HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-17 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2021—7PM
AGENDA
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.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency-- Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
2.Approval of Draft Minutes from the October 26, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting –
Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
3.Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates – Chair – Discussion (15 min)
4.Update on Fundraising Opportunities from Friends of Palo Alto Parks and the Palo Alto Recreation
Foundation— (Roger Smith and Jack Morton)—Discussion (30 min)
5.Potential Fundraising Opportunities for Parks and Recreation Programs and Projects—Chair--
Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
6.Vision for a New Palo Alto Gym – Chair-- Action (45 min) ATTACHMENT
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 14, 2021 SPECIAL 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
June 22, 2021
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.
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2021
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF
TELECONFERENCING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETINGS DURING COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government
Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees
due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency.
Background
In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to
the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect.
On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act,
effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by
teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State
law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at
least once every 30 days.
AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies
to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the
State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances:
(A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and
state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social
distancing.
(B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the
purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency,
meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of
attendees.
(C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has
determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of
the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or
safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).)
In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider
the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1,
2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances
exists:
1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the
members to meet safely in person.
2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to
promote social distancing.
Discussion
At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health
Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and
other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021
Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and
instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including
physical distancing and other social distancing measures.
Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for
public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish
to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and
constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via
teleconferencing are protected.
To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies
have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City
Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission
meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be
conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide
whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via
teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards
and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through January 2022.
Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section
54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees.
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ____
Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government
Code Section 54953(e)
R E C I T A L S
A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene
by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency
Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and
B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency
in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state
of emergency remains in effect; and
C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the
Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were
subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and
those declarations also remain in effect; and
D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act
to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency
without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the
policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and
E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of
vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County
Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues
to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing
measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and
F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees
about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other
social distancing measures; and
G. The Parks and Recreation Commission has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic
and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while
minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person
meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore,
Attachment A
NOT YET APPROVED
The Parks and Recreation Commission RESOLVES as follows:
1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission has considered
the circumstances of the state of emergency.
2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures
to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some
settings.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such
meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and its committees that occur using
teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who
wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the
statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting
via teleconferencing; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Parks and Recreation Commission staff liaison is directed to place a
resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Parks and
Recreation Commission within the next 30 days. If the Parks and Recreation Commission does not meet
within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the
immediately following meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Staff Liaison Chair of Parks and Recreation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
City Attorney Department Head
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
October 26, 2021 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Anne Cribbs, Keith Reckdahl, David Moss, Amanda Brown, 12
Jeff LaMere, Vice Chair Greenfield 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Member Kou 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, 16
I. ROLL CALL 17
Chair Cribbs shared that she and Commissioner Moss had a tour of the Junior Museum. 18
She expressed positive comments regarding the museum and their experience there. She 19
is excited for the opening, the staff, and the community, and she congratulated those 20
involved in its opening. 21
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 22
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 23
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 24
Mr. Anderson reported that staff installed two new signs explaining the rules for Cubberley 25
synthetic field and track, general rules for those areas, including one that dogs are allowed 26
on-leash on the track but not on the field. He appreciates the Vice Chair’s help in working 27
with staff on finalizing that. On October 18th, he said, Council directed staff to move 28
forward with formalizing the Parks and Recreation Commission's role for the Urban Forest 29
Master Plan. He reported on the recruitment efforts for the Park and Recreation 30
Commission. There was an extension of the deadline which extended it up until today. He 31
had checked in with the Clerk’s Office last week and learned that they had six applicants. 32
He will find out what the number is now that they've reached the deadline for submittals. 33
34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
1
Mr. Anderson gave a brief update on the Rinconada Park Improvement Project . The 2
project is underway and is anticipated to be completed in January. He said the Second 3
Annual Jack-O-Jaunt will be held Friday, October 29th, 6p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at Lytton 4
Plaza. More information is available on the Enjoy! online page. He also shared that the 5
Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo will reopen with the completely rebuilt facility and re-6
imagined visitor experience on November 12th, with a limited schedule. Staff are excited 7
to welcome everyone back, from November 12th through December 20th, on Fridays 8
through Sundays with morning and afternoon slots. This gives staff time to sanitize 9
between visits. More information is available at cityofpaloalto.org./jmz. Mr. Anderson 10
thanked John Aiken , director of the JMZ, for providing tours for the Commissioners. 11
Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commissioners regarding the Department Report. 12
Hearing none, she closed the item. 13
V. BUSINESS 14
1. Approval of Draft Minutes from the September 28, 2021, Parks and Recreation 15
Meeting 16
MOTION 17
Approval of the draft Minutes, including correction on page 3, was moved by 18
Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by Commissioner Moss. The motion passed 6-0, 19
by roll call vote. 20
Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates 21
Baylands Tidegate - Vice Chair Greenfield felt the ad hoc role at this point could be 22
changed to a liaison, since the ad hoc role was to get through the action of 23
recommending a PIO for the work to be done, and it is becoming more of a follow-up 24
role at this point. 25
CIP Review - Commissioner Moss said he and Commissioner Brown got a preliminary 26
list of CIP projects. They will meet early next month to review it. In the meantime, they 27
also passed it along to the Fundraiser Ad Hoc to see if they wanted to look at possible 28
early fundraisers. 29
Dog Park and Restrooms - Chair Cribbs said the restrooms project continues to move 30
forward. Regarding the dog park, they have not been able to organize a community 31
meeting. 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
Fund Development - Chair Cribbs said she had an opportunity to look at something from 1
the CIP. It appears that, in terms of doing some things that will make some sense, they 2
need to be a little more thoughtful about how they organized that particular ad hoc, but 3
she said they will let this go for a little bit. 4
Recreational Activities - Commissioner Reckdahl said they had a meeting last week 5
about the gymnasium and have been discussing locations in the city where one could be 6
located. They looked at the 10.5 Acres, Greer Park , Mitchell Park, and the Ventura 7
School site and wondered whether any of these would be an appropriate site to have a 8
city gymnasium. He stated that Cubberley is getting old and during the construction, if 9
and when it is redeveloped, it likely would lose at least some gym access, so they 10
wondered if it made sense to plan a gym facility somewhere else in the city. 11
Commissioner LaMere stressed it was a preliminary search for where a good location 12
might be. He also emphasized the lifespan of the Cubberley facility and the condition of 13
the gyms there. In addition, they felt that, because a city of Palo Alto's stature does not 14
have its own gym, it is something to look into and pursue as the Parks and Rec 15
Commission. 16
Commissioner Reckdahl added that they have no staff time and no money, so if they do 17
want a gym they're going to have to do private fundraising, which is difficult because 18
you can't have a plan without fundraising, but you can't have fundraising without a plan. 19
He said he would like to go forward and have a low level activity where they at least can 20
have some ideas that could be more formalized, and then go out for fundraising. He said 21
this would make it more about something real, not just asking for a commitment of 22
money. He suggested that it's easier to raise money by saying, “We need money for this,” 23
and show pictures and ideas. This is where they're trying to go to get enough “meat on 24
the bone” that they can raise money. 25
Chair Cribbs thought this was a good summary, recalling that the intent of the Ad Hoc 26
was to put together a memo in which they could come to the whole Commission in 27
November and get their support for moving forward, and at least have a community 28
discussion about the need for a gym and its potential location, as they shared with the 29
staff. She recalled that staff came back and said there are certain things the Council will 30
want to know before they go too much farther along. They will continue to meet in the 31
next couple weeks and hopefully be able to have this on the agenda in November. 32
Chair Cribbs said the other recreational opportunity is that they have met again with the 33
skateboard group, and they are talking among themselves about location and what the 34
park needs to look like. She thinks that part is moving along very well and hopes they 35
can come back to the Commission to have another discussion in November. 36
Sidewalk Vendor Policy - Vice Chair Greenfield thought this could be transferred to a 37
liaison role, or dissolved after it goes to City Council. Chair Cribbs thought this was 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
good news because that would be in keeping with the rules for an ad hoc. She said the 1
Committee had done a great job looking at all the possibilities, and it was very much 2
appreciated. 3
Aquatics Liaison - Chair Cribbs said it has been asked that the report about Aquatics 4
come back in January, and she thought that was fine. There is a group from Rinconada 5
that would like to meet as well, so that meeting has been scheduled. 6
Baylands 10.5 - Chair Cribbs Said she is still seeking a meeting with Rodrigo Baptista, 7
who was the Palo Alto Soccer Club representative. 8
Foothills Nature Preserve - Commissioner Moss said they have had several meetings and 9
another meeting scheduled in a week. They are rushing to get all of the remaining issues 10
they were talking about all summer to the Commission in neither November nor 11
December. They include the Gate D for bicyclists, videography, infrastructure, fees, 12
reservation systems, dogs, a litany of items. Commissioner Reckdahl added that, of the 13
long list, not all of them are changes. With some of the things they looked at, the results 14
are that they like it the way it is and are not going to change. Chair Cribbs asked if Mr. 15
Anderson had a date yet for the Council, or if it depends on when it can go to the full 16
Commission. Mr. Anderson thought they would schedule that after the Commission 17
discussion. From staff perspective, he said they are really looking at December as 18
opposed to November for the Commission to hear it, and then after that, the Council. 19
Cubberley - Commissioner Moss said many have read in the Palo Alto Online and the 20
Palo Alto Weekly that there have been some major discussions between the City Council 21
and the School Board about Cubberley. Notably, they have decided to use Cubberley for 22
a temporary school while they renovate and rebuild Palo Verde next year. The following 23
two years they will use it to house Hoover School while they rebuild Hoover School 24
from scratch. He said they promised that no current tenants will be displaced, which 25
means the reason they can't use the existing classrooms is because they are not to code. 26
They will be bringing in portables and putting them somewhere, probably the parking 27
lot, to handle all of this. They will use some of Greendell, but will not displace those 28
tenants. 29
Commissioner Moss said the last big thing is that the School Board made a 30
recommendation that they do not need the entire 27 acres for a new high school if they 31
ever want one. The new school is just a dream at this point and way out in the future, but 32
they would like to give back seven acres to the City, or sell it to the City, and only keep 33
20 acres. This would increase the City’s acreage to 14 acres. He said there is a Cubberley 34
Master Plan, and when that happens, they would dust off that plan and adjust 35
accordingly. Referring back to the topic of finding a place for a gym, Commissioner 36
Moss said it would be nice if a portion of the 14 acres could be used for a gym, so that 37
they don’t have to wait for everything to settle. Chair Cribbs asked Commissioner Moss 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
which Master Plan he was referring to dusting off. Commissioner Moss replied the 1
Cubberley Master Plan, the Concordia Plan, that talks about how the seven acres owned 2
by Palo Alto would be used, plus all of the seven acres they would get from the School 3
District, plus a little bit more. He thought that same plan could be used for the 14 acres if 4
this happens and could potentially be worked out with the City Council. 5
Commissioner Reckdahl added that this is a big change, but he thinks it will be more 6
compatible with their recreational uses. Chair Cribbs agreed and said it is good to know 7
that the School District has decided that neither staff housing, teacher housing nor 8
moving the District Office won’t be happening at Cubberley. Commissioner Moss 9
wondered if Council Member Kou had any comments from a Council perspective. She 10
declined to comment on the subject at the time. 11
Palo Alto, City – Commissioner Reckdahl said the only thing of interest was that they 12
talked extensively about Cubberley. 13
Urban Forestry – Vice Chair Greenfield reported that on October 18th, the City Council 14
reviewed proposed updates to Title VIII of the Municipal Code, which is also known as 15
the City Tree Protection Ordinance. A small part of the discussion and action related to 16
Parks and Recreation Commission serving as a public forum for community urban 17
forestry matters and for advising Council on similar matters. He said two years ago when 18
Walter Passmore presented an Urban Forest Master Plan status update to the Parks and 19
Recreation Commission, both groups came to an agreement, in principle to do just that, 20
so Council’s action on the 18th gives them the directive to move forward on it. He read 21
the Council’s Action Agenda Item 13.h., “Direct staff to formalize a role in the Parks and 22
Recreation Commission on Urban Forestry Issues.” 23
Vice Chair Greenfield said staff and the PRC Urban Forestry Ad Hoc had developed a 24
framework document almost two years ago. That group included Commissioner 25
Reckdahl, Vice Chair Greenfield, Mr. Anderson and Walter Passmore. It is the 26
framework for what the relationship will be moving forward. Mr. Anderson and Peter 27
Gollinger, who is the acting Urban Forester, along with Commissioner Reckdahl and 28
Vice Chair Greenfield, are the Urban Forestry Liaisons. He said they will review the 29
guidelines again, and they will go to the Directors for review. It is unclear if a municipal 30
code update will be required. Staff is looking into this. He said that may not technically 31
be required, which would allow them to move forward more quickly, but it may be a best 32
practice to update the code so that it is more specifically stated as a part of their purview, 33
as opposed to being in a catchall basket. Vice Chair Greenfield said this will be 34
happening over the next couple of months. He said they look forward to formalizing the 35
relationship and moving forward. He recently learned that the Parks and Recreation 36
Commission previously played quite a prominent role in developing the Urban Forest 37
Master Plan, including having an ad hoc dedicated to help craft the document, and he felt 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
this further illustrates the appropriateness of Parks and Recreation Commission having a 1
more formal role moving forward. 2
Chair Cribbs asked if Recreation would be adding a staff person to do this, or if it will be 3
handled by existing staff. Vice Chair Greenfield said the Acting Urban Forester would be 4
the Liaison, and Peter Gollinger is in the acting role at present. This would be the first 5
specific type of arrangement between Parks and Recreation Commission and staff 6
outside of the Community Services Department, and he thought this might require or be 7
best served by a change in the municipal code. 8
Commissioner Moss said he thought this was a major change to the Master Plan as well 9
and had something to do with the types of trees that people can plant, as was on the City 10
Council agenda item on October 18th. Vice Chair Greenfield said Council was 11
considering a major revision to the Tree Protection Ordinance, which has not been 12
substantively updated in over 20 years. He was part of a group of residents that 13
submitted extensive recommendations, which first went to the Policy and Services 14
Committee, Chaired by Council Member Kou, and from there it was recommended for 15
consideration by City Council. A final decision has not been made on the updates to the 16
Municipal Code regarding the Ordinance and the recommended changes. This will be 17
coming to the Parks and Recreation Commission as recommended by Council sometime 18
before April, when a final decision is due, likely January. 19
Council Member Kou thanked all the residents for their work on this, and said the reason 20
it is not adopted yet is that there needs to be some community engagement so that the 21
community can look at some of the changes to the Code. Vice Chair Greenfield added 22
that part of the community engagement will be coming to the Parks and Recreation 23
Commission for their input, as well as the community’s input, at their public meeting. 24
Ventura Plan – Commissioner Moss asked if there was an update on when the Boulware 25
Park project will start. Mr. Anderson responded that they are looking to go out to bid for 26
the project in January or February. Commissioner Moss observed that it was supposed to 27
happen in 2021, but it will be in the fiscal year 2021, not the calendar year. He thought 28
there would be two parks done in 2021. Rinconada is started and Boulware is close. 29
3. Update on Water Recycling and Palo Alto’s One Water Plan Development 30
Mr. Anderson introduced Karla Dailey, Utilities Acting Assistant Director for Resource 31
Management, and Karin North, Public Works Assistant Director. 32
Ms. North said Ms. Dailey would be leading the presentation, and she would help answer 33
any questions related to water recycling. She explained that Ms. Dailey is the lead utility 34
person who knows about drinking water. They are collaborating with Environmental 35
Services Division and Public Works, with Utilities, on a One Water plan, looking at all 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
water sources to potentially be used at parks. 1
Ms. Dailey began by explaining that the Utilities Advisory Commission is her normal area, 2
and Ms. North, Mr. Bobel and she have worked closely in the last several years on recycled 3
water issues. She has also worked with Mr. Anderson closely on water use in the parks, 4
particularly during the last drought, and they are rekindling those roles in preparation for 5
the current drought. 6
Ms. Dailey began by updating the Commission on the current drought. In April, the City’s 7
water supplier, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), asked wholesale 8
customers to voluntarily keep water use the same as summer of 2019. The SFPUC 9
manages their system in a very conservative, responsible manner, so even though the rest 10
of the state is very dry, San Francisco system storage is in good shape. She explained some 11
of the numbers Commissioners may have heard in regard to the drought. In July, Valley 12
Water, who supplies water to most of the rest of Santa Clara County, imposed a mandatory 13
15-percent use reduction compared to 2019. She said Palo Alto does not take any water 14
from Valley Water, so there is often confusion when their system experiences different 15
conditions than the San Francisco system, which does rely heavily on the state water 16
project. That system is in a serious shortfall this year, as it is in many years that have low 17
precipitation. They are also having to rebuild the Anderson Dam for mandated seismic 18
upgrades, which is their largest storage reservoir. Without being able to use it in times of 19
drought, they are put at a real disadvantage, so they are in a much worse situation than 20
Palo Alto’s own water supplier is. 21
Ms. Dailey related how, in July, the Governor declared an emergency and asked for 15- 22
percent voluntary reduction, but compared to a base year of 2020. A few days later, the 23
SFPUC mirrored this, to stay in line with the Governor, not because San Francisco’s 24
system had significantly changed. In August, the State curtailed water diversions on the 25
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, including the Tuolumme River where San Francisco 26
takes its water that it then supplies to Palo Alto. She said that on November 9th, the SFPUC 27
is likely to declare a water shortage emergency and ask for a 10-percent voluntary use 28
reduction compared to fiscal year 2019-2020. The reason for this is, in order to ask for an 29
exemption from the curtailments to diverting water from the river, there is a condition 30
upon them that they declare a water shortage emergency. She said there are a number of 31
different things going on, including San Francisco filing a lawsuit against the State, 32
claiming that the State doesn’t have the right to tell San Francisco that they can’t take 33
water off the river, and that the rights that San Francisco hold predate any oversight that 34
the State has. She said it is interesting that, ahead of the last storm, the State did put a 35
temporary hold on their curtailment order, so San Francisco and other rights holders on 36
the Tuolumme River were able to capture some of the rain and precipitation from the 37
storm. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Ms. Dailey said they don’t know what the next few months will hold, whether the big 1
atmospheric river over the weekend was a sign of things to come, or whether they will go 2
back into a dry period. She said if they do continue to be dry, they will rely on their Water 3
Shortage Contingency Plan, which all urban water agencies, such as Palo Alto, are required 4
to revise at least once every five years, in concert with the larger urban water management 5
plans that they all have to have. 6
Ms. Dailey gave a high-level overview of what happens in various stages of water 7
restrictions. She said they start out focusing on their permanent water use restrictions as 8
well as doing a great deal of outreach. They then ramp up to no irrigation of turf within 48 9
hours of a measurable rain. The next stage limits turf irrigation to three days a week in the 10
summer, one in the winter. Next, it goes down to two days a week in the summer and one 11
day in the winter. At stage four, where it starts to get scary, she said there is no turf 12
irrigation allowed at all, and at stage five, no outdoor water use at all, except for trees. 13
Ms. Dailey said they have tried to do a better job during this drought with outreach on 14
helping folks take better care of their trees. She said they were not great at that at the 15
beginning of the last drought, and when the residents and businesses in Palo Alto did a 16
great job of conserving water, the trees started dying. So, Canopy helped them develop 17
some better messaging around tree care. She added that they worked closely with Mr. 18
Anderson and his team last time when they were looking at restricted days per week for 19
watering. Mr. Anderson helped them understand that the day restrictions are not feasible 20
for things like playing fields. They worked out an alternative irrigation plan where they 21
were watering as many days a week as they needed to, but with a water reduction target in 22
mind, and this worked well. She thought that, with the drought coming up, they will look 23
at this again and try to be ready for it, realizing that some of the large irrigators, as with 24
the playing fields, are doing a good job of using as little water as possible, and efforts may 25
need to be more targeted on the irrigation customers that are asked to do their fair share to 26
save water. She said one-size-fits-all type plans may not be best for the large irrigators. 27
She added that they have some tools at their disposal that they can use to determine, 28
hypothetically for a give area and vegetation type, the band of how much water should be 29
used on that particular piece of property, which could help identify the large irrigating 30
customers that may be using a little too much water. She pointed out the good news, that 31
if they reduce their water use to help out in the drought, they will also save some money 32
on their utility bill. 33
Ms. Dailey turned to the topic of the Palo Alto Water Supply Overview. She said 100 34
percent of the drinking water in Palo Alto comes from the regional water system operated 35
by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. About 85 percent of that originates in 36
the Tuolumme River, the other 15 percent from local reservoir and rainfall. Their demand 37
is about 11,000 acre-feet per year, which is about 10 million gallons per day. Currently, 38
they pay about $2,000 per acre-foot for the water. She said staff tries to think of the ways 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
that they can use the right water quality for the right purpose when possible. She said the 1
purple pipe water is literally transported in pipes that are purple, to signify that it is not 2
potable. It is highly treated wastewater, but not high enough quality for drinking. It is used 3
for irrigating landscapes and can be used for toilet flushing, some industrial uses, and some 4
non-potable commercial uses. That same water can be further treated to make it drinking 5
water quality. Currently, the only thing that can be done with this water is called indirect 6
potable reuse, or IPR, which means the water has to be in contact with some sort of 7
environmental buffer for a given regulated period of time before it can be used as drinking 8
water. The most common buffer is to pump it down into the aquafer, give it time to flow 9
from one end of the aquafer to the other, and then draw it back out and drink it at that 10
point. Ms. Dailey explained that there are regulations in the works in California for direct 11
potable reuse. This would be taking that wastewater that has been treated to drinking water 12
quality and putting directly into a distribution system. She said that does not happen in 13
California yet, but it will happen, probably in the near future. 14
Ms. Dailey presented the challenges and uncertainties related to Palo Alto’s water supply. 15
Drought related to climate change, changing regulations in the state, population, demand, 16
the economy are all uncertainties that they grapple with in the water supply planning 17
world. She explained that they are trying to look at water in the City of Palo Alto in a more 18
holistic way. They have been somewhat siloed in their planning in the past. She said her 19
group has looked fairly narrowly at traditional water supplies, such as what comes from 20
San Francisco, the groundwater they have access to in the city, and the demand side 21
management, or water conservation programs. They are trying to take a step back and do 22
a comparison between every different type of water that could possibly be used for 23
beneficial use in Palo Alto. In addition to the traditional water supplies, they are looking 24
at all of the possible different ways of reusing wastewater as well as stormwater. She said 25
using stormwater has the double benefit of keeping stormwater out of the Bay and 26
potentially helping to meet some of the water supply needs. Also, with onsite treatment, 27
some of the larger businesses in Palo Alto might want to treat some of their own 28
wastewater, or residents might want to do things such as having gray water systems at their 29
homes. She reiterated that they are trying to look at all possible worlds of water resources 30
as much as possible, and come up with a plan to address how to move forward. 31
Ms. Dailey explained that there are a number of other plans that have already been done 32
or are in process, and they don’t want to reinvent the wheel or duplicate efforts. What they 33
are hoping to do is to take advantage of work that is or has been done and incorporate it 34
all into one big plan. She said they completed a plan a couple years ago, the Northwest 35
County Recycled Water Strategic Plan, in collaboration with the Valley Water. This 36
looked at all the potential uses for wastewater from the Regional Water Quality Control 37
Plant. They also have a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan that is underway and are 38
trying to make sure the work they are doing uses information from that plan, but also fills 39
some gaps in that plan. They want to make sure that any thing they do does not contradict 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
their work around sea level rise management or flood management. Capital planning is 1
ongoing as well as green building efforts, and making sure all of those things are 2
considered. She said at the end of the process they are hoping for a 20-year roadmap that 3
will allow them to zig and zag depending on how some big milestones happening outside 4
of their control turn out, so that they are ready to implement the best water supply projects 5
possible for the city of Palo Alto. 6
Ms. Dailey listed a few of the different water resources that will be considered, including 7
SFPUC water, groundwater, basement dewatering water, as well as some high-tech 8
solutions, like atmospheric water generators that can pull water out of the air. She said 9
they do not want to dismiss any possible solutions in coming up with their plan. She 10
commented that the Parks and Recreation Commission focuses on the parks, and said it is 11
an important demand in Palo Alto with respect to water resources. There are many valuable 12
trees and community assets housed within the parks, not only the playing fields but other 13
spaces that are highly valued by the public. While there is solid evidence that the fields are 14
already being managed very efficiently, there might be some irrigated areas, including 15
Boronda Lake, which isn’t an irrigated area but is a high water use asset that the City 16
manages, that might offer some opportunities to apply some alternative water supplies in 17
those areas, possibly recycled water, groundwater or stormwater. The goal is to address 18
some of the big non-potable water demands in the city and make sure they are thinking 19
about the best ways to do so. 20
Ms. Dailey shared an extensive list of the many criteria they will be using to rank different 21
water supply portfolio options. She said they have an RFP for consulting help, and in the 22
scope of work for the consultant they have also asked for help in brainstorming any other 23
criteria that they might be missing, as well as helping them come up with a methodology 24
for how to take all these factors into consideration when evaluating different water supply 25
portfolios. She said equity is one of the criteria and is one that they don’t have a clear grasp 26
on how to apply it to the evaluation, but one that they feel is very important . 27
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Commissioners. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked the presenters for their detailed presentation and especially 29
the tree care messaging and the guidelines for tree watering during a drought. Given the 30
time investment required for care of this critical component of the natural infrastructure, 31
he thought the message to keep watering the trees is important. He enjoyed hearing the 32
overall idea of a holistic approach regarding water use, with Valley Water and the 33
Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan on more of regional level. He wondered 34
to what extent other neighboring cities are looking at a holistic plan and how that would 35
fit into the regional picture. Ms. Dailey responded that a lot of their neighbors are thinking 36
along the same lines, but Palo Alto may be somewhat ahead of some of them. She said 37
that yesterday one of her colleagues in Mountain View asked if they could share the scope 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
of work from their RFP because they are trying to think about the same type of planning. 1
She commented that Valley Water is doing something a little different. Given that they are 2
the watershed manager, Palo Alto’s One Water focus is a little different. Stakeholder 3
engagement will be very important in the process, and they will need to collaborate with 4
neighbors and other agencies in the region to ensure they are not stepping on each other’s 5
toes, and considering options that are consistent with all of their objectives over the next 6
couple of challenging decades. She said the conversation is definitely being held across 7
many agencies. She said Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA, which is a group of agencies 8
that all take water from San Francisco, and they plan to have some collaborative meetings 9
where they share ideas and information around One Water planning. 10
Ms. North interjected that the nice thing is there is the utility side for One Water, which is 11
very important, but also there is the environmental side for the green stormwater 12
infrastructure, which is a whole different group of people who they are collaborating with 13
on the stormwater piece. Then there is the recycled water piece as well, which is another 14
group they are collaborating with. She said it is complicated when there are so many 15
different entities that are involved in water, but he nice thing about Palo Alto is that, in 16
their plan, they are working together as a city, and looking at it holistically. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if the structure within the Public Works Department is 18
changing at all, or if change is envisioned to create a more holistic, less siloed, approach. 19
Ms. North said the current structure is that everything related to wastewater and 20
stormwater is under the Environmental Services Division, within Public Works. Drinking 21
water is under Utilities because they actually run and operate their own utility. She said 22
the nice thing about Palo Alto is they collaborate and work together, and it is one city 23
function. Even though they are in different departments it doesn’t mean they aren’t talking. 24
She said Ms. Dailey and she get along well and are working on this together. Water is a 25
chapter in the Sustainability Climate Action Plan, and that brought all of them together to 26
come up with the idea for this One Water plan. Ms. Dailey said in a lot of cities, such as 27
Mountain View, they don’t have a wastewater treatment facility in their city, so even 28
though they are in different departments, they have a huge advantage over some other 29
cities, and they frequently cross-collaborate. She said it is a very non-siloed relationship, 30
to the extent that it can be, within a structure like Palo Alto’s. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there are any near-term updates that members of the public 32
will see as a result of their efforts. Ms. Dailey answered that part of their scope of work is 33
to hold public meetings and gather public input, and since they don’t have their consultant 34
onboard yet, they are unsure what those will look like, but there will be opportunities for 35
the public to be engaged in the process all along the way. She mentioned that One Water 36
is one of the key actions, one of seven chapters, in the City’s larger SCAP, and One Water 37
is probably the highest profile, key action in the water chapter. It is a high priority for the 38
Director of Utilities, the Director of Public Works, the City Manager, and all the way up 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
the chain. It is something they will be dedicating the resources to get it done. 1
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there would be changes that the community would be 2
impacted by, as opposed to public outreach. Ms. Dailey said not immediately. Mr. Phil 3
Bobel interjected to remind the group of the $16 million out of the water district to build 4
their first advanced wastewater treatment plant, where they are producing a much higher 5
quality of water and augmenting their current recycled water so that it will be less salty, 6
and better. He said he hopes that plant will be operational in less than two years. They are 7
in Design on it now, and he was excited to say they will be the second facility after San 8
Jose in their part of the world to have such a facility. Ms. North said most of that water 9
will basically produce enhanced recycled water for existing recycled water customers. 10
Within Palo Alto, that will be the golf course in Greer Park. She said the majority of that 11
water does go down to Mountain View, because of their transition lines of where the water 12
goes. They looked to the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan for a few 13
different pipeline options within Palo Alto, and at this point they haven’t been bringing 14
anything forward to Council to expand that, but it is part of the discussion in terms of using 15
the right water in the right place. Vice Chair Greenfield thought this was great, and good 16
information that the Commission could use to help with community awareness of the 17
things they are doing for the city. He asked about the management of the fields and 18
wondered if that was in respect to water usage. Ms. Dailey said that it was appropriate, 19
given the various levels of drought they are in. 20
Commissioner Brown asked about the focus on water conservation for property owners 21
or residents, since the parks do such a good job. She was aware there are incentive and 22
rebate programs available for drought tolerate landscaping and wondered if they are seeing 23
customers take advantage of those programs, or if an additional incentive or permit 24
streamlining is under discussion. Ms. Dailey said they did increase their landscape 25
participation through the Valley Water rebate incentive. She said Valley Water administers 26
most of their water conservation programs, and they rely on them to get participation data. 27
She was not sure whether there has been an uptick in participation in Palo Alto, as there is 28
a bit of a lag in getting the data, but she thinks there probably was an uptick. She said they 29
do have an online store, where they are giving away showerheads and faucet aerators and 30
other less expensive devices, and they have been overwhelmed countywide with interest 31
in those devices. Regarding targeting other customers with respect to irrigation she 32
reiterated that they are looking at other large outdoor irrigators in Palo Alto, as opposed to 33
the parks. They have a tool available to those large, mostly commercial, customers who 34
have large landscape areas, and they can foresee using the tool to determine what the ideal 35
water use should be for their property, because some of them look like they could make 36
some improvements. She said those are the customers they want to work with, and time is 37
of the essence right now, to work with them and see if they can help them do a little better 38
with water use on their large, irrigated areas. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Commissioner Moss asked what the plan is for the large customers, like Stanford fields 1
and golf courses, the Palo Alto Country Club Golf Course, Mitchell Park, and the other 2
ten parks that all need the purple pipe water, not to mention the big residential properties. 3
Ms. Dailey responded that they do not supply water to the Stanford fields, and the Stanford 4
golf courses use groundwater. Palo Alto Golf and Country Club does use Hetchy water 5
and did a great job during the last drought, asking how much water they needed to save, 6
and then surpassing the number they were given. She said they’ve had this potential 7
recycled water pipeline plan for many years, and it would supply more of their own parks, 8
like Mitchell Park and could potentially go all the way to the Palo Alto Hills Golf and 9
Country Club, perhaps even up to Foothills Park. The project was analyzed in the 10
Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan, and analyzed a step further with a 11
business plan around the project. She said it has been analyzed thoroughly, but Council 12
didn’t feel comfortable moving forward with the project without stepping back and 13
looking holistically at all the different options for water. She explained that the original 14
impetus for the One Water plan came after they took the pipeline idea to Council. The 15
Council thought it was interesting, but wanted to know what all the other possible 16
alternatives were that they should look at before spending $50 million building a pipeline 17
through Palo Alto. 18
Commissioner Moss suggested that there is also the School District. He said that would be 19
a tremendous opportunity, and he hoped the City Council would take it up again in the 20
near future, especially as the drought gets worse. Ms. Dailey said they would be looking 21
at it and all of the other alternatives they have identified. She said one possibility is that 22
the Council might decide that waiting for direct potable reuse makes more sense than 23
building a recycled water pipeline, because that water could go directly into the 24
distribution system already in the ground, and a big expensive pipeline would not need to 25
be built to deal with it. She said it’s fairly obvious what some of the tradeoffs might be for 26
Council to consider. 27
Commissioner Reckdahl said he is on the Housing Element Work Group, and they are 28
looking at adding 6,000 units in the next eight years – 15,000 people and 25 percent 29
population growth. He is worried about how they will provide water for all those people. 30
Regarding smart meters, he said he has heard the best bang for the buck for conserving 31
water is to find leak detection, and smart meters are a good way to do that. He said smart 32
meters went to Council a couple weeks ago, and he wondered if that was just electrical or 33
if it included water meters. Ms. Dailey that water meters were included. Commissioner 34
Reckdahl asked if she thought it will be effective in finding leaks. Ms. Dailey said it will 35
help, and they have a tool they’re hoping to launch in the next few months, home water 36
reports, that can also help detect leaks. Although the data is not as granular without the 37
smart meters, it will help them detect water use patterns that might indicate a leak. Smart 38
meters will be a major boon in helping people identify leaks early and get them fixed, and 39
save water and money. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Commissioner Reckdahl asked water percentage of water is currently used on landscaping. 1
Ms. Dailey said she could get back to him on that, but she estimated around 40 to 50 2
percent. Commissioner Reckdahl said when they did the Mitchell Park Community Center, 3
they dual-piped it, and he wondered if that was still being done. Ms. North said it was 4
something that the City of Mountain View has done, since they have a lot of infrastructure 5
for recycled water there. They are requiring anything over 25,000 square feet to dual 6
plumb. It gives an option in the future whether to use a recycled water pipeline, or if 7
stormwater is captured, it can be used for irrigation or for flushing. Ms. Dailey felt that for 8
the future it makes sense, because it keeps options open and it is a lot cheaper to dual pipe 9
a new building than to retrofit an existing one. She said they do have a recycled water 10
ordinance on their books, but the threshold is high for requiring dual plumbing, so it 11
doesn’t usually get triggered with Palo Alto. It was lowered a bit in the last round of 12
building code modifications but it is still pretty high. She said in a recycled water deemed 13
area it is lower. However, the City doesn’t have a lot of pipeline, so if it makes more sense 14
to purify the water and potentially do direct potable use, then they don’t necessarily need 15
to dual plumb everything. She said they are struggling a bit in terms of what their path 16
forward should be. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl said at one time purple pipe was a hot topic, but it seems to have 18
cooled off. The cost of laying pipe is expensive. He remarked about Stanford sending their 19
waste to Palo Alto. Ms. Dailey said that is true, but they do have their own water utility 20
there. The purple pipe extended was for the Stanford research Park, but not the campus, 21
and not their golf course. Ms. North said Stanford is not purple pipe yet. It was in the 22
proposed Phase III of the pipeline, a pipe by Mitchell Park and then to Stanford Research 23
Park, but that’s still what they’ve done the business plan on, and what they’ve been doing 24
analysis on. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if there were talks with Stanford for purple 25
pipe water, because they lost their purple pipe and have purple pipe there that they are 26
running drinking water through now. Ms. North said they may end up using a satellite 27
treatment where they take water from their existing wastewater collection and have a small 28
research Codiga Center that they may end up utilizing for purple pipe in the future. They 29
also have a lot of stormwater capture that they could utilize for their purple pipe system. 30
They’re working on it through their own sustainability and water folks as well. 31
Commissioner Reckdahl noted that San Antonio Recycling Center was talked about last 32
week and asked if that is Valley Water’s Phase 1 of their project. Ms. Dailey said that is a 33
separate project. Part of the agreement was that they received the $16 million for the salt 34
removal facility, and another aspect of the agreement was that Valley Water has the option 35
to take about half of the effluent from their wastewater treatment plant and use it in other 36
parts of the county. They are looking at a lot of options, but one thing they are considering 37
is building a regional purified water facility at the old Los Altos Treatment Plant site, at 38
the end of San Antonio Road, near the Baylands Trail. Ms. North said they presented there 39
last month and have been to a lot of meetings in between. Ms. Dailey said it is one of the 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
things they need to consider in the One Water Plan, whether Valley Water does exercise 1
that option or not, and what impact it would have on the options that are available to them. 2
Commission LaMere said he hasn’t noticed in a couple of years, but he used to walk 3
around his neighborhood and see new constructions, and they would be pumping water 4
from the basements and running fire hoses, and it would just go into the storm drains and 5
into the Baylands. He wondered if that would still be occurring, as it seemed like quite a 6
bit of water would be pumped from the basements and would run for several days. Mr. 7
Bobel said they have regulations that cover that, but doesn’t prohibit it. It makes the 8
contractor and owner choose one of two options and try to minimize the amount of water 9
they are pumping out. The monitor it and try to get them to minimize the amount of water, 10
but there is no way short of not allowing basements. They have to do some of that to build 11
a basement. Usually, it’s longer than three or four days. For residential they are trying to 12
limit it to two weeks, but for big commercial operations it will take at least a year. 13
Mr. Bobel said that a lot of water goes to the storm drain. In a typical year it’s about 40 14
million gallons, which sounds alarming to many people, but trying to do something useful 15
with it is difficult. It is short term. They put a certain amount of it in trucks that were 16
required to take a truck a day and water trees at the direction of our Urban Forester, but 17
this is a small fraction of the total. He said it is such a large amount that comes in a short 18
period of time that it would be very difficult and expensive to try to get that to a better 19
location with trucks. Commission LaMere asked if 40 million gallons is a lot of 20
groundwater to lose or not. Mr. Bobel said it is hard to know, and they don’t have all the 21
answers. They do know that it appears to rebound, especially in a normal wet season, 22
which they haven’t had lately, but it does not appear that it is having a long term impact 23
on the groundwater. He said this is shallow groundwater, a different aquafer than the City 24
of Palo Alto’s emergency wells tap into. The emergency wells go down hundreds of feet, 25
and they don’t think they are affected by pumping of the shallow groundwater. 26
Commission LaMere asked if the pumping of the water has any impact on the surrounding 27
trees or vegetation. Mr. Bobel replied that they have thought about that and talked about 28
it. Their former arborist’s opinion was that the average tree is drawing water from the first 29
three or four feet, and not significantly below that. The current forester agrees with that 30
assessment, as have others. He said the groundwater table that most people are pumping 31
is at least 10 feet deep, sometimes 15 feet deep, and this is not always the case. Closer to 32
the Bay, the shallow groundwater is fairly high and could impact trees, so they have to be 33
careful, but in the last couple of years, the basements have been closer to Middlefield, 34
where the groundwater is 10 to 15 feet deep, and they don’t think it’s really being utilized 35
by trees. 36
Chair Cribbs was glad to hear about the good work on the playing fields, and said they are 37
getting a lot of comments about the shape they are in right now, and she said she is 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
interested to know if there is anything from a water perspective that they should be, or 1
could be, doing to help the playing fields be in better shape. Mr. Anderson responded that 2
it is not so much the lack of water that has put some of the fields in less than optimal 3
condition. Rather, it is typically excessive use and also scaling back of some of the extra 4
renovations that they were doing before budget cuts. He said particularly Cubberley is one 5
example of where there is a change which is directly tied to that, and not for lack of water. 6
He said the AIP, the alternative irrigation that Ms. Dailey described that they had 7
implemented in the previous drought, was really about prioritizing water for high-use, very 8
important areas like a playing field, where safety is a concern, and being more conservative 9
in more ornamental, aesthetic grass areas. He said they still do that. While they are prudent 10
with water all the time, right now they are prioritizing use in the playing fields, keeping 11
the turf alive, and minimizing in other areas where it’s really aesthetic, so there may be a 12
lot of brown turf in those areas. He reiterated that the playing fields are being adequately 13
watered; they just need more renovations and rest. 14
Chair Cribbs asked how much rain they got in Palo Alto on Sunday. Ms. Dailey said she 15
saw 2.12 inches at the station near the Bay. Chair Cribbs said it was good to see the rain. 16
She thanked Ms. Dailey for her input and the Commissioners for good questions. They 17
appreciate the work their team has done for Palo Alto. 18
4. Update on the Status of Measure E Area at Byxbee Park 19
Mr. Anderson handed the presentation over to Karin North, Public Works Assistant 20
Director, and Phil Bobel, Public Works, Management Specialist. 21
Ms. North explained that the Measure E area is adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant 22
in Byxbee Park, the former landfill. Mr. Bobel gave the presentation on this item. It is ten 23
acres of Byxbee Park which was de-dedicated and removed from parkland on November 24
1, 2011. The anniversary of that is next week, on November 1st. The objectives on this 25
item include a reliable long-term solution for organics, which are of three types – solids 26
from sewage treatment, food scraps that are now composted, and yard trimmings – green 27
materials from residential and commercial sites. Another goal is to reduce landfill disposal 28
of those organics, as well as greenhouse gas, because when they go into a landfill they 29
produce a certain amount of methane. They try to capture the methane, but it is far from 30
perfect, and methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas element than carbon dioxide. 31
Another major factor was to allow them to phase out the incinerator for the biosolids from 32
the sewage treatment. They have done that anyway; two years ago they finally got an 33
alternative technology and no longer run the incinerator. 34
Mr. Bobel shared the key features of Measure E. First, Measure E removed the ten acres 35
from parkland for a period of ten years. At the end of the period, as early as November 2nd, 36
the Council could redesignate the ten acres as parkland, because they have not moved 37
forward with a project. The use of the land was very specific in Measure E, It was for the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
treatment of the three organics streams mentioned, using biological or equivalent 1
measures, so they were very specific in what they could do with Measure E. If they wanted 2
to do something else with it, it would have to go out for a vote again, and the residents 3
could qualify something for the ballot like they did originally, or City Council could put it 4
on the ballot, but the use could not be changed without a vote of the residents. 5
Mr. Bobel said Measure E was approved by 63 percent, which he thought was amazing. 6
They did not approve a project, but simply removed it from parkland for ten years while 7
they could work on a project and get it approved that fit the scope of Measure E. He said 8
they have tried to do this, and have had two RFPs which did not determine that those 9
projects would be cost effective or even possible, so the ten acres has gone unused and 10
remains as it was ten years ago. 11
Mr. Bobel showed a map and photos of the ten acres on the map, showing the landfill area 12
and old compost operation. He said that the entire area, including the Measure E site, has 13
been capped with approximately four feet of soil, and the area is a maze of pipes removing 14
the methane and removing water so it doesn’t transmit pollutants downward, and removing 15
stormwater off to the side so it doesn’t erode the facility. He pointed out that part of the 16
ten acres cuts into a steep hillside. He said it was never a great idea to try to build a 17
treatment facility on a hillside of garbage. The lower portion of three to four acres is fairly 18
flat and would be much more aligned with building something on it. When the two RFPs 19
failed to result in successful projects, several of the proposers tried focusing only on those 20
three to four acres. Even so, it did not appear feasible. He showed that if they were to try 21
to use the entire ten acres, it would be necessary to cut into the refuse, the garbage, making 22
for a difficult and expensive project, which is one of the reasons they did not go forward 23
with ten acres. 24
Mr. Bobel discussed the future possibilities of the ten-acre site. The two RFPs from 25
approximately eight years ago concluded that a facility was not cost effective. Also, it 26
would have been an experimental facility, because no one has combined those three waste 27
streams into a single treatment facility - biosolids, greens from gardens, and food. He said 28
nobody has yet come up with one treatment process to do all three. Not only was it not 29
cost effective, but they would have essentially been doing an experiment and a research 30
project. However, the good news was that they have taken those three streams and handled 31
them separately nearly as envisioned, just not within Palo Alto, which was the goal for the 32
people that passed Measure E. They wanted the treatment to occur in Palo Alto and not 33
have to transport it offsite. They are doing what was envisioned. The biosolids are being 34
converted to compost and an agricultural product and being used in the Central Valley, 35
fairly close to Palo Alto. The food scraps are going to a facility that Green Waste runs, and 36
the ultimate disposition is the production of compost, which is also true of the green 37
material from gardens. All are either producing compost or a soil supplement for 38
agriculture. The compost can also be used for commercial operations such as adjacent to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
freeways. 1
Mr. Bobel said that it is now possible for the Council to return the area to parkland. If they 2
take no action then many possibilities remain open. With new technologies, he said it may 3
be possible to do what was originally envisioned. It may be possible that there is another 4
vote of the public to do something different with it, and that passes. Another possibility is 5
that the County Water District wants to build a county-wide facility to produce drinking 6
water quality water, and their second preference for a site would be the Measure E site. 7
Lastly, he re-emphasized that the ten acres could not be used, except as exactly prescribed 8
in Measure E, without a new vote of Palo Alto residents. 9
Chair Cribbs invited members of the public to speak. 10
Shani Kleinhaus said she participated in small groups that evaluated the submissions on 11
the RFP for the composting plant. She said the combination of three streams was never 12
feasible or a wise idea when looking deeply into composting. She said composting is better 13
handled in different streams. Otherwise, the result is the lowest common denominator. It 14
would require use of a lot of water, and the temperature is not right for the different streams 15
in the same way. Some can’t be handled by human hands. She thought it was a nice idea 16
but not feasible, and now obsolete. She said there are always people wanting to do 17
something with parkland and ideas of how parkland can be used for something better, and 18
she felt they should protect and be very careful of them. Even before COVID and the Parks 19
Master Plan, there was a lot of interest in access to nature and recreation areas. With 20
COVID, that increased and is needed more than ever. Ms. Kleinhaus shared that she has 21
participated in other parks master plans in other cities and attended a lot of meetings of 22
parks and recreation commissions in the area, and everyone is struggling to provide 23
residents with enough active and passive recreation and access to nature. She 24
acknowledged things that Palo Alto cand do and have done better than others because 25
they’ve reserved more land than many other cities. Some cities just don’t have any land 26
reserved. They rely on school districts, and the schools district are now fencing their parks, 27
because of the security issues, so the neighborhoods suddenly have no parks. She, 28
therefore, felt it was time for the Measure E site to go back to parkland. She felt that it was 29
Commission’s prerogative and responsibility to recommend this to City Council, to 30
rededicate the ten acres to parkland as soon as possible. She said it should have been 31
parkland all along, and recommended to not give an inch. 32
Hearing no other public speakers, Chair Cribbs invited comments from the 33
Commissioners. 34
Commission LaMere said he had no further comments or questions. He appreciated the 35
information, because he didn’t know much about Measure E, and this was very helpful. 36
Commissioner Reckdahl mentioned purified water and wondered why it was not chosen, 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
as opposed to the San Antonio site. Mr. Bobel said he thought the main reason was that 1
the water district knew that it would require a new vote of residents, which was uncertain. 2
Commissioner Reckdahl wondered if it could have been functionally possible to put the 3
purified water there. Mr. Bobel thought it would have been. Commissioner Reckdahl 4
asked, if the area was made parkland again, if it would preclude advanced water treatment 5
at the site, or if the site could be reconfigured to have direct potable reuse from it. Mr. 6
Bobel said he didn’t think it could be used if returned to parkland, but another possibility 7
would be to return most of it – the hillside, basically – to parkland, and then use the flat 8
area, which would require a vote of the residents. He said focusing on the three or four flat 9
acres would be more doable. Commissioner Reckdahl asked, if they wanted to put a direct 10
potable reuse facility in that general location, near the treatment center, if there were 11
options other than this ten-acre area. Ms. North responded that it would depend on the 12
size. She said the 25-acre facility treats about 21 million gallons of water per day, and they 13
are maxed out and currently rebuilding the whole facility. They are taking one portion 14
down, while running and operating the plant 24 hours a day. They don’t really have space 15
to build another large purification facility within that existing footprint. They took the one 16
portion of the plant that wasn’t utilized for the small salt removal facility, to produce an 17
enhanced recycled water site, but not for purification. They are really looking at the LATP 18
site with Valley Water. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl said it sounds, then, like there is no other use that they would 20
have for the Measure E land. Ms. North replied that regulations can change for the plant. 21
For example, she never thought they would rebuild their facility for nutrient removal, 22
which is what they are currently doing, and there may be other contaminants that may 23
require them to upgrade their sewage treatment plant in the future, so it’s always good to 24
reserve a little space. 25
Commissioner Moss commented that the Commission wouldn’t be having the 26
conversation if he hadn’t heard through the grapevine from Enid Pearson and Emily 27
Renzel about eight months ago reminding him of this date. He gave them a shout-out for 28
bringing it up. Mr. Bobel said they are going to bring it up, and directly to Council as well, 29
and they haven’t forgotten about the date. 30
Commissioner Brown said she had not been familiar with the intention for the site, and 31
considering the original use for the site permitted by Measure E, she thought of SB 1383. 32
She wondered if the output of the treatment facility, if it were possible could help comply 33
with SB 1383 requirements for compost and mulch. Mr. Bobel said he thought it would. 34
Given that the renewable energy offset requirements are not really realistic for the next 35
five years, but every jurisdiction is required to buy significant amounts of compost and 36
mulch, and there is no facility on the peninsula, Commissioner Brown wondered if it might 37
change the economics and should possibly be considered in the future. Mr. Bobel said they 38
are making compost out of all three streams now. He said there are other aspects of the bill 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
where they will have to do some things, but making compost with their products is not one 1
of them, as they are already doing that. Commissioner Brown said every jurisdiction, city, 2
county and agency is going to be trying to buy mulch and because they’re legally required 3
to buy that amount and will be fined on a per-day basis for not doing so. It is creating a 4
market storm for compost and mulch, and she thought it might be a potential option or 5
opportunity to solve a problem that has popped up because of the bill. Commissioner Moss 6
asked her if she was suggesting expanding the current compost production, using the ten 7
acres to make the existing facility bigger. Commissioner Brown said she was just noting 8
the huge, state-mandated market for the purchase of compost and mulch beginning January 9
1, 2022, that should be considered. Mr. Bobel said they, too, have to deal with that. He 10
said they are producing compost, but at that point, they will lose control of it, and it’s not 11
theirs anymore. It’s Green Waste’s, or the two facilities that take their biosolids from the 12
treatment plant. But it is their stuff, and they will have to comply with the same use 13
requirements as everyone else, so she raised a good point. Ms. North added that they are 14
going to Council on Monday in regard to the SB 1383 issue. She said Council Member 15
Kou will hear about it, as an action item. 16
Vice Chair Greenfield asked what the history was of de-designating parkland in the city 17
and if any staff members know how often this has happened in the City’s history. Mr. 18
Bobel said it has not happened via a vote. He could not speak to whether Council has done 19
it, but a vote is not the only way it could occur. His understanding was that Council could 20
do it as well. He said it is the only time that a vote occurred and it was removed by way of 21
a citizen initiative. Vice Chair Greenfield said his understanding was the Council can vote 22
to dedicate parkland, but parkland can only be un-dedicated by a public vote. Mr. 23
Anderson said this is correct. Vice Chair Greenfield said that is the current ordinance, 24
although there may have been a time in the past when that was not the case. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield asked Mr. Anderson to speak to the value of the parcel for open 26
space conservation or recreation purposes. He wondered if there was a trail going around 27
the base, and if the upper areas were inaccessible. Mr. Anderson said there are no trails 28
going through the 10.5 acres. There is a large service road that is used as a trail at the base 29
of the 10.5 acres, and is partially on it. Mr. Bobel said the service road cuts all the way 30
through the rectangle and continues and people do use it as a trail. In his judgment, it is 31
not a particularly popular trail because it goes right by the sewage treatment plant and there 32
is some of the flare of the methane from the landfill. It also goes past the post-closure 33
maintenance facility. The access road is for the people working there to get to their work 34
area. However, he said, people do use it, because it does make a loop if someone wants to 35
make the largest loop possible. Vice Chair Greenfield thought it was fair to say the current 36
public perception is that the Measure E area is part of Byxbee Park. Mr. Bobel thought 37
that most people don’t know that it is not. There are no signs to indicate this. Vice Chair 38
Greenfield said if it had ended up being developed as intended, he asked what the impact 39
would have been to the public, if the path would have been re-routed. Mr. Bobel said they 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
would have had a fence around the facility, so they would have created a trail around it, 1
with probably a different access point for vehicles. Commissioner Moss added that if and 2
when they develop the radio station land it will become a much more important 3
throughway. Even though it’s not as useful today, it may become much more useful in the 4
future. Mr. Bobel concurred and said Shani and Emily and Enid would argue that a little 5
to the northwest of the corridor where the service road is, there is a corridor of vegetation 6
that is used by animals to go from one part of the Baylands to another. Vice Chair 7
Greenfield said that is very helpful, and thought that there are undoubtedly community 8
members who will raise the issue. He commented that it was an unusually divisive matter 9
in the community ten years ago, when traditional allies found themselves on opposite sides 10
of the issue. 11
Chair Cribbs and Mr. Anderson thanked Ms. North and Mr. Bobel for coming to speak to 12
the Commission. She said they are always looking for parkland to preserve and save and 13
take care of. 14
5. Create an Ad Hoc Committee for the Measure E Area at Byxbee Park 15
Chair Cribbs remarked that they must ask permission of the Council to have an ad hoc, so 16
rather than remove it from the agenda, she asked Mr. Anderson to perhaps find out whether 17
they can have an ad hoc or not, and they will decide after that. Mr. Anderson felt it would 18
be worthy of discussion to confirm that the Commission generally supports the idea and 19
then, if that is the case, staff would pursue whatever method Council would like for them 20
to do those check-ins. He said that this would be in addition to the work plan. It is not on 21
there yet, and they would need to ask Council first. He felt that the Commissioners should 22
talk it through and make sure they were likeminded that this is worthy of creating an ad 23
hoc, and that there are Commissioners interested in serving on it. 24
Chair Cribbs asked the Commissioners to indicate their interest in pursuing an ad hoc. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield felt in general they do not have much guidance from other staff 26
departments and City Council on the process for adding items to their work plan, so it 27
would be an opportunity where they could consider an action requesting that this item be 28
articulated and added to their work plan, and potentially create an ad hoc to support the 29
work plan. He felt it should be something simple, noting that Council has the option of 30
redesignating the Measure E ten acres as parkland, and Parks and Recreation Commission 31
would like to review future possibilities for the site and make a recommendation to the 32
City Council. 33
Commissioner Moss thought it was a great idea, but it is putting the cart before the horse 34
and that they need to wait and see what the City Council decides to do. Since they may not 35
see the ten acres go back to parkland, he preferred to postpone the discussion until after 36
Council makes that decision, which he hoped would be in the next month or two. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Commission LaMere agreed with Commissioner Moss, in terms of waiting to see what 1
direction Council goes. 2
Commissioner Brown agreed with Commission LaMere and Commissioner Moss. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl saw no compelling reason to not make it a park, given the 4
previous discussion, but he would also like guidance from Council, so would prefer to 5
wait. 6
Commissioner Moss asked when they could make an action to indicate to the Council that 7
the Commission fully agrees that it should be returned to parkland. Mr. Anderson said the 8
action is specifically to create an ad hoc, so he did not think they could make a 9
recommendation to rededicate it to parkland. He said they need to figure out the 10
methodology about how to add things to their work plan and how to ask that of the Council, 11
whether it is by a consent calendar item, because as far as he knew, no other Commission 12
has done it. 13
Chair Cribbs said her concern is the process. If they wait and the Council decides to not 14
return it to parkland, and doesn’t get a chance to hear what they think, and they’re 15
protecting the parks and parkland and trying to increase the amount of parkland, she 16
thought it would be better to at least see if they could get permission to have an ad hoc. 17
She said the other question was whether there are people interested in serving on an ad 18
hoc, if they were able to create one. Vice Chair Greenfield responded that based on what 19
he hears the other Commissioners saying, they would like to wait and see what Council 20
does before requesting to comment on this. He hoped that City Council would not decide 21
without making a referral to the Parks and Recreation Commission, as it would seem 22
appropriate that they would want their feedback on this. Also, he thought it was appropriate 23
to request the opportunity to provide feedback. He thought if the Commission feels it is 24
something they should comment on, then they should not take staff time and dedicate 25
resources on it until they get a green light from Council to add it to their work plan, but 26
voicing their desire to comment on it and asking for a green light from Council to do so 27
seemed more appropriate than waiting to see what Council does, without knowing what 28
their timeline is. 29
Commissioner Reckdahl inquired what scope they think an ad hoc would be dealing with. 30
He questioned whether it would be determining whether or not it should be parkland, or 31
looking at what they would do with it if it did become parkland. Vice Chair Greenfield felt 32
it should be partly determining whether it should be parkland. He thought it appropriate 33
for the Commission to review all the possibilities for the site, the prominent one being 34
recommending rededicating it as parkland, but in order to make an informed decision about 35
whether to move forward with that, they need to consider what the other possibilities are. 36
He thought this would seem like valuable assessment to provide to City Council to help 37
them make a decision. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Commissioner Moss felt it was out of their purview to consider what else could be done 1
with the land. He felt it would be strictly to use it as parkland, and the ad hoc would only 2
be to explore what they would do with it as parkland. Vice Chair Greenfield said what he 3
was suggesting was to make a recommendation whether they thought City Council should 4
rededicate the land as parkland or not. Commissioner Moss wondered if there was any 5
question about that. Vice Chair Greenfield said perhaps not, but to make a balanced 6
decision, they should consider all the information in front of them. 7
Chair Cribbs felt they should just ask Mr. Anderson to ask the question of whether Parks 8
and Recreation Commission can create an ad hoc to talk about Measure E, and see what 9
the answer is. When the answer comes back, if nobody wants to serve on the ad hoc, that 10
would be their answer. Vice Chair Greenfield offered that he would be interested in serving 11
on an ad hoc. Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson if he could do this without expending a 12
lot of staff time. Mr. Anderson said he could and would work on it, because they need to 13
figure it out what the methodology would be anyway, but he also wanted to defer to 14
Council Member Kou. Chair Cribbs asked Council Member Kou to give her opinion in the 15
matter. 16
Council Member Kou shared that Council had stated that they would prefer to have 17
referrals given to the Commissions, rather than the Commissions taking on extra. With the 18
ad hoc committee, she thought it would be best for Mr. Anderson to find out before moving 19
forward on it. Mr. Anderson said he will look into it, and report back at the next meeting. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield asked Council Member Kou if she meant that the City Council does 21
not want any commissions to request to add work items to their load but rather just be in 22
a position of directing the commissions to do things. Council Member Kou said, if she 23
understood correctly based on the new procedures and protocols, there is a work plan that 24
is to be submitted by each of the Commissions and Boards to provide a work plan to 25
Council. She said the Council is also looking at staff time and shortages right now, and 26
they are a little more cautious about how much more to add to the workload. Since this is 27
at the end of the year, she thought perhaps it would best be further developed and further 28
clarified through staff whether it’s okay to add more to the workflow right now. 29
Vice Chair Greenfield said he appreciated that there are a lot of gray areas in this process 30
and they have received very little guidance on how to create their work plan to start with, 31
what should be in it, and regarding ad hocs as well. He said there are provisions within the 32
BCC manual stating that updates to the work plan can be made by request to City Council, 33
so this is such a request that he felt would be appropriate. He suspected that there may not 34
be any precedent for this from any of the BCC’s yet, so they are treading some new water. 35
Regarding the timing, he appreciated that they are coming close to the end of the year, but 36
the new work plans aren’t due until May 1st. This year the work plans were reviewed and 37
accepted by City Council in June. With that in mind, he felt it would be appropriate to look 38
at how to add something into their work plan, so that it is in place, and they can move 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
forward with it early next year. 1
Council Member Kou felt it would be best if Mr. Anderson could just inquire and then 2
come back next month. Chair Cribbs said she thought this was the intent they were getting 3
to, for Mr. Anderson to make the inquiry and see what happens. They are all learning how 4
to live with a work plan, and with COVID on top of the work plan, but it will all shake 5
itself out. 6
Vice Chair Greenfield explained that the reason he indicated he would be interested in 7
serving on an Ad Hoc is if there is no one on the Commission that wants to serve on an ad 8
hoc, they should not request to form an Ad Hoc. 9
6. New Rules for Pickleball Courts 10
Mr. Anderson introduced Adam Howard, Community Services, Senior Manager. 11
Mr. Howard led a discussion on the possibility for new rules for pickleball courts. He 12
began by sharing the background of this item. In 2019, the Parks and Recreation 13
Commission recommended that the City Council adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance to 14
create a designated pickleball space in Mitchell Park. When they created the courts, the 15
court rules did not change, so all of the spaces have been operating under tennis court 16
rules. This was in order to move the process along and observe how things worked out 17
before jumping to new rules without fully understanding how the courts would be used. 18
There were two small paddleball courts which were underutilized, so they changed the net 19
height and repainted them to be better used for pickleball. They then bumped out an area 20
outside of what was Tennis Court 5, which allowed for two additional pickleball courts. 21
They also turned Court 5 into designated pickleball courts, which allowed for four 22
additional courts. At that time they also dual-striped the two remaining courts so that they 23
could be used either as two tennis courts or seven pickleball courts. Mr. Howard said they 24
did not update and create pickleball rules at that time, because they wanted to watch and 25
see how things worked. He said they did wait longer than they wanted because of COVID, 26
which created approximately a year delay in the process. 27
Mr. Howard said staff has worked with the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, a prominent 28
pickleball community in Palo Alto. There are over 700 members of it currently, and over 29
50 percent are Palo Alto residents. The Ad Hoc worked on this project, Commissioner 30
Reckdahl and Commissioner Brown, and what they wanted to do was create rules that 31
better directed the game of pickleball to try to ensure that they had a high utilization of 32
court space for the pickleball community. One of the biggest changes they prioritized was 33
that, with current tennis court rules, there is over an hour of wait time if the courts are full 34
and others are waiting, which creates a long wait time. Also, there is very little rotation 35
when it comes to tennis courts. The tennis players say if someone else shows up and 36
someone is waiting, they will not wait the hour. Since that won’t work with the pickleball 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
courts, they were trying to create rules that were more fast-paced and allowed for more 1
rotation. 2
Mr. Howard said that the first new rule was that courts are open on a first come, first served 3
basis for both doubles and singles. The reason this was spelled out is that current play, 4
especially within the Palo Alto Pickleball Club, is that they play doubles when the courts 5
are full, because that is the way to get the most people on the court and how to get the most 6
utilization of it. They also understood that if two people come out that aren’t familiar with 7
the club, they should be able to play a game on their own without having to possibly team 8
up with two other people they don’t know, so it is spelled out that both doubles and singles 9
could play. 10
Secondly, if all the courts are full with people waiting, there will be a 20-minute time limit, 11
and players can rotate back onto the courts as many times as they desire. He said 20 12
minutes was a short amount of time, and he worried that for a family of four that came out 13
to play, 20 minutes is not a lot, but he felt with the high utilization of the courts and the 14
option of rotating back on, and there is a good rotation system, the 20 minutes would still 15
work for that family. They could go out, play for 20 minutes, take a break and get back on 16
to another court. Mr. Howard said they felt it was a good middle ground in terms of wait 17
time. 18
Next, because they want so much utilization and rotation, they put in the rules how to do 19
that. So, when courts are full, waiting players will put their paddles next to the court in 20
use, and when the time expires, the players will rotate off. If there are four paddles down, 21
all players will leave the court to those waiting. If there are two paddles down, the winning 22
team may stay on, or the waiting team may choose to play singles. Mr. Howard said he 23
discussed with the Ad Hoc the idea of three paddles down, wanting to make sure that if a 24
group of three came out they still had the opportunity to play. However, the more they 25
talked about it, the more they decided it might be putting too much information on the 26
sign. The Palo Alto Pickleball Club has communicated that putting three paddles down 27
would not best practice in the pickleball community. Mr. Howard said since he has not 28
played much pickleball, he felt it important to listen to their feedback. There was also the 29
thought that there might be confusion – a party of two putting down their paddles who 30
want to play by themselves, and a third random person putting theirs down, and then 31
there’s a group of three, which would be confusing, so the recommendation is to exclude 32
that part. 33
The next rule referenced double stacking of paddles, which refers to playing a game while 34
having a second paddle waiting on another court, and this is not allowed. Mr. Howard said 35
that the rules will be self-policed, but he thought if they were clear, concise rules on what 36
can and cannot be done, it would be helpful. The new rules will be in addition to existing 37
rules that are already on the courts. These include that an individual may not hold a court 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
when players are waiting. Court shoes only are allowed, no cleats. No wheeled vehicles 1
are allowed inside the fence. City permits and recreation programs have priority over drop-2
in play. No private lessons are permitted. Mr. Howard said the Palo Alto Pickleball Club 3
was in agreement with all of the rules. 4
Chair Cribbs invited comments from members of the public. 5
Monica Williams, President, Palo Alto Pickleball Club, spoke on behalf of the club 6
members regarding the new rules. She thanked the Commission for adding the item to the 7
agenda and the Ad Hoc Committee for their work. She said they support the rules and 8
believe they will enable the pickleball community to continue to flourish. She thanked 9
them for removing the three paddles down clause. She said they need rules that are easily-10
understood and fair to everyone, and the rules presented are excellent 11
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Ad Hoc Committee. 12
Commissioner Brown said it was always the intent to create pickleball-specific 13
regulations, and they did a good job of incorporating elements from other jurisdictions by 14
doing a quick scan of other rules that are out there, as well as customizing them to Palo 15
Alto based on what has been seen in practice. The COVID delay allowed for more time to 16
observe how the rules would play out. She thanked the Pickleball Club for their input. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl thanked Mr. Howard for his considerable work on this project. 18
He said he likes the rules and thinks they will help the community. He expressed some 19
hesitancy regarding the 20-minute rule, as he could imagine some games taking 25. 20
However, the courts are a scarce resource, and he thinks the higher turnover will be a good 21
thing. It will keep people focused, and they will know that they can’t lollygag since they 22
only have 20 minutes, so overall it makes the best use of the courts. 23
Chair Cribbs thanked Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Reckdahl for serving on 24
the Ad Hoc and Mr. Howard for working through it. 25
Commissioner Moss said he understands omitting the three paddles down and thought they 26
could either go to two paddles or to four paddles if they want to drag another person in 27
with their three. Regarding the 20-minute rule, he said if there is a long game, especially 28
for less skilled players, he doesn’t know what will happen, whether people will kick them 29
out, or let them take a few more minutes to finish the game. He felt leaving it this way will 30
leave it up to the Club or the other players to decide. 31
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Howard, the Ad Hoc, Monica Williams and the Palo 32
Alto Pickleball Club for their work. He said they have a strong pickleball culture within 33
the community, and trusts that if they have been consulted in what has been put forward, 34
including striking the three-paddle down rule, then he supports it. He appreciated 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Commissioner Reckdahl’s hesitance about the 20-minute rule, but thought, given the 1
strong pickleball community and culture, if there is a game that needs to finish 2
appropriately, then the players waiting may have the option of allowing that to happen. He 3
questioned whether there is ever a case that there are so many people waiting to play that 4
they would want a second set of four paddles, or two more paddles down for the game 5
after the next game, whether that would be appropriate to include, or if it is never an issue. 6
Mr. Howard said they discussed that, and in most cases where that happens, there is 7
another row of paddles, and they create a line. He wasn’t sure they felt the need to put that 8
in the rules. The rules don’t say that only one group can be waiting, so he didn’t personally 9
feel the need to say that more than one group can be waiting. There have been times when 10
multiple groups are waiting. Commissioner Reckdahl felt it was implied that there could 11
be multiple sets of paddles. Vice Chair Greenfield said the way he read it he didn’t feel it 12
was implied and thought there could be a simple update to the language to say that multiple 13
sets of waiting players. He was interested in what Ms. Williams’ opinion would be in that 14
regard. 15
Ms. Williams said it would never be a problem because until 3:00 p.m. they have 15 courts 16
and people tend to place their paddles down, obviously, on an empty court. She said at 17
nighttime there are more people, but the pickleball way is not to put extra paddles down 18
more than the number of people who want to take that court, so the rules are excellent as 19
they are, and everybody will understand them as they are. She thought if you start putting 20
more paddles down, it could be very confusing. Vice Chair Greenfield said that makes him 21
wonder if they should make it more clear that it is just for the next game. Chair Cribbs 22
said, looking at the rules, they are simple, and she can understand them. She felt if this 23
didn’t work out, they could always come back and revise them. For now, she felt they were 24
good. She was happy to see the three paddles go away. Vice Chair Greenfield was 25
agreeable to this. 26
Commission LaMere commented that he is in support of the rules and appreciates the work 27
by staff and the Ad Hoc group, being able to get the stakeholders involved. He was in 28
favor of simpler rules. When playing any outdoor games on courts it comes down to people 29
doing the right thing and a bit of a social contract, and people having a good conscience 30
about how to play. He liked the framework of the rules and the simplicity of them. 31
Chair Cribbs noted the spirit about the pickleball members and players and how gracious 32
they are toward each other. 33
MOTION 34
Motion to recommend sending the new pickleball court rules, except omitting the three-35
paddles-down rule, to Council to be included in the Field Use Policy was moved by 36
Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by Commissioner Brown. The motion passed, 6-0, 37
by roll call vote. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Commissioner Moss asked if this would go to the City Council or the City Manager. Mr. 1
Anderson said it would go to the City Council. Commissioner Moss asked if it was possible 2
that in the future, this level of detail would not go to the City Council. Mr. Anderson said 3
they could check with the Attorney’s Office on this, but since the court usage policy had 4
gone to Council before, changes right now are appropriate to go back to them. 5
7. Court Usage Policy 6
Mr. Howard said this was an introductory conversation when they made the new courts, 7
and there were some policy decisions made at that time that they planned to return to and 8
see how things were working, specifically around the multi-use courts and the split that 9
was created for tennis priority versus pickleball priority. He reminded the Commission of 10
Courts 6 and 7 at Mitchell Park that are dual-striped so that there can be two tennis courts 11
or seven pickleball courts. The rules provided tennis priority on those two courts seven 12
days a week, 3p.m. to 10p.m., and they provided pickleball priority seven days a week, 13
8a.m. to 3p.m. If the court is empty, anybody can use them. If there are people from both 14
sports there, then the court goes according to the priority time as to who gets the space 15
first. 16
Mr. Howard said staff felt this was the time to start looking at how this is working out and 17
how the courts are being used, as well as all of the lit courts in Palo Alto. He thought this 18
was a good time to do this, with daylight saving time coming up. He did not have data as 19
to what this looks like currently, but wanted to advise the Commission and the public that 20
they will be starting to look at this. He also wanted to get the Commission’s input about 21
what information they would like to see, whether the policy needs to be changed, or what 22
“working” looks like for everybody. He said they had planned to do this at the one-year 23
mark, but that was not a good time, so they wanted to get to this now and hear from 24
Commissioners about specific data they would like to see, and questions for him to answer 25
when he brings this back. He said one thing staff would like to do is go out and get 26
headcounts about who is using the courts, the lit courts, to try to paint a picture of how 27
nighttime usage looks on the public courts in Palo Alto. 28
Chair Cribbs invited comments from members of the public. 29
Jocelyn Tseng [phonetic] said she is a pickleball player during days and sometimes at 30
night. She said it is quite amazing how much the sport has expanded and grown during the 31
pandemic. She said it has been her experience that at nighttime there are huge numbers of 32
people playing on the lit courts on the pickleball side, and it has caused a lot of waiting 33
during those times. She hoped that the Commission would take a look at where 34
pickleballers are able to play during this time and at how much the game has grown. She 35
said it seems that the popularity has outstripped the resources, and particularly in the 36
evenings there is a lot of disparity between the number of pickleball players who are 37
playing versus the tennis players. She said it would be a good thing if they could somehow 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
alleviate the pressures of the popularity. 1
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Ad Hoc Committee members. 2
Commissioner Brown supported Mr. Howard’s comments about getting some data and 3
headcounts. They were interested in their discussion about looking at the lighted courts 4
around town. People like to go to courts close to their house or close to where they work, 5
so considering all of that in the analysis. She thought the timing, with daylight saving time 6
coming up, is perfect to be able to get some good information. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl said whenever he goes through Mitchell Park, there always seems 8
to be a crowd around the pickleball, so he thinks they are not serving the pickleball 9
community as much as they should, and he would like to see a better headcount. 10
Commissioner Moss commented that they might kill the golden goose if they try to 11
squeeze too many more people onto the courts. He encouraged the pickleball community 12
to get other cities to add courts so that they don’t totally wreck what they have. He said he 13
lives close to Cubberley and would like Mr. Howard to look at whether or not they could 14
resurface the Cubberley courts, even though the whole Cubberley site is in limbo. He felt 15
it would probably be very inexpensive to resurface the courts, and they talked about the 16
fact that it is possible to put temporary lights onto to the Cubberley courts, like $1,000 per 17
light per month, approximately. He encouraged the City to look at the possibility of 18
lighting and resurfacing Cubberley, and also remarked that none of the schools have 19
lighted courts, and maybe the temporary lighting could be used there as well. He 20
encouraged the Commission to look at all of those options. 21
Chair Cribbs said she has heard good comments about the temporary lights in Cubberley. 22
She assured them she didn’t think they would kill the golden goose, because so many cities 23
in the Bay Area and beyond are maintaining and creating pickleball courts, and lighted 24
ones, not just in Palo Alto, but it is spreading everywhere. 25
Commission LaMere said it was exciting to see how much use the courts are getting. He 26
agreed with the Ad Hoc and Mr. Howard about needing to collect data before they can 27
figure out the best path forward, and to be able to see how the courts are being used in the 28
other areas with the lights. He was excited to see if they can collect the information, and it 29
is a perfect time, with daylight saving time starting. He appreciated the hard work on this. 30
Vice Chair Greenfield asked for clarification on how the rules work right now. If tennis is 31
being played on a court during pickleball priority time, he wondered how long the tennis 32
players are allowed to continue before they have to vacate for pickleball use, and vice 33
versa for pickleball during tennis time. Mr. Howard said they should vacate as soon as the 34
priority sport arrives if all other courts are full. Vice Chair Greenfield said it’s not a 20-35
minute time, or one-hour time, but basically pack up your things, finish the ball in play, et 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
cetera. Mr. Howard said that is correct. Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there is any 1
information on how well that works or if it is ever contentious. Mr. Howard said there 2
have been no formal complaints. When it is most clearly an issue is in the evenings. He 3
does hear from pickleball players that it’s frustrating to have eight or twelve people have 4
to get off the temporary courts in order for two people to play tennis. However, the 5
pickleball community, from what he has heard, has always been very good about doing 6
just that and respecting those times. He typically does hear about it, however. and they do 7
get removed because there are no other lit tennis courts at Mitchell. Vice Chair Greenfield 8
said he assumed the tennis players would go to an open court if possible. Mr. Howard said 9
yes, and this is on the signage, that all other courts have to be used first, before they come 10
to the multi-use courts, for both sports. Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Howard for his 11
efforts and said the data is important. It is easy to appreciate the pickleball community and 12
how much it has flourished. He said the numbers speak well, but in terms of how many 13
people they get on a court, it’s very easy to see and understand. At the same time, they 14
need to hear from the tennis community, and if looking at increasing access for pickleball, 15
of course, they need to understand from the tennis community what the best compromises 16
are that could potentially be made. 17
Chair Cribbs said she is excited to see the data when it comes back and see what the court 18
usage is and then discuss if there’s anything that the community can do to help both tennis 19
and pickleball people get the access that they need. 20
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE NOVEMBER 17, 2021 MEETING 21
Mr. Anderson said there are a number of potential items, including the court usage and 22
Friends of Palo Alto Parks and Rec Foundation possibly in December. Chair Cribbs 23
thought that would maybe tie into the fund raising plan they are working on, and if that 24
could come together with the Friends of the Park as well, it might be a good thing for a 25
discussion. Mr. Anderson asked her if it would be November or December. Chair Cribbs 26
thought November, but was not sure. Vice Chair Greenfield said it sounds like if they 27
could get the gym and fundraising into November, it would fit in the schedule the best. 28
Vice Chair Greenfield said he understood the annual Aquatics update is being pushed out 29
to January. Mr. Anderson said they were thinking that they would have the golf update at 30
the same time, from Mr. Do, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Vice Chair Greenfield 31
asked if there would be any value in hearing from the vendor. Mr. Anderson said possibly, 32
and that they just got a new general manager. As that person gets settled and develops their 33
program it is possible they could incorporate him into the presentation. He will work with 34
him on that. Chair Cribbs thought this was a good idea. 35
Vice Chair Greenfield mentioned that the Tree Protection Ordinance review would be 36
coming up, perhaps in January. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
Commissioner Moss asked for an update on the CIPs sometime – perhaps December or 1
January – the process and what needs to be done. Mr. Anderson said they are still waiting 2
for direction from the Administrative Services Department, who provides the guidance 3
and timeframes for when each department is to submit their capital budget requests. He 4
said it is iterative. He suggested that they meet with the Ad Hoc and share an early iteration 5
of what the Department is thinking about for priorities for that five-year cycle. They will 6
then come to the full Commission in December or January. Mr. Do agreed and said he 7
thought they would meet with the Ad Hoc in the second week of November to 8
preliminarily discuss new items, since they don’t know the direction at this point, but they 9
could shuffle and re-prioritize what is currently in the five-year plan and see if there is 10
value in defining an earlier for the funding. 11
Mr. Anderson said the December meeting would be potentially for coming back with the 12
court usage, per a message from Mr. Howard. 13
Vice Chair Greenfield asked when the CIPs come to the Commission, and if it is a 14
discussion item for making recommendations to staff for the budgeting, or if it is an action 15
that goes before the Council. Mr. Anderson said it is just for guidance to staff on priorities. 16
It is very iterative, with back-and-forth and changes so often that it is hard to have a 17
preferred recommendation. He has never seen that happen in his time with the City. 18
Commissioner Moss felt you have to decide what the possibilities are and then find out 19
about the budget and then possibly re-prioritize, and it will be a back-and-forth for a couple 20
of months, and then finalized somewhere around March. Mr. Anderson said this is correct 21
for the most part, although there are elements that are a little out of their control, and the 22
other department that leads the endeavor is under different constraints, occasionally 23
making the turn-around time very fast. He said they do the best they can. He said Mr. Do 24
and he will do the prep work with the Ad Hoc so that they get a chance to discuss it with 25
the PRC and have a public discussion as much as possible. 26
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 27
Commissioner Moss said he got a lot of feedback from his opinion piece in the Palo Alto 28
Weekly, October 1st, hoping that people would try to apply for a Commission position. He 29
was glad that there is good interest in the community. He commented that if the Parks and 30
Recreation Commission has enough people applying and other commissions don’t, he 31
wondered if the City Council can choose people for the Parks and Recreation Commission 32
without waiting for the other commissions. Mr. Anderson thought this was a good question 33
for the Clerk’s Office, and he will check with them. Commissioner Reckdahl said this has 34
happened in the past. They’ve had enough for one commission and will vote on those, and 35
then push out the other ones. Commissioner Moss was trying to figure out if there will be 36
enough to decide in December, or not until January or February. Chair Cribbs thought 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
there were six so far, and thinks they’re doing well. She added that everyone knows that 1
this is the fun Commission. Vice Chair Greenfield was quite sure there are more than six. 2
Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson to mention the film festival going on in the city. Mr. 3
Anderson did not have his notes, but said he will send it out in a special email to the full 4
Commission with all the details. Chair Cribbs said there are a couple evenings left. It is in 5
Mitchell Park in East Palo Alto and very widely acclaimed. It has been going on for 20 6
years, and is probably a very well-kept secret. She said it is being heavily covered in the 7
Palo Alto Weekly. 8
Council Member Kou affirmed this is a very fun committee. 9
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 10
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Reckdahl, seconded by Vice Chair Greenfield. 11
Meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. 12
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: FUND DEVELOPMENT AD HOC: MANDY BROWN, JEFF
LAMERE, ANNE CRIBBS
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 2021
SUBJECT: UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FUND
DEVELOPMENT
On September 22, 2020, the 2020 Fund Development Ad Hoc (Jeff Greenfield, David Moss and
Anne Cribbs) presented a report to the Commission to summarize existing opportunities for
supporting CSD programs, to outline recommendations to promote funding and contributions for
community programs and projects and to emphasize the importance of partnerships with
community organizations. The report is attachment (A) for background.
The September 2020 report identified three actions to encourage and optimize community
support.
1. Update and promote a comprehensive summary of donation and volunteer
opportunities.
2. Highlight and develop unique and less well-known giving opportunities
3. Clarify and publicize how community members may contribute donations towards
City-approved projects through a partner organization such as Friends of Palo Alto
Parks and Palo Alto Recreation Foundation.
At the PRC retreat, in February 2021, Jeff La Mere, Mandy Brown, Anne Cribbs volunteered to
serve on the 2021 Fund Development Ad Hoc.
In past meetings, the Ad Hoc focused on two priorities:
1. Identify immediate solutions to help address funding and resource gaps for both CSD
recreation programs and community partner led programs and facilities.?
2. Explore funding opportunities to help larger projects get off the ground, such as a
city owned gym.
For both priorities, given the state of the city budget and staff resources due to the Pandemic, at
this point, we are suggesting actions that require minimal staff time and are consistent with the
2017 Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
For longer term projects, the Ad Hoc recommended investigating funding opportunities from
local foundations, including the potential use of a grant to underwrite a consultant experienced in
grant writing services.
2
Due to Covid, the city budget and staff resources, the Ad Hoc is aware that this initiative has
gone more slowly than expected. However, several capital projects requiring funding are moving
forward thru the city process. These projects are included in the 2021 Commission work plan
and include:
a. Skatepark renovation and or rebuild
a. Status -PRC directed to examine the need by City Council and report back to
the Council
b. Stakeholders - the Skatepark community
b. City Gym
a. Status -Identified in Parks Master Plan - Current discussion concerns cost,
location, gym description
b. Stakeholders - youth and adult sports groups. Current discussion concerns
cost, location, gym description
c. 10.5 acres
a. Status – discussion with Palo Alto Soccer organizations
b. Stakeholders - fields organization, courts and ballpark organizations
d. First Tee Golf partnership
a. Status – discussion with First Tee of Silicon Valley
b. Stakeholders – First Tee, golfing community, youth, adult and senior golfers
e. Athletic field and court renovations
a. Status – condition of playing fields, ongoing need for renovation due to both
existing drought and covid pandemic
b. Stakeholders – Sports using city fields
It is important for the PRC to discuss with CDS staff, city manager’s office and ultimately the
City Council, which of the above have priority for funding, staff time and community resources.
The purpose of this update is to summarize progress, gather the support of the Commission
and publicize opportunities for contributions to the entire Palo Alto community. The Ad
Hoc is recommending the PRC support the development of a campaign “Campaign for
City Parks and Programs” to be launched at some point in the future, once necessary
approvals are obtained.
Communication: Most important is the Palo Alto community’s knowledge of these projects, via
the City of Palo Alto web site https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-
Services/Open-Space-Parks
a. The recently completed city web site can provide a summary of donation and
volunteer opportunities, using a one-stop portal. (At the time of the 9/20 report, the
ad hoc was asked to wait for the new city web site to be finished.)
b. This one stop portal will outline ways to support CSD – to volunteer, to donate to
Parks, Open Space and Recreation programs and projects.
c. The web site could also publicize past successes and outline future projects.
3
While there are a number of low cost and free publicity opportunities listed below, the ad hoc is
aware that these opportunities will require some staff time and the messaging must be clear.
Opportunities include the following:
Enjoy catalogue, published 3 times per year
www.recreationfoundation.org
https://www.friendsofpaparks.org
City social media and weekly e-news
Communications with neighborhood organizations
Next Door platform
Service clubs including Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions and others
Articles in local papers and appropriate e-newsletters highlighting ways to contribute and
outlining the value of contributions.
Resources – paid – included ads in local newspapers, or Public Service Announcements (PSA’s)
without cost. There may be or not be a budget within CSD or the foundations to purchase ads..
PA Weekly
PA Daily
PA Post
Mercury News
Utility mailings
Before listing resources below, the Ad Hoc understands that banners and printed material have a
cost to produce, manage and distribute.
Other resources include
Lawn/yard Signs (support our local parks and programs)
Banners over Embarcadero Road and city community centers – permits are needed.
Banners and signs at selected park and open space entrances with QR codes providing
information about how to contribute to parks and open space.
Information at community meetings regarding park improvement plans, including dog
parks and field, court and swim pool meetings about opportunities to contribute within
approved CIP plans especially when plans must be reduced due to budget cuts.
Partner Organizations – Friends of Palo Alto Parks https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/ and
Palo Alto Recreation Foundation http://www.parecfoundation.org/ are important and provide
solutions to address funding and resource gaps for CSD Recreation and Park/Open Space. They
are both 501 c3 non- profits. The Ad Hoc has met with both these non-profits and they are eager
to help. Once this campaign is approved, a request will be made to both these organizations add
copy to their web sites outlining specific projects for contributions.
Th City and County of San Francisco provides a great example of community and corporate
fundraising. See Parks Alliance San Francisco https://sanfranciscoparksalliance.org/
Ad hoc is suggesting a Zoom meeting with the leadership of the Parks Alliance to understand
their best practices. Another resource is PAUSD’s successful PIE who deal on a regular basis
with the Palo Alto community. Other models include Morgan Hill’s Adopt a Park
https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16325/Adopt-A-Park-Sponsorship-Brochure-
2015?bidId=
And
4
Recognition: Successful recognition for community supporters could come in the form of an
annual Award Presentation “Hero Awards” or “Project Champion Awards”. This could be
incorporated in the annual volunteer recognition or the Chamber of Commerce Tall Tree
Awards. In addition, donors may be recognized in quarterly notices and bulletins.
Stakeholders are critical to the success of this campaign for Parks and Programs.
Include recognition of those who have contributed to the success of Palo Alto and
encouragement for those who will contribute in the future. There are many stakeholders who are
invested in success including:
City Council
City Staff
Neighborhood Associations
Business in Palo Alto/Chamber of Commerce
Service Clubs
PAUSD and Private Schools
Community Foundations
Canopy, Grassroots Ecology, Environmental Volunteers
Volunteer organizations and individuals who support CDS
Recommendation: The Ad Hoc requests the Commission endorse the Campaign for Parks and
Programs. Once this endorsement is provided, the Commission would like to set a date to
present a report to the City Council.
Other opportunities include Legacy Requests, benches, tree planting, youth scholarships and
other memorials – see information at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-
Services/Open-Space-Parks
Summary and Recommendations – (after approvals) - Create Timeline
a. 11/10 complete Ad Hoc committee review and incorporate input, send memo to
Daren to include in the agenda
b. Discussion with full PRC at 11/17 PRC meeting, for general support
c. Present plan to CC for approval with timeline and benchmarks
d. Publicize the need for contributions
e. Make it easy to donate
f. Recognize contributions that have helped to make Palo Alto the city where we are
all so proud to live, work and play here.
Time line might look like this – Ad Hoc please fill in as you think
3 months after approvals
Web site info updated regarding contribution
Campaign tag line
Signs at Parks and Open Space
Lawn Signs
Info provided at scheduled community meetings
5
1 Year
Recognition
Achievements
Community Awareness
Funding for grant coordinator
Other Notes:
1. "Adopt a Park" brochure/program on Morgan Hill's website. It's not all relevant, but is an
interesting approach. https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16325/Adopt-A-
Park-Sponsorship-Brochure-2015?bidId=
2. An example of an interactive map like I mentioned at our meeting this
morning: https://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/parks/parksmap
3. Beverly Hills has a nice portal with various opportunities (though this is
Citywide): http://www.beverlyhills.org/citymanager/committees/communitycharitablefoundatio
n/charitablegiftingopportunities/web.jsp
The Ad Hoc is certain there are other excellent examples and encourages commissioners to review
and explore others.
After this discussion, the Ad Hoc is requesting the following:
Requesting
1. Web Site Portal for CSD summarizing giving opportunities
2. Interactive map of parks in palo alto and how to donate
3. Add operation costs /to all projects listed
4. Approvals granted for copy at community meetings – Suggestion is "If you would like to
contribute funds for this project please make a donation of any amount to Friends of Palo
Alto Parks . On their website, you can earmark your donation to this project specifically, or to
any other project. If there are additions to the project that are proposed, you can specify that
as well. Another option is the "adopt a bench" program."
5. Approval from council to accept funds on Friends of Palo Alto Parks. (directed to the
Skatepark renovation. The PRC understands the City Attorney is requiring approval from
the City Council.
Summary: Members of the Commission and the two Ad Hocs have done considerable thinking
and work about funding opportunities. The intent was to understand and summarize ways to give
and support Palo Alto’s CSD. Once understood, we recommend a campaign to publicize ways to
give and strengthen relationships with partner organizations, with CSD staff help and approval.
Recommend the commission discuss on an annual basis or review the progress, any success and
challenges.
The Ad Hoc recommends the Commission be cautious about requesting from work from CSD
staff during current budget difficulties and shortage of staff.
Given these challenges, the Ad Hoc and the Commission are optimistic that there are many
people in our community who understand and value the importance of parks open space and
recreation programs.
Attachment A
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Fund Development 2020 Ad Hoc
Re: Report and Recommendation Fund Development
Overview: Anne Cribbs, Jeff Greenfield, and David Moss serve on the Fund
Development Ad Hoc.
The Fund Development Ad Hoc has met several times to explore how the PRC can
help coordinate and promote additional financial resources for Community
Services Department (CSD) programs and projects. We focused on two priorities:
1. Identify immediate solutions to help address funding gaps for CSD
programs, related to or worsened by the City budget crisis and COVID-19
pandemic.
2. Explore funding opportunities to help larger projects get off the ground, such
as a new gym, skate park or 10.5 acres at the Baylands.
For both priorities, we are targeting actions that require minimal staff time and are
consistent with our Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
guidelines.
The Ad Hoc has identified three actions to encourage and simplify community
support for CSD programs and facilities:
A. Consolidate and publicize a list of opportunities for direct community
contribution to CSD programs and facilities
B. Create and publicize a comprehensive summary of donation and volunteer
opportunities to support our CSD community partner organizations
C. Encourage community support and involvement in activities and programs
For longer term, large projects, the Ad Hoc is working to:
D. Investigate funding opportunities from local foundations, specifically for
larger projects
Attachment A
We began by collecting and reviewing information about the many ways for the
community to make gifts and contributions to City programs and projects. At
community meetings discussing specific programs and/or facility improvements,
we often hear comments “we are interested in contributing”, or “how do we do
make a specific contribution?”
General Information: There is extensive general information provided on the City
of Palo Alto’s web site about community partners.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/partners/default.asp
The City of Palo Alto’s Community Partners consist of a diverse array of local
non-profits, educational institutions, partner organizations or business in Palo
Alto that actively support the mission of the City through its services, programs or
its ongoing financial support. These partners meet specific criteria:
• Serve Palo Alto or have a Palo Alto branch
• Support community non-profits and neighborhood associations
• May have a role that ties into or contributes to the achievement of the Council
priorities
Specific links for CSD partners
1. Recreation Foundation - https://www.parecfoundation.org
2. Friends of Parks - https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/donations/
3. Jr. Museum - https://friendsjmz.org
4. Art Center - https://www.paacf.org/give.html
5. Children’s Theater: https://www.fopact.org/donate
6. Adopt a Park https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/donations/
7. Friends of Library https://www.fopal.org/donate
See web sites above. They all contain excellent information and ways to make
contributions. All have 501c3 determination.
Attachment A
Role of Volunteer Organizations: In addition to funding, many Palo Alto non-
profit volunteer organizations provide CSD with important volunteers, and funding
opportunities.
Public/Private Partners – Listed below are a few of the clubs/organizations that
provide both volunteers and potential funding for specific projects. The
community is extremely fortunate to have partnership programs that contribute so
much to the fabric of our community.
Environmental Partners - Volunteer and Donation Opportunities include
1. Canopy: Volunteers plant trees and education youth and adults about ecology
and stewardship. https://canopy.org
2. Environmental Volunteers: Provides outreach to students and underserved
communities to bring them outside into nature. The EV’s run the Lucy
Evans Nature Center when staff is overextended. https://www.evols.org
3. Grass Roots Ecology: Provide habitat restoration in the City’s open spaces,
including planting new areas with native plants, growing those plants and
weed suppression. Teach student volunteers about ecology stewardship.
https://www.grassrootsecology.org
Friends & Foundation Partners - Donation Opportunities
1. Friends of the Magical Bridge: Provide funds, leadership and project
resources to build and maintain popular playgrounds that serve special needs
children and families.
http://magicalbridge.org/events/list/?tribe_event_display=past&tribe_paged=
1
2. Palo Alto Children’s Theatre: Helps to keep the productions, outreach and
education programs at the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre accessible to all
children, regardless of ability to pay – while maintaining the high standards
of the award-winning programs. https://www.fopact.org
3. Friends of Palo Alto Libraries: Provides funds to support city libraries by
collecting and selling books at book sales. https://www.fopal.org
4. Palo Alto Pickleball Club: https://www.paloaltopickleballclub.org Provides
funding for maintenance of pickleball courts in Palo Alto
Attachment A
7. Palo Alto Dog Owners Association: https://paloaltomatters.org/get-
involved/grassroots-clearinghouse/palo-alto-dog-owners/ May provide funding
for additional features like drinking fountains and provide feedback and
communication with dog owners regarding placement of dog parks in the city and
off leash pilot programs.
9. Palo Alto Art Center Foundation: https://www.paacf.org – Expands the reach
and impact of the Palo Alto Art Center through fundraising and advocacy and
provides scholarships to art classes at the Art Center.
11. Palo Alto Swim and Sport: https://paloaltoswim.com in partnership with
Beyond Barriers, swim lessons can be arranged at reduced cost to ensure all
children and adults have the opportunity to learn to swim, attend a swim camp or a
lifeguard certification course.
Additional Sport Specific Organizations
These groups may have an interest in helping to maintain facilities, which they use
or providing facilities and equipment upgrades.
Sports Clubs - Baseball, Rugby, Softball, Baseball, Lacrosse, Table Tennis,
Tennis, swimming – both youth and adult leagues
Golfers – various clubs - http://www.paloaltogolfclub.org
CSD and Parks and Recreation work closely with the following organizations who
support community services – with shared facilities, opportunities for scholarship
and contributions
PAUSD - https://www.pausd.org
Partners in Education https://papie.org
Palo Alto Community Fund https://paloaltocommfund.org
Attachment A
Other City Departments
a. Green Stormwater (they have guaranteed tax revenues) to see about
funding a tiny portion of Buckeye Creek Project, like planning or grant
writing.
b. Utilities marketing department
c. Sustainability initiatives
The Ad Hoc greatly appreciates the many contributions of non-profits who
support CSD and Parks and Recreation.
Immediate opportunities for contributions
Several immediate opportunities were identified by Ad Hoc for discussion with the
Commission.
1. Supplementing landscaping budget in Parks, which are being renovated. This
would require a list of plants and cost, which the current allocated funding does not
cover.
2. PRC led community program called “PARK CLEAN UP” to help address the
reduced maintenance in Parks. As of July 1, 2020, due to budget cuts, the
community will see reduced maintenance in parks – limited trash pick-up and
weeding. PRC to organize a “take care of your own litter when you use a park”,
providing bags with sponsors names and creating a culture that supports the
community responsibility to keep parks and playing fields clean and tidy
Green Waste is potentially a sponsor for garbage bags. City neighborhood groups
and service clubs to be invited to publicize and participate.
3. Scholarship Programs for Middle School Athletic Program (run by Recreation)
and support for Teen Services.
The Ad Hoc also identified various projects, defined by scope.
1. Small Projects
a. Ping Pong balls at Lytton Plaza
Attachment A
b. Drinking fountains and benches in dog parks
c. Tree Planting in Parks, local schools or neighborhoods
d. Gifts of memorial benches in Parks.
e. Pickleball equipment and court maintenance
2. Medium Projects
a. Mowing of Open spaces
b. Maintenance of playing fields
c. Scholarship program for Middle School After School Sports
d. Support for Youth After School Club at Mitchell Park
e. Support for Teen Programs requested by Teen speakers at Council
Budget Hearings
f. Dog Park amenities at current and future dog parks
3. Large projects
a. Funding source for Buckeye Creek Project ($10M) from foundations that
contribute to conservation of natural resources.
b. Funding source for much needed gym from foundations
c. Funding source to repurpose plans for Cubberley that utilize the 8 acres
currently owned by the City.
d. 10.5 acre sports complex at Baylands
e. First Tee Golf Facility at Baylands
Foundation Funding: The Ad Hoc will be investigating sources of funding from
Foundations – understanding that currently there is no opportunity within the City
of Palo Alto to either add a grant writer to staff or to underwrite a contract for a
grant writer. The Ad Hoc suggests that a grant writer be a priority. There may be
an opportunity to receive a “planning grant”.
Supporting CSD Capital projects – The staff has provided a grid of CIP
reductions in the 2020-2021 budgets. The CIP budget outlines CIP projects that
have stopped, been pushed out to future years, reduced funding and projects that
can continue due to development funding. The Ad Hoc suggests that some of the
cuts be identified to see if there is community interest in helping the projects to
continue. It would be important to be able to get price tags for “stuff” the
community could help with like dog park amenities and sports equipment.
Approved Fee Schedule: Ad Hoc is concerned about the increase in prices for
programs and activities, especially youth and teens. The AD Hoc is reviewing
Attachment A
current scholarship programs, the City’s fee reduction program and the opportunity
for non- profits to help support City fees so that no child who wants to participate
should be turned away due to cost. Some of these programs include the JMZ
projected entry fees, Children’s Theatre Programs, Middle School Athletic
Programs and Swim lesson programs. See fee schedule link here
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative-services/city-
budgets/fy-2020-city-budget/fy-2020-adopted-municipal-fee-schedule-for-web.pdf
Communication: Information about donations and contributions must be easy to
find and easy to give.
The Ad Hoc recommends the following:
1. Celebrate and acknowledge the rich tradition of contributions and giving in Palo
Alto
2. Provide information on how to give and volunteer.
3. Utilize city resources – web page, utility bill, Covid 19 updates and
neighborhood organizations to reach out to community.
4. Report to Council or study session
5. Potential Community Celebration and thanks to all contributing organization.
In conclusion: The Ad Hoc recommends the following for the Commission
discussion:
1. Be aware of staff and city budget reductions and community and individual loss
of income as we request and publicize the need and the opportunity for
contributions.
2. A special thanks to the staff, especially Darren Anderson and Lam Do who
provided information and insight to this report.
3. Review of the Master Plan as it informs these discussions.
4. Be mindful of equity, fairness, inclusion and opportunity.
Attachment A
The Ad Hoc looks forward to discussions with the Commission regarding fund
development.
Listed below are several resources to inform contributions and gifts.
1. Fee Reduction Program:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72654
Low Income and Disabled Residents, Youth (ages 17 & under) and seniors (ages
60 & over) may be eligible for the Fee Reduction Program, which offers a 25%
or 50% discount with a $300 subsidy cap per eligible person based on household
income.
2. List of City Partners: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/partners/
3. Naming of City Owned Land and Facilities:
http://cityconnect/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2216 (This is an internal
link to Policies & Procedures. However, technically this internal document has
been attached to a prior Libraries staff report.)
4. The City of Palo Alto Adopt-a-Park Memorial Bench
Programhttp://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47790.
Summary:
1. Goals of Fund Development
2. Organizations (by Category)
3. Small – large projects
4. Next steps
Presentation to PRC
Summary: lots of info and ideas and suggestions here. Limited by Covid
protocols, city budget and staff resources. However, it is important not to lose
these suggestions and ideas as we continue to explore ways to support Community
Services and plan for the future population while using the 2017 Parks and
Recreation Master Plan as a guideline.
Attachment B
Procedures for Fundraising for Palo Alto Community Services
A request can come in to either staff or Parks and Rec
Commission, or from Parks and Rec Commission. Funds may
come into Friends of Palo Alto Parks, Adopt a Park, or Palo Alto
Recreation Foundation. The request can come in for something
already set up, like an existing CIP project, or could be tacked
onto an existing project, or is for something new.
If staff wants advice from Parks and Rec Commission, we can
give it. Staff could have conversations with commission
subcommittee members or the Chairperson before a project
goes forward (concept). Parks and Rec should also check for
master plan alignment. After its verified, note it.
Decision point.
A. Is the request for something already set up, like an existing
CIP project? Example: Help support the Cameron Park or
Ramos Park CIP project?
B. Is the request for something that could be tacked onto an
existing project? Example: Add something new to an
existing project, like add a gate to the new Mitchell Park
Pickleball complex.
C. Is the request for something new? Examples: Skateboard
Park, ping pong balls
D.
Are the funds already collected or donated, or do the funds
need to be raised?
Attachment B
Decision point.
A. If funds already collected, proceed to PRC and/or staff
review, sizing, and scheduling.
B. If funds need to be raised, direct requester to one of the
three funding locations, Friends of Palo Alto Parks, Adopt a
Park, or Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, depending on
size and type of request.
What is the request for? Small, Medium, Large, Services,
Infrastructure, Events?
Decision point.
A. Small projects under $20k should be directed to city staff
(Adam Howard) and funded through Adopt a Park.
Examples: ping pong balls, park bench, doggie drinking
fountain.
1) Submit a proposal to staff or Parks and Rec Commission,
or make a donation to Adopt a park for something like a
bench.
a. First review by commission subcommittee or staff.
May recommend to merge or rename. Staff can
direct it to an ad hoc.
b. Contribute to something already there, or to some
other funding source.
c. List the ways you can donate right now. Give some
examples here.
Attachment B
d. Develop a concept with community and
commission.
e. Staff sizes it and determines if and when it can be
done.
2) Donor is directed to the Adopt a Park fund and tells
them how much, and approximately when it can bubble
to the top.
3) It is up to donor to come up with the funds and/or get
others to contribute. When funds are secured, donor
tells staff.
4) Staff schedules the work.
5) Funds are routed to city staff when they are able to do
the request.
Projects involving special events, services, sports fields, teen
programs, or scholarships should be directed to city staff (Adam
Howard) and funded through the Palo Alto Recreation
Foundation. Examples: Movie Night, Black and White Ball,
Middle School Sports Scholarships, enhanced sports field
maintenance, Teen Tech Club, After School Sports.
1) City Staff (Adam Howard) sits with Palo Alto Recreation
Foundation at their monthly meetings and together
maintains a prioritized list of events and programs.
2) Staff sizes the need.
3) The foundation looks for funding. They do active
fundraising with benefits, ads, calls for donations,
meetings with donors. Schedule it.
Attachment B
4) When funds are found, they are transferred to staff in time
for the event. In the case of scholarships, they fund those
at regular intervals(?)
5) Event is held.
Larger infrastructure projects: Examples: court and field lights,
new restrooms, playgrounds, gym, skateboard park, open space
trail, should be directed to city staff (Daren/Lam) and funded
through something like the Friends of the Palo Alto Parks
Foundation or a bond.
Decision point: Existing or New
A. Existing project like CIP’s (add other things)
1) City Staff reaches out during regular community
outreach and meetings when doing CIP’s for nice-to-
have’s on top of the stated CIP’s, like Ramos Park.
Donors come forward with requests for new
infrastructure like pickleball lights. Parks and Rec
Commissioners recommend CIP’s and other projects
based on community input and/or the Parks Master
Plan, like a new gym.
2) Staff should meet with Parks Foundation regularly to
develop a list of the next set of CIP’s and other projects
that citizens or commissioners have brought forth.
3) Staff works with the source or donor to understand the
scope.
4) Staff sizes the project, or hires a consultant (at donor’s
expense) to size it. If it is impossible for any number of
Attachment B
reasons(list them) then projects stops here. If not, then
it keeps going.
5) The foundation looks for funding. They do active
fundraising with benefits, ads, calls for donations,
meetings with donors. Or hires a grant writer (at
donor’s expense) to look for grants.
6) When funds are close to being found, such that the
project can be scheduled, then staff works with the
foundation to schedule.
7) When funds are complete, they are transferred to staff
in time for the project.
B. New Request: Example: skateboard park, gym, pickleball
lights
1) City Staff gets request from a Donor who comes forward
with requests for new infrastructure. Parks and Rec
Commissioners recommend other non CIP projects
based on community input and/or the Parks Master
Plan, like a new gym.
2) Staff should meet with Friends of PA Parks or PA Parks
Foundation to review projects that citizens or
commissioners have brought forth.
3) Staff works with the source or donor to understand the
scope.
4) Staff sizes the project, or hires a consultant (at donor’s
expense) to size it. If it is impossible for any number of
reasons(list them) then projects stops here. If not, then
it keeps going.
Attachment B
5) The foundation looks for funding. They do active
fundraising with benefits, ads, calls for donations,
meetings with donors. Or hires a grant writer (at
donor’s expense) to look for grants.
6) When funds are close to being found, such that the
project can be scheduled, then staff works with the
foundation to schedule.
7) When funds are complete, they are transferred to staff
in time for the project.
Municipal code:
http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/title22parks*/exhibitsfort
itle22parks?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:paloalto_ca$anc=JD_ExhibitA
-21.10
.
November 10, 2021
To: Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Recreational Opportunities Ad Hoc – Jeff LaMere, Keith Reckdahl, Anne
Cribbs
The Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commission Recreational Opportunities Ad Hoc
Committee recommends:
Approval from the PRC for the Concept and Site for a Palo Alto City Gymnasium
based on a proposed conceptual estimate of $25,000,000. Upon approval,
project description to be presented to Palo Alto City Council.
Background: The Park and Recreation Master plan was accepted in 2017. It
clearly outlines the need for a city owned gym. Our goal with this discussion is to
discuss our vision of a city owned gym. The gym is in the concept stage. The
Ad Hoc shared an initial memo with the Community Services staff. We have
included their questions to be answered.
Many documents have been produced about building a City Gym.
A) Palo Alto Parks Master Plan – March 2017 Draft or
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public-
works/engineering-services/webpages/pe-13003-parks-master-plan/palo-
alto_parks_master-plan_021618[small].pdf
B) Negative Declaration Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Attachment A, pp 24, 2.9.0 High Priority Projects
C) Cubberley Planning –Cubberley report 10/05/19
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i8ANgSJkDxxtfolZ0g9AJplSOpUQ974P/
view
D) Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commission Recreational Opportunities Ad
Hoc reports to full commission during monthly ad hoc reports
E) Concordia Community Study/Cubberley https://www.pausd.org/about-
us/committees-task-forces/cubberley-master-plan
F) Included in Commission work plan which was presented to City Council and
approved in May 2021.
November 10, 2021
G) Meeting with City Manager – May 2021 – to discuss recreational
opportunities
Overview: The City of Palo Alto does not own a City Gym. Currently there is a
recreational court pavilion and two smaller gyms – A & B at Cubberley Community
Center. At least three Master plans for Cubberley Community Center (a former
high school) have been discussed, the first discussion took place in 1991. While
the Palo Alto community is supportive of re-building Cubberley as a Community
Center – the joint ownership by PAUSD and City of Palo Alto makes planning and
implementation difficult.
A new gym is included in the 2017 City of Palo Alto Park and Recreation Master
Plan. The Ad Hoc Recreational Opportunities believes that the gym will need to
be privately funded in a partnership with the City of Palo Alto, as was the recently
completed Palo Alto Junior Museum.
The Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc Committee is responsible for reviewing
both recreation programs and facilities. We are concerned with both building and
maintaining facilities for current and future use, gender and ethnic diversity and
programs for underserved in our community.
At this time, we recognize there is NO money in the City of Palo Alto budget for
facilities and little time for city staff to consider and implement potential
programs and creation of new facilities.
However, the new JMZ provides a roadmap for success. First the vision was
defined and plans were created. A lead donor came forward with a pledge of
$15,000,000. The Friends of the JMZ committed to raise $10,000,000.
During the building phase, The Friends of the JMZ leased the property from the
City of Palo Alto. An operating agreement was created, which will be a good
model for the Friends of the City Gym and can be modified to address some of the
unexpected issues during the building. The Friends of the JMZ worked together
with the city attorney and Community Services staff on this operating agreement.
The JMZ will open in November 2021. The Friends of the JMZ will return
ownership of the JMZ to the City of Palo Alto.
.
We understand the City currently has similar projects in development and realize
that these projects must be prioritized for staff time and resources. Projects
include the First Tee at the Baylands Golf Course, the Roth Building, the Skatepark
and the new JMZ Each of these projects have stakeholders as listed below:
First Tee – First Tee of Silicon Valley
Roth Building – Palo Alto History Museum – all community
The Skatepark – funding to come from the stakeholders
The JMZ – would like to understand what additional time and
resources will be needed from the City.
10/5 Acres – sports organization who use playing fields
The Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and the Friends of the Parks have both
indicated they are interested in helping with this much needed City Gym.
Several gyms – city, school and private - in the area were reviewed to provide
examples – cost, acreage, facilities.
Initially three key decisions must be made
a. Location
b. Facilities Requirements
c. Cost and Community fundraising capacity. (The community has an
excellent record of creating and funding projects for future generations
Project Description - Location
Several locations were reviewed. They are listed below.
1. Greer Park – area 4
2. Mitchell Park – to include bowl and current field house area
3. 10.5 acres with possibility to include the current Baylands Athletic
Center bringing the acres available to 22 acres.
4. Cubberley – using the 8 acres controlled/owned by the City of Palo Alto.
(The Ad Hoc is doubtful that a City Gym could move forward at
Cubberley at this time due to uncertainty about plans for the property
although recently PAUSD revised their planning moving away from a
traditional high school, housing and relocating PAUSD administrative
offices to Cubberley. This has not yet been approved by the School
Board.
November 10, 2021
5. Ventura Master Plan with planning now in progress. Ventura area is
underserved in park and recreation facilities. Obtaining more land
contiguous to Boulware Park to accommodate the gym could be
considered.
6. Real estate currently controlled by the City of Palo Alto which could be
repurposed due to effects of the Covid Pandemic.
The Ad Hoc recommends these two locations:
1. 10.5 acres with the option to include the current Baylands Athletic
Center, bringing the available acres to 22 acres to create a city sports
complex.
2. Ventura area Master plan and park area.
Project Description – Facility Needs
The list below is based on discussion with user groups, city staff,
community sports organizations and commission members.
What a gym needs -
Three basketball sized courts
Sports - basketball, volleyball, pickleball, indoor soccer, badminton,
table tennis - appropriate lines on floor and equipment storage
Restrooms
Changing rooms (not including showers which could be optional)
Administrative offices
Exercise rooms including yoga, Zumba, cardiac programs
Meeting room/classrooms
Project description – COST - Potential cost range of these facilities – $11,000,000
– $29,000,000 -
Based on survey of gyms in area including
a. Burgess Gym, Menlo Park
b. Pinewood Gym, Palo Alto
c. Castilleja Gym, Palo Alto
d. Menlo School Gym, Menlo Park
e. Maples Pavilion Practice Gym, Stanford.
.
Next steps: We are anxious to proceed with a location discussion and site
Planning. Circulation and parking will be dependent upon site chosen as will
architecture and the ability to continue traditions of Palo Alto. In addition,
referencing and evaluation of sustainability guidelines for the project in
accordance with the Palo Alto Sustainability Guidelines must be observed during
design and construction.
Landscape
• Preserve existing mature trees.
• Energy-efficient site lighting should be building-directed, and produce a
safe environment and clear site orientation.
• Planting and irrigation design should be consistent with Palo Alto’s water
conservation policies and any Palo Alto landscape design guidelines.
Schedule for Discussion
This project will be presented to the Park and Recreation Commission in
November 2021 for support. It will then proceed to City Manager and City
Council. Given expected approvals, plus an analysis of community fundraising
capacity and capability, the project is could be completed in 2024.
Cost and Funding
Based on review of cost of other gyms in the area, we have a chart of land needed
and cost of building. We also recommend a feasibility study to determine our
community fundraising capacity. As indicated, we anticipate a capital campaign
and an operating endowment.
City staff recommendations
Included below are the questions asked by City Staff. They are important
questions that must be answered.
The total project cost is estimated at $25,000,000.
Once approved, we will provide detailed costs, organization, partnership
information and funding information.
The cost of Operations and Maintenance are important to include in this
discussion. Confirming average costs with experts in our area, will help us
November 10, 2021
understand the full amount of funding to be raised. There should be a discussion
about the possibility of this facility being operated by a non-city group to reduce
burden on City Staff.
But the first step is to outline our vision, understand the initiative and will needed
to accomplish the creation of a city gym, pick a location and continue to gather
community support and resources.
Again, The Park and Recreation Master plan was accepted in 2017. It clearly cites
the need for a city owned gym. Our goal with this discussion is to discuss a vision
of a gym for the future. The gym is in the concept stage.
We have included the city staff comments and questions in this report to help all
of us understand this undertaking.
1.What is the fundraising time line? Once the City Council approves of the
vision and the concept (location, gym description, cost, agreement with the
city), the customary path is to identify a lead donor, and confirm support
from community sports groups. Friends of the Palo Alto Parks and the Palo
Alto Recreation Foundation are both 501 c3 non- profits which are able to
receive contributions in support of a gym. Once the project is approved –
location, gym description and cost along with an agreement with the City –
we believe a lead donor will step forward. We assume that we can find
experts for cost escalation should the project not happen for some years.
2.Explain the Business Plan and include an explanation of how the costs
were developed. Please include the design costs, permitting costs, CEQA
reviews, parking requirements (space and costs).
3.What are the on-going operating costs for the facility – staffing,
programming, maintenance, landscaping, utilities and more. Note:
Fundraising would include an endowment to pay for ongoing expenses.
4. How would the gym be operated? There have been discussions about
private operator, which is an option, to be determined based on interest.
.
5. What are the alternative uses for the sites being considered? Is there a
preferred alternative?
6. What are the expectations of City Staff during the planning phase?
Including planning, public outreach, design, permit approval, CEQA.
We appreciate the questions of city staff, and believe the first step is the
discussion and approval of the full commission to recommend this project to the
City Council.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. This is an important discussion to
have for Palo Alto’s youth and the future. The Ad Hoc and the PRC believes that
there are many resources in our community and working together we can achieve
our goal of a city gym for Palo Alto, as outlined in the Master Plan.