only picnic area that is reservable via permit. 14
Commissioner Moss: Yeah. 15
Mr. Anderson: So, no other group permit policy questions that I should look into for the 16
time being? Okay. Environmental monitoring and data collection – I think we’ve talked 17
in the past about what Grassroots and Open Space is doing in terms of monitoring. The Ad 18
Hoc is supportive of that. In addition to that effort, recommends that the recommendations 19
being worked on by the stakeholder group – I discuss this in the staff report, I believe – 20
that’s looking into people, infrastructure and the environment, come back with any 21
recommendations on the environmental portion and discuss them with the full 22
Commission. In addition to that, it’s forming partnerships with universities and local 23
colleges for additional environmental research study. This is also something that’s coming 24
in part from that aforementioned stakeholder group, where we have some folks from 25
Stanford and Jasper Ridge who are really engaging and helpful and willing to talk to 26
students about doing future research studies in Foothills Park, where we can gain valuable 27
data. 28
Chair Cribbs: The only thing that I would add to this is just the suggestion of an established 29
docent program for the future that could be discussed. But this is really a “later on.” 30
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’d like to suggest that we just rename this, and I came up with this 31
name originally, but Shani Kleinhaus had a much better suggestion, I think, in her 32
comments. I think this should be Environmental Resource Management Plan, and what 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 63
you have listed really becomes a subset of that. I think that’s a better umbrella to 1
encompass what we’re after. That was Environmental Resource Management Plan. 2
Mr. Anderson: Any other comments on this topic? Chair, am I correct that this would not 3
be an action item for our March meeting? 4
Chair Cribbs: I don’t know. I think maybe it just belongs in the category of the list that, 5
like the entry fee and all of that. 6
Mr. Anderson: I just meant that you don’t need a motion to it. It could just go in the staff 7
report like what we’ve just talked about? 8
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 9
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 10
Commissioner Reckdahl: I can see the situation where we might want to tell Council we 11
are concerned about this and prep them to, if not immediately, in the long run have some 12
reaction to this. Because right now, we’re doing nothing, and we’re just hoping that we’re 13
not damaging the wildlife or damaging the environment. I think we have to start making 14
the plan and socializing the fact that a plan is needed with the Council. 15
Vice Chair Greenfield: Maybe Council Member Kou could comment further on this, but 16
are there details that we should be providing that would help for purpose of budgeting, for 17
next fiscal year? Because we’re not doing much right now, because it’s difficult to do, and 18
it’s expensive to do. But if we’re going to need some funding for this, then we need to be 19
planning in advance for that. 20
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, I think there needs to be some milestones that we can show 21
progress. As Keith said, we don’t want to show nothing. There is stuff being done. What’s 22
being done? What are the partnerships that we started? Who have we started working with? 23
What kind of meetings have we had? In other words, can we have some progress 24
milestones, bearing in mind that we really can’t have too many tours and work groups as 25
long as COVID is still out there, but we should be working towards that, so that by the end 26
of the summer, there are people running and ready to go. I think that would make Council 27
feel better. 28
Chair Cribbs: Well, why don’t we, then, put it in for March, so that we can maybe just 29
have an outline of what’s being done at this point. Will that make people feel better, do 30
you think, Keith? From your comment? 31
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think we should be talking about it, and even if our talking has, 32
say that we’re going to do this and going to do that but don’t have all the answers, that’s 33
at least a first step. I think some of the Council Members are forgetting about the fact that 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 64
our primary purpose in life is to protect Foothills Park, or Foothills Preserve. We’re 1
thinking more about parking spaces than we are about wildlife. 2
Council Member Kou: Don’t forget the natural environment, too. 3
Chair Cribbs: Yes. Okay, let’s try to get that on for March, and then I agree with you, 4
David, that we need to put together a timeline for some of these things to be accomplished. 5
Some of it will be budget-driven, and some of it will be with our partners. It actually is a 6
very exciting initiative, so I’d be happy to have other people be excited about it as well. 7
Commissioner Moss: I’m cautiously optimistic that budget will not be as much of an issue 8
because of partners who are very willing to work with us. There’s a lot we can do. 9
Chair Cribbs: I think so. 10
Mr. Anderson: I don’t know if there’s much needed for this one, the term between vehicle 11
entrance fee and parking fee, the Ad Hoc supports using vehicle entrance fee. Parking fee 12
suggests you could enter, drive through the Preserve for free, and as long as you’re not 13
parking, you could stop, and as long as you’re not staying and getting out of your car, it 14
would all be fine. It’s really not practical in Foothills to have something like that work. It 15
would be a challenge operationally. 16
Chair Cribbs: I think we’re using that right now. Jackie and Jeff, do you want to add 17
anything? Pretty self-explanatory. 18
Commissioner Olson: Nothing to add. 19
Commission LaMere: Nothing to add. 20
Chair Cribbs: Other comments from everybody? Okay. So, vehicle entrance fee it is, 21
Daren. 22
Mr. Anderson: Very good. I don’t know that this needs to be an action item, maybe again, 23
just captured in the report. Chair, that wraps it up. 24
Chair Cribbs: I was just going to say, I have a feeling that that wraps it up. Gosh, my 25
compliments to you, Daren, for putting the slides together, but also to the Commission for 26
thoughtful comments. It seemed like a very daunting list when we looked at it in January, 27
or whenever, as we looked at it. I’m sure that there will be lots of things that will get added 28
to the list and get revised and get re-discussed and all of that, but I think it’s good at this 29
point, so here’s the next steps. 30
Mr. Anderson: Very good, and immediately for staff, I’ll do the research that the 31
Commissioners have asked for during this meeting, confer with the Ad Hoc, probably 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 65
more than once, to go through all these things and try to really package together a 1
thoughtful response to each of these to make our March 23rd meeting effective and efficient 2
and hopefully successful, and we don’t have to wordsmith too much on a motion. Does 3
that sound like a reasonable next step? 4
Chair Cribbs: Yes. I was just going to say, if we could have some motions to look at, or a 5
motion to look at and avoid wordsmithing every piece of it, I think that would be very 6
useful for everybody’s time and energy. 7
Mr. Anderson: Very good. Staff’s got a lot to work on on this issue, and we’ll get on it 8
right away. 9
Chair Cribbs: And doing a good job, too, so thank you and thank the staff that’s working 10
on it, but I think everybody should give themselves a big round of applause, because that 11
was a lot to get through tonight, especially after our late start. So, thank you all very much. 12
Vice Chair Greenfield: And thank you very much to the Ad Hoc and staff for putting 13
together this to help us get through this quickly. Just one quick thing on next steps. Just 14
wanted to highlight that City Council had requested that the Commission return to them 15
with a status update in August timeframe. Regarding that suggestion, we aim to have 16
something on our agenda for July to review where we’re at at that point and forward the 17
input to City Council. That could be a new recommendation with changes, or it could just 18
be a status update, as far as I’m interpreting that. 19
Commissioner Moss: And might as well throw the December one in also. 20
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, I think so. 21
Mr. Anderson: Very good. 22
4. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Review 23
Chair Cribbs: Daren, could you put up the screen for the Ad Hoc and Liaisons? We looked 24
at this last time we had a meeting and everybody, I believe, was in agreement about the 25
liaisons that were listed. Excuse me, about the Ad Hocs that were listed. We combined 26
some and changed some, and I didn’t hear from anybody that we wanted to add anything 27
at this point, so the task tonight so that we can take action on this, is to have all the 28
Commissioners pick which Ad Hocs they would like to be on for the next year and get that 29
settled, so that we can do a motion and pass that on. 30
Commissioner Moss: Chair, one question. Do you really still think that one Foothills Ad 31
Hoc is enough? 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 66
Chair Cribbs: Well, here’s the deal. I actually think it would be great if we had a second 1
one, but we can’t because of the Brown Act. Daren or Kristen can probably explain it 2
better than I can, because they’re much more familiar with the Brown Act, but I believe 3
that we are only allowed to have one Ad Hoc on Foothills Park at this point. 4
Mr. Anderson: That’s correct. 5
Chair Cribbs: Perhaps when the Ad Hoc gets our job done, we would create a different Ad 6
Hoc for different parts in the year, but I think I’m right on that, Daren. 7
Mr. Anderson: That is correct. Yeah. It was too risky to have serial meetings in the opinion 8
of our attorney. 9
Chair Cribbs: So, to go through this list, we have the Baylands Tide Gate. Fund 10
Development for CY21. Given the fact that the CIP review didn’t have a lot to discuss this 11
last time and got put off a little bit, I am not so sure we need to put people on that committee 12
right now. Foothills Park/Foothills Policy. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield: Excuse me, Chair, could I interrupt and ask, Daren could you make 14
this bigger for us, please? Thanks. Sorry about that. 15
Chair Cribbs: The Park and Facility Use Policy has morphed into Racquet Court Policy. 16
That’s really given the new direction from Council about the Boards and Commissions 17
rules about having a specific topic to address for the Ad Hoc. Park Improvements is now 18
going to be called Dog Park and Restrooms. Recreational Opportunities has been 19
shortened and changed to New Rec opportunities. So, in the past what I remember is that 20
Commissioners have signed up or volunteered for a particular committee of interest, and I 21
think we have seven committees. Actually, if we populate the CIP review, we have seven, 22
and we have seven Commissioners. We’d like to have two or three Commissioners on each 23
Ad Hoc, at least I thought so. David, it was kind of lonesome just having two people on 24
our dog committee. 25
Commissioner Moss: No comment. 26
Chair Cribbs: No comment, okay. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: A quick question for staff as far as the CIP Review Ad Hoc. I agree 28
this is something we should create, given the guidelines of the new manual for Boards, 29
Commissions and Committee, would it seem more appropriate to create the Ad Hoc later? 30
Or is it reasonable to do it now? 31
Mr. Anderson: I think it’s reasonable to do it now, Vice Chair. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield: Great, thank you. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 67
Commissioner Moss: I’d like a show of hands of how many people would like to be on 1
that Foothills Policy Ad Hoc. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think almost everybody does, right? 3
Commissioner Moss: Right. So, I think that’s the one we should start with and the rest will 4
fall… 5
Chair Cribbs: All right, well let’s start with that one. I have been on the Foothills Ad Hoc 6
and have enjoyed it very much, and I’m happy to step back this year and do something 7
else. 8
Commission LaMere: I have been on it since, I believe, 2018, and while I enjoy the 9
continuity and having sort of learned very much about it and been deeply involved in the 10
policy, I will also step away to provide opportunities for other Commissioners. 11
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jeff, and thank you for your service on that. We talked about 12
how long you’ve been on that Ad Hoc Committee. Really appreciate your thoughtfulness 13
and your work. 14
Commissioner Moss: I second the emotion. 15
Commissioner Olson: I, too, am happy to share the love and have some fresh blood for 16
those who are really eager. I’m also happy to continue, but I do think it’s important to hear 17
as many voices as possible on this, so I think we should just start fresh on that one. 18
Chair Cribbs: Yes. I think so, too. It really would be my goal for every Ad Hoc, that people 19
really pick what they want and be passionate about it, and also have some turnover the 20
Committees and have some new blood and some new way of thinking and some new 21
perspective. Should we raise hands for the Foothills Committee, starting out with that 22
one? David? Daren, are you keeping notes with this, too, because last year I remember I 23
didn’t, and I was surprised to find myself on a committee that I didn’t…don’t remember 24
signing up for and I was trying to participate on another committee. 25
Mr. Anderson: Yes. I will take notes. 26
Chair Cribbs: Thank you so much. I see the Vice Chair. 27
Vice Chair Greenfield: Yes, I’m interested if a spot is available. Thank you. 28
Chair Cribbs: There appears to be. I’m looking for another hand. Okay, well, let’s leave 29
that one and go on to the Baylands Tide Gate. 30
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 68
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sorry. I guess I’d like to ask, Jackie, you said you’re interested in 1
staying on potentially. I think it’s important to have three people in that group, and I think 2
it would be helpful to have some continuity, so I don’t know if – 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: I would want at least one of the people from last year to continue 4
on. Otherwise, you’re starting from scratch. 5
Commissioner Olson: Yeah, I think it might also, for Commissioner Brown’s benefit, be 6
good to explain a little bit about how many of these we end up being on. It looks like I was 7
on four before. I think we can probably go through and get our first couple on each one, 8
and then try to fill in the blanks with – 9
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, that’s what I was actually trying to do, so thank you very much, to get 10
two on the Foothills Ad Hoc and then go to other ones. But if we want to do that, Jackie, 11
if you want to stay on that committee, that’s great. Because I do agree about the continuity. 12
Commissioner Olson: Sure. I’m happy to continue on. 13
Chair Cribbs: Great. Thank you. So, Baylands Tide? Daren, could you talk a little bit about 14
what that committee might do? 15
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, thank you, Chair. So far what’s involved is conversations with 16
Valley Water and learning about exactly what they were proposing and proposing counter 17
alternatives. For example, the Ad Hoc was really effective in getting them to explore 18
alternative closure windows of the levy system that they need to access. So I think it’s 19
review of design that will be coming up soon when they eventually bring a Park 20
Improvement Ordinance, I imagine the Ad Hoc would do an early iteration review of that, 21
and then just further discussions offline with staff and the Valley Water team. 22
Chair Cribbs: Just as a point, Valley Water has grants available, and money, right? 23
Mr. Anderson: Oftentimes, yes 24
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Thank you. Any volunteers on the Valley Water? 25
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m interested in staying on this group, just to see it through for 26
continuity. I initiated some of the discussions with the group, and very productive and I 27
think this is an Ad Hoc that would probably be disbanded after the initial plan. I don’t 28
know if it would continue after the initial plan is put in place or continue monitoring. I’m 29
not quite sure about that. We’d have to figure that out. 30
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’ interested, although if others are interested, I certainly can step 31
out. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 69
Chair Cribbs: Okay, Keith, I’ll note that. Okay, let’s move on to Fund Development. I’m 1
interested in staying on this committee. 2
Commission LaMere: I can help out with that. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m interested in making room for someone else. 4
Commissioner Brown: I’d be interested in being on this one. 5
Chair Cribbs: Perfect. Okay, then the CIP Review. David? 6
Commissioner Reckdahl: In the past didn’t sometimes we just have a single person do 7
this? Is this like a liaison? 8
Chair Cribbs: No, it wasn’t a liaison. We had a committee, actually. 9
Commissioner Reckdahl: Some years I was the committee of one. 10
Chair Cribbs: I do remember that. 11
Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it’s really, especially for newer people to see how the 12
CIPs work, but I don’t know if it needs a big crew in there. 13
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Let’s leave it for a little bit. I found it very, very – for the short time 14
I was on it this year – I found it very, very interesting. Racquet Court Policy? This is tennis 15
and pickleball, specifically. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’ve been involved with this for four years, and I think some new 17
blood would be good. I think there are some interesting things coming up, regarding tennis 18
and pickleball to be involved with. 19
Chair Cribbs: Definitely. Okay, Dog Park, and Restrooms? Any takers on that one? This 20
was a big part of our Master Plan, or continues to be, about putting more dog parks in 21
parks, and putting more bathrooms in parks, as well. 22
Vice Chair Greenfield: Mandy has a dog, right? 23
Ms. Brown: And it’s being quiet right now. Yeah, I’d be interested in being on this one. 24
Chair Cribbs: Okay, well, Mandy, I will join you there. And New Rec Opportunities? 25
Commission LaMere: I’d like to remain on that Ad Hoc. 26
Chair Cribbs: And that’s the one I thought I was on last year, so I’d like to go on that one. 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 70
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’d be interested in staying on that, but again, if people have 1
strong feelings, I’m willing to step off. 2
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so here’s the scorecard right now. Jeff and Keith are on the Baylands 3
Tide Gate. Jeff LaMere, Anne and Mandy are Fund Development. David is CIP review. 4
Foothills Policy is David, Jeff and Jackie. We have nobody for Racquet Court Policy. 5
Mandy and Anne are Dog Parks and Restrooms, and New Rec Opportunities are Jeff and 6
Keith and Anne. 7
Commissioner Olson: I can sign on for Racquet Court Policy. 8
Chair Cribbs: Great. And painted lines on the courts, right? That’s great. Thank you. Okay, 9
so Daren, I’ll coordinate with you and maybe we can send this list out and give people a 10
couple more days to fill in some of the blanks. 11
Mr. Anderson: Chair, if we’re taking an action tonight – 12
Chair Cribbs: Oh, that’s right. We can’t do that. Okay, thank you. 13
Commissioner Reckdahl: Right now, is Jackie the only one on Racquet Court? 14
Chair Cribbs: Yes. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl: Okay, you can add me. 16
Chair Cribbs: Great. And we have one person in CIP. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: We have time to add someone later on that, since it won’t be 18
convening for some time. 19
Commissioner Brown: I’m happy to be on that one. 20
Commission LaMere: You can add me to CIP. 21
Chair Cribbs: Oh, good, Jeff, and who else said that they were happy to be on? 22
Commissioner Brown: It was Mandy. 23
Chair Cribbs: Great. Well done. I think we’ve got it. If we’re taking action on this, Daren, 24
do you need to put this up on the screen so everybody can see it? 25
Mr. Anderson: I certainly can. It’s going to take me a second to type it up. 26
Chair Cribbs: That’s okay, but we can go through the Liaisons as well. Do you need to 27
have an action -? 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 71
Mr. Anderson: Would you like me to type that up, or we could just read it off. 1
Chair Cribbs: I think we can read it off. I was going to say, though, if you wanted to type 2
it up, we could go through the Liaisons while you’re typing it up, and I’ll take the notes. 3
Mr. Anderson: Sure. 4
Chair Cribbs: So, Aquatics I’ve been doing for a long time. I'm happy to step back if 5
somebody else would like to do that Liaison work. I don’t hear anybody, so guess – 6
Vice Chair Greenfield: You have the credentials, Anne. 7
Chair Cribbs: I’ll stay there. Baylands 10.5 Development? Would somebody like to be a 8
Liaison on that particular one? 9
Commissioner Olson: I can. 10
Chair Cribbs: Jackie? 11
Commissioner Olson: Yes. 12
Chair Cribbs: Great. Community Gardens? 13
Commissioner Brown: I’d like to do that. 14
Chair Cribbs: Cubberley? 15
Commissioner Moss: I can do that. 16
Chair Cribbs: David. Field Users? 17
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’d like to continue doing that. 18
Chair Cribbs: Yeah, that’s good for your continuity, I think. Golf? 19
Commission LaMere: I’ll stay with Golf. 20
Chair Cribbs: Thank you, Jeff. GSI? 21
Commissioner Moss: I can give that up. 22
Chair Cribbs: Can we leave that open for now? 23
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, there’s not much going on. 24
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Palo Alto Recreation Foundation? I think that’s me. 25
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 72
Vice Chair Greenfield: Since they’ve agreed to have you as the Liaison, I think you should 1
be our Liaison as well. 2
Chair Cribbs: I know. That would be awkward, right? PAUSD? And the City? 3
Commissioner Reckdahl: I’ll keep that. 4
Chair Cribbs: Safe Routes? 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m interested in keeping that unless someone else is interested in 6
jumping into it. 7
Chair Cribbs: Sustainability? Keep that open. Skateboard Park? 8
Commission LaMere: I’ll take Skateboard Park. I’ve done some work with that already. 9
Chair Cribbs: Great. Urban Forestry? 10
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m very interested in that. 11
Chair Cribbs: Ventura Plan? Keith, is that something with - 12
Commissioner Reckdahl: Oh, yeah. I’m sorry. Yes. 13
Chair Cribbs: Your knowledge – 14
Commissioner Reckdahl: I should take that for continuity. 15
Chair Cribbs: Yeah. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl: That’s almost done anyway. 17
Commissioner Moss: Yeah, how many millions of dollars can we get out of the Frye’s 18
property for a new parkland? 19
Chair Cribbs: Youth Council? I will do that one. Okay, Daren, I think we have the list. 20
Commissioner Brown: I’ll do Sustainability. That one is still open. 21
Chair Cribbs: Okay, so the only one now that is still open is GSI, in case anybody just got 22
interested. 23
Commissioner Olson: I can take it. 24
Chair Cribbs: All right. Thanks to everybody. That’s terrific. 25
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 73
Commissioner Reckdahl: If Jeff would want help on Urban Forestry, I wouldn’t mind 1
joining like we did last year. 2
Chair Cribbs: Okay. 3
Vice Chair Greenfield: Sure. 4
Commissioner Reckdahl: I don’t think we did anything because of COVID. 5
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’m hopeful that more will be happening on that this year. 6
Mr. Anderson: Am I okay to unshare that, Chair, and share the motion page instead? 7
Commissioner Moss: One more comment and that is that Sustainability and GSI are very 8
similar. There’s a lot of overlap. So, if you wanted to merge those two, you could do that 9
without much trouble. 10
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Let’s see how it goes. Right new we’ve got Liaisons for both of them. 11
Mr. Anderson: I just want to make sure I’ve got these correct. Do the Ad Hoc Committees 12
meet your list, too, Chair Cribbs? 13
Chair Cribbs: Are you going to write them down, or do you have them written? It’s not 14
showing on my screen. 15
Mr. Anderson: I have the Ad Hocs only. I’ve been typing up that while you were – 16
Chair Cribbs: Can’t do two things at one time. Aquatics is Cribbs. Baylands 10.5 is Jackie. 17
Community Gardens is Mandy. Cubberley is David. Field Users is Jeff. Golf is Jeff 18
LaMere. GSI is Jackie. Palo Alto Recreation Foundation is Cribbs. PAUSD/City is Keith. 19
Safe Routes is Jeff. Sustainability is Mandy. Skate Park is Jeff LaMere. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield: Skateboard Park. 21
Chair Cribbs: Urban Forestry is Greenfield and Reckdahl. Ventura Plan is Keith, and 22
Youth Council is Cribbs. Good work, everybody. That’s a great roster. 23
MOTION 24
Vice Chair Greenfield: I’d like to make a motion that we adopt this as listed. 25
Commissioner Olson: I’ll second 26
Chair Cribbs: Is there any discussion? No. Catherine, would you… 27
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 74
[roll call vote] 1
MOTION PASSES, 7-0. 2
Chair Cribbs: Great. Congratulations, everybody. It will be another fun year. 3
V. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MARCH 23, 2021 4
Chair Cribbs: I think we pretty much know what it is, it’s Foothills Park. But Daren, were 5
there other things? 6
Mr. Anderson: I think that is going to be the dominant one, Chair. I don’t think I’ve got 7
anything else, but I’ll confer with other staff both at CSD and Public Works, as usual, to 8
see if they’ve got anything outlined that they need on. 9
Chair Cribbs: Great. I think after tonight, probably it would be good to have an only 10
Foothills Park meeting. So, we’ll wait and see. 11
VI. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 12
Ms. Bourquin: Daren, Tim Wong was supposed to talk about the housing in Palo Alto. Do 13
you just want me to share the fliers, since he went off the attendees at the beginning of the 14
meeting? I don’t know what happened. 15
Mr. Anderson: Yeah, I think two things. One is maybe we could pop it up real quick if it’s 16
okay with the Chair. Alternatively, we could just email it to the Commission as well. 17
Ms. Bourquin: I can email it, but whatever they prefer. 18
Mr. Anderson: Since you and I don’t really have the background to talk them through it, 19
perhaps that would be the most prudent. 20
Ms. Bourquin: Okay. I’ll do that. 21
Mr. Anderson: Okay. 22
Chair Cribbs: Okay. Thank you for that. Any other announcements? We have our retreat 23
coming up soon. 24
Commissioner Moss: I was going to mention about the Ramos Park and the off-leash dog 25
park, but Daren beat me to it in his staff report, so I don’t think there’s much that I need 26
to add to that. I think that’s going to be the big challenge for the dog park people, is where 27
to put an off-leash dog park this year. That’s it. 28
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 75
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 1
Chair Cribbs: If there are no other comments or other announcements, we could entertain 2
a motion to adjourn, but I would thank everybody before we do that, and say good work 3
tonight, I know it was a lot to get through and a lot to sit through, but I feel like everybody 4
had the opportunity to make comments and do what we’re all trying to do, which is the 5
best for the park, both for the environment and for the enjoyment of the visitor experience. 6
Thanks, and special thanks to staff. Gosh, we really recognize what a great job you guys 7
are doing, supporting us, and I think it was really clear last night. I think the Council, as I 8
said, was very pleased at the work of the staff and also the Commission, so it’s really great 9
to have you guys as part of the team, so thank you, Daren. Please convey that to the rest 10
of your staff that aren’t here with us tonight. 11
Mr. Anderson: Absolutely. 12
Meeting adjourned by motion by Commissioner Reckdahl, second by Commissioner 13
Moss, at 11:00 p.m. 14
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
SUBJECT: FOOTHILLS PARK POLICIES
RECOMMENDATION
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that City Council adopt an ordinance to:
A. Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule to include:
1. Foothills Park idaily vehicle entrance fee based on passenger capacity, as follows:
A. $6 for vehicles with up to 9 passenger capacity (Note: This is the existing
fee with discounts/free entry as already adopted)
B. $30 for vehicles with 10-24 passenger capacity (small buses). No discounts
or free entry other than student groups with a reservation or part of a City
permitted event
C. $60 for vehicles with 25+ passenger capacity (large buses) only with a valid
permit, obtained in advance:
i. Gathering Permit (required for groups of 25+), available on
weekdays only
ii. Oak Grove Group Picnic Area Permit, available every day
iii. No discounts or free entry other than student groups with a
reservation or part of a City permitted event
2. Free vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) entrance to Foothills Park on the
following days, subject to visitor capacity limits:
A. First Saturday in December
B. Third Monday in January (MLK Day)
C. First Tuesday in March
D. Last Wednesday in April
E. Third Thursday in June
F. First Friday in October
3. Free vehicle entrance to Foothills Park on weekdays for student (Kindergarten
through 12th grade) groups with a valid Student Field Trip Reservation.
4. Up to 10 free vehicle entrance passes to Foothills Park per day:
A. Passes are available from designated Palo Alto City Libraries (no library
card is required)
B. Passes are valid for one specific date for one passenger vehicle (9-person
capacity or fewer)
C. Entry is subject to visitor capacity limits
2
5. Free Foothills Park Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students, as follows:
A. Passes are available to U.S. 4th grade (or home school equivalent) students,
beginning each August
B. Passes are valid for free entry of one passenger vehicle (9-person capacity
or fewer) if the 4th grader is present in the vehicle when entering, and passes
are not transferrable
C. Passes are valid for one school year, ending on August 31st, following the
student’s 4th grade year
D. Passes must be procured in advance
B. Direct staff to:
1. Permanently remove the 9 hillside BBQs at Foothills Park to help improve fire
safety. This includes all BBQs at Pine Gulch, Encinal, Shady Cove, and Lakeside
picnic areas.
BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2021, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) held a special meeting to
discuss an annual pass option and the visitor capacity limit for Foothills Park (Minutes). On
February 22, City Council adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills
Nature Preserve, established an annual pass including several discounts and fee waivers for entry
to Foothills Park, adjusted the visitor limit to Foothills Park, and identified groups (e.g. visitors
with reservations in Towle Campground) who don’t count toward the visitor limit (Minutes).
On February 23, the PRC reviewed and discussed a range of Foothills Park Daily/Annual Entrance
Fee and Visitor Limit policy considerations (Minutes). This included some policy guidelines that
had been recently adopted by City Council but had not previously been commented on by the
PRC. The PRC agreed to support some guidelines, while referring additional details back to the
Ad Hoc Committee for additional assessment and follow-up recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The Foothills Park Ad Hoc Committee met on February 28, March 5, 8, and 15 to discuss the
Foothills Park policies. The Ad Hoc Committee grouped the Foothills Park policy considerations
into different categories:
• Policies to include in a March 23 PRC recommendation to Council.
• Policies adopted by City Council and supported by the PRC, but not previously commented
on by the PRC.
• Potential Foothills policy updates that have been reviewed by the PRC but are not included
in the current recommendation. These may be considered for a future recommendation.
• Parks and Open Space policies to review and consider for a future recommendation.
3
Policies Included in a March 23 PRC Recommendation to City Council
• Large Vehicles (over 9-person capacity)
• Free Days
• Free Vehicle Entry for Student Groups with a Reservation
• Free passes available at Palo Alto City Libraries
• Free Foothills Park Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students
• Removal of the 9 Hillside BBQs for Fire Safety
Large Vehicles (over 9-person capacity)
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the fee structure for larger vehicles should be modeled
on the California State Parks fees, which include $30 for vehicles with 10-24 passenger capacity
(small buses) and $60 for vehicles with 25+ passenger capacity (large buses).
Due to concerns of pedestrian and bicyclist safety and the parking and space limitations in the
preserve, large buses would only be allowed entry on weekdays with a valid permit, obtained in
advance. No discounted fees or free entry would be allowed to small or large buses, unless
affiliated with a student group with a Student Field Trip Reservation.
Free Days
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following as free vehicle entry days:
A. First Saturday in December
B. Third Monday in January (MLK Day)
C. First Tuesday in March
D. Last Wednesday in April
E. Third Thursday in June
F. First Friday in October
The free days are modeled on the National Park Free Park Days, which include six free days. These
six days provide free access to passenger vehicles (9-person capacity or fewer) on different days
of the week, including one holiday. The days are spread out throughout the year to avoid some of
the busier times of the summer so that people are less likely to find the preserve at capacity when
they visit.
Free Vehicle Entry for Student Groups with a Reservation
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that Kindergarten through 12th grade student groups with a
valid Student Field Trip Reservation be allowed free entry into Foothills Park. The Ad Hoc
Committee noted that supporting student access to nature is something the PRC strongly supports.
Free passes available at Palo Alto City Libraries
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that up to 10 free passenger vehicle entrance passes to
Foothills Park per day be made available from designated Palo Alto City Libraries. No library card
is required for pick up of the passes. The passes are valid for one vehicle (9-person capacity or
fewer) on one specific date and would not need to be returned to the library. Entry with the library
pass is subject to visitor capacity, just like an annual pass.
4
Free Foothills Park Annual Pass for 4th Grade Students
The National Parks has a program called “Every Kid Outdoors”, which is an initiative to get all 4th
graders and their families to experience nature throughout the school year. The Ad Hoc Committee
recommends a similar initiative for Foothills Park, which would help engage and create our next
generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates.
Annual passes would be free for U.S. 4th grade (or home school equivalent) students. Passes are
valid for one vehicle (9-person capacity or fewer) if the 4th grader is present in the vehicle when
entering and passes are not transferrable. Passes are valid for one school year, ending on August
31st, following the student’s 4th grade year. Passes must be procured in advance of visiting the
preserve.
Removal of the 9 Hillside BBQs for Fire Safety
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends removing the nine hillside BBQs at Foothills Park to help
improve fire safety in the preserve (Attachment A).
Policies Adopted by City Council and Supported by the PRC (Not previously commented on
by the PRC)
The PRC supports the following guidelines, but since they are consistent with current policy, these
items will not be included in a recommendation motion to City Council. The PRC supports these
items:
• Vehicle Entrance Fee Instead of Parking Fee
• $6 daily entrance fee for vehicles with up to 9 passenger capacity.
• Free daily entry for vehicles with a disabled person license plate or placard.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists entering Foothills Park main entrance are not counted
toward the visitor capacity limit or charged an entrance fee
Vehicle Entrance Fee Instead of Parking Fee
The Ad Hoc Committee prefers the term “vehicle entrance fee” over “parking fee”. Parking fee
suggests vehicles could enter and drive through the preserve for free without parking.
$6 Daily Vehicle Entry Fee
The PRC supports having the $6 vehicle entry fee apply to both residents and non-residents. They
believe this will help make the fee collection process more efficient and reduce delays at the
entrance gate. Staff also noted that different resident and non-resident daily vehicle entry fees
would be difficult to enforce on weekdays when visitors pay at an automated payment machine.
The Ad Hoc Committee would like the PRC to revisit entry fees towards the end of calendar year
2021.
Free Entry for Vehicles with Disabled Person Placard
The PRC supports free entry for vehicles with a disabled person license plate or placard. Both
Santa Clara County and San Mateo County Parks provide free entry for vehicles with a disabled
person parking placard or plate.
5
Pedestrian and Bicyclists Not Counted Toward Visitor Capacity and Not Charged Entry Fee
The PRC support not counting pedestrians and bicyclists towards the visitor capacity limit. They
also support free entry for pedestrians and bicyclists, which will help make the entrance process
more efficient. Most regional and County Parks do not charge an entry fee for pedestrians and
bicyclists. It is also impractical to collect entry fees for pedestrians and bicyclists at other preserve
entrances.
Foothills Policies Reviewed by the PRC but not Included in the Recommendation (These may
be considered for a future recommendation)
• Visitor Reservation System
• Dog Policy
• Daily Entry Fee Waivers
Visitor Reservation System
The Ad Hoc Committee discussed some of the merits and challenges of a reservation system for
vehicle entrance to Foothills Park. The Ad Hoc Committee is concerned that a reservation
requirement may limit access unnecessarily, especially for people with limited online access. The
Ad Hoc Committee recommends that staff continue to investigate options for how a reservation
system might work for Foothills Park, but not to implement one at this time. They recommend
discussing reservation system option at the end of calendar year 2021.
Dog Policy
The Ad Hoc Committee does not support making any changes to the existing dog policy for
Foothills Park:
• Dogs are required to be on-leash at all times
• Dogs are prohibited from pursuing wildlife
• Dog waste must be immediately removed
• Dogs are prohibited from swimming, bathing, or wading in any park or open space water
ways
• Dogs are not permitted in Foothills Park on weekends and holidays
The Ad Hoc Committee recommends reviewing the dog policy again towards the end of calendar
year 2021.
Daily Entry Fee Waivers
The Ad Hoc Committee and staff discussed how some of the current daily entry fee waivers
complicate enforcement of weekday entry fees. On weekdays, visitors will use an automated
payment machine and display a payment stub inside their vehicle. Some vehicles entering for free
using a waiver will be difficult to distinguish from vehicles that do not pay an entry fee. Potential
alternatives include replacing some daily waivers with annual passes or limiting some waivers to
6
weekends when the entrance station is staffed. The Ad Hoc Committee would like the PRC to
revisit daily entry fee waivers towards the end of calendar year 2021.
Parks and Open Space Policies to Review and Consider for a Future Recommendation
During its review, the Ad Hoc Committee identified some Foothills Park concerns that are
governed by broader Parks and Open Space policy, rather than policy specific to Foothills Park.
The Ad Hoc Committee opted to focus the current change recommendation on policy specific to
Foothills Park. While not advocating immediately for change to any broader Parks and Open Space
policy, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends proceeding with review of the following broader
policy considerations by the Ad Hoc Committee, and returning to the PRC at a later date with an
updated recommendation:
• Photography and Videography Policy
• Special Event Permits (Fun runs, etc.)
• Gathering Permits for Groups 25+ (picnic groups, hiking meet-ups, docent-led walks)
• Groups of 24 or Fewer (no reservation or permit required)
• Special Request Interpretive Programs (canoe rentals, ranger talks, campfires)
Photography and Videography Policy
The Ad Hoc Committee noted that there is an existing Park and Open Space Regulation pertaining
to commercial photography and filming (R1-21A) and did not feel that any additional policy action
is necessary at this time, though recommends further analysis on this topic.
Group Permit Policy and Oak Grove Picnic Area Policy
The Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the existing policies for group gatherings and for the Oak Grove
Picnic Area The Ad Hoc Committee is not in favor of restricting corporate use of Oak Grove Picnic
Area. They feel that restrictions should focus on the number of people and how a facility is used,
rather than which people use it.
A gathering permit is required for any group greater than 25 people for Palo Alto Parks and Open
Space.
• Links to the Oak Grove Picnic Area Use Policy:
▪ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves/foothills/oak_
grove.asp
▪ https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/79674
Environmental Monitoring & Data Collection
The PRC has expressed the importance of protecting the natural environment of Foothills Park,
especially during this period of increased visitation. They have advocated for environmental
monitoring and data collection to help guide policy aimed towards projecting the natural
environment and wildlife.
7
Environmental monitoring is being performed by Grassroots Ecology and Open Space
staff. Grassroots Ecology is monitoring the following:
1. Monitor the first 250 feet of trails for high priority invasive species, such as Stinkwort and
Yellow Star Thistle. They have baseline information for these species.
2. Monitor a sensitive habitat species- Western Leatherwood that occurs near trails. This is
a special status plant in the preserve that has been mapped.
3. Provide anecdotal observations of any impact to animals or plants in the preserve. They do
not have baseline monitoring information on the entire preserve. However, based on their
experience they can comment on problematic issues, such as increased social trails or
prohibited mountain bike usage.
Open Space staff are monitoring the following:
1. The number of visitors entering the preserve.
2. The peak number of preserve visitors at any one time.
3. Litter along the trails, picnic areas, and other areas of the preserve.
4. Issues with exceeding the capacity of trash and recycling containers.
5. Visitor parking in non-designated areas.
6. Turn away of visitors with dogs on weekends and holidays at the entrance and dog
off-leash observations on weekdays.
Staff is working with a stakeholder group (consisting of representatives from Grassroots Ecology,
Friends of Foothills Park, the Environmental Volunteers, Stanford University Haas Center for
Public Service, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Los Alto Hills, and the Chair and Vice Chair of
the Parks and Recreation Commission) to identify and recommend improvements in the following
areas:
• People: Education and programs, interpretation, docents, volunteers, public engagement,
etc.
• Environment: Habitat and wildlife, impact monitoring and mitigation, regional outreach,
and sustainability.
• Infrastructure and Funding: Safety, trails, traffic, parking, signage, preserve entry points,
and funding for programs and infrastructure improvements.
The stakeholder group is developing a 5-minute video to help educate visitors on the principles of
Leave No Trace, how to recreate in Foothills Park responsibly, and how prepare and make the
most of a trip to the preserve.
The group is also working on establishing a Trail Ambassador Program, through a partnership with
the Environmental Volunteers. The goal of our Trail Ambassador Program is to provide volunteer-
led engagement of Foothill visitors, expanding their knowledge and sparking interest in the park
as well as providing helpful information and resources, and encouraging environmental
stewardship.
A third initiative of the stakeholder group is a list of infrastructure improvements aimed at
projecting the habitat and improving visitor safety and experience. Examples of some of the
8
proposed improvements include split rail fence to help encourage visitors to stay on trail, creating
a pedestrian pathway throughout the preserve to allow visitors to avoid walking on the roadway,
better defined parking spaces, and additional signage.
Ad Hoc Committee supports the monitoring efforts being performed by Grassroots Ecology and
the Open Space staff. They recommend that the City prioritize a capital improvement project to
create of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Foothills Park (a top Master Plan priority) as
soon as economically feasible. They further recommend that the stakeholder group
recommendations be discussed with the Commission for feedback and incorporated into an interim
environmental management strategy. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommends that staff form
partnerships with universities and community colleges for environmental research and study in the
preserve and seek advice and assistance on environmental monitoring from regional land
management agencies.
TENTATIVE TIMELINE
• Council to review the March 23 PRC recommendation on Foothills Park policies- May
2021
• If City Council discusses the PRC recommendation at their May 3 meeting and approve an
ordinance, it would take effect on June 17.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Foothills Park BBQ Analysis
i Council adopted an ordinance to change the name of Foothills Park to Foothills Nature Preserve, which takes
effect on April 15, 2021.