HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-25 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2022—7PM
AGENDA
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070.
********BY VIRTUAL CONFERENCE ONLY*******
Pursuant to AB361, 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.Administering the Oath of Office — (Lesley Milton) -- Action (5 min)
3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair — (Chair)-- Action (20 min)
4.Approval of Draft Minutes from the December 14, 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
–Action (5 min) ATTACHMENT
5.Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates — Chair – Discussion (15 min)
6.Aquatics Annual Report — (Sarah Duffy) — Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
7.Golf Performance Annual Report — (Lam Do) — Discussion (30 min) ATTACHMENT
VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2022
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
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: JANUARY 25, 2022
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
December 14, 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: Jeff LaMere 14
Others Present: 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson 16
Chair Cribbs noted that there was a historic achievement about an hour ago, when Mr. 17
Curry from the Warriors broke the three-point shooting record. 18
I. ROLL CALL 19
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 20
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 21
Kathy Mock [phonetic] spoke on behalf of the Friends of Rinconada Pool, along with a 22
couple other members. They are a group of swimmers who lap swim at Rinconada Pool, 23
and they have organized over the past approximately three years, because they noticed that 24
there was no real voice for swimmers, whereas other groups like the Master Swimmers 25
and PASA have a direct contact with pool management. They have been volunteering their 26
time to be a voice for lap swimmers, with their purpose being to serve as an independent, 27
inclusive and transparent group that represents their interests as lap swimmers in 28
Rinconada and to facilitate community and problem-solving between lap swimmers, the 29
City of Palo Alto and the management of the pool. They have been meeting consistently 30
with the City and the pool management since 2019. She said today they have a few 31
concerns that they wanted to bring to the attention of the PRC. She added that they have 32
met with pool management and talked about these concerns. Two of their biggest concerns 33
are the current pricing structure of the pool, which has seen, since the pandemic, a sharp 34
increase in price, and disproportionately towards Palo Alto residents and specifically Palo 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Alto seniors. Also, in addition to seeing an increase for prices disproportionately affecting 1
lap swimmers, they have also seen reduced access to the pool and scheduling leading to 2
more crowding. She hoped they could appreciate their concerns and hoped they could have 3
a say in changing some of the management practices at the pool. 4
Dr. Ken Horowitz spoke in support of the concept to build a city gym. He shared an idea 5
that he has been proposing to City Council which would help raise the necessary funds to 6
sustain a new city gym. He called the proposal a “sugar sweetened beverage tax.” He said 7
he is a health instructor at Foothill College, and the two most important things regarding 8
health are exercise and diet. He focused on the impact of sugar on health. He said he has 9
proposed to the City Council, and wanted the Parks and Recreation Commission to support 10
him when it comes forward, to have a two-cent per ounce on every sugar beverage. He 11
said there is a lot of sugar in drinks. They are now seeing an influx of Boba teas which are 12
full of sugar. Sugar leads to all the chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, et 13
cetera. He encouraged the Parks and Recreation Commission to support a sugary beverage 14
tax to the City Council so that it can raise approximately $2 million. He said he anticipates 15
that it could raise $2 million yearly with such a tax. He said they have this in Berkley, San 16
Francisco, Oakland, Albany and a number of other cities in the United States. 17
Linda Fletcher was not able to connect to speak. Chair Cribbs asked her to send her 18
comments to them in an email, and they will make sure all of the Commissioners see what 19
she has to say. 20
Hearing no other public speakers, she moved on to the next item. 21
IV. DEPARTMENT REPORT 22
Mr. Anderson gave an update on the Rinconada Park project, which is going well and on 23
target to be completed in February. The project is mainly focused on the playgrounds and 24
replacement of the existing walkways. 25
Mr. Anderson said the repairs for the synthetic turf at El Camino Park are being scheduled 26
and they anticipate this in approximately one month. The availability of the contractor is 27
not as near-term as they had hoped. The infield replacement for Stanford Palo Alto is 28
tentatively planned for June of 2022. 29
City staff completed turf renovations of natural grass at Eleanor Pardee Park at the end of 30
November, all done with in-house staff. He said they have not been able to do many 31
renovations because of the budget but they are trying to get creative with their own team 32
to get as many as they can. That field will remain closed until March 14, 2022. This is 33
essentially giving the turf a chance to recover and regrow into a healthy stand that can hold 34
up to athletic field use. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
Mr. Anderson said the natural grass field at Cubberley was renovated by their contractor 1
last week. They found some additional funding to help support that. The field was 2
struggling from very heavy use and not enough rest or renovation. Those fields will remain 3
closed until February 25th, 2022. 4
He said in regard to the update on the Baylands signage project, John Aiken told him that 5
his staff refer to this as the Friendship Trail. The next steps are to go to Council for 6
approval of a deed restriction and a budget change order, fabrication, which will take about 7
two months, and then installation to happen sometime between now and February. They 8
anticipate the project being completed by February of 2022. 9
Mr. Anderson reported he recently met with the Skatepark Ad Hoc Committee. Sam and 10
some of the stakeholders from the Skatepark Advocacy Group, to discuss next steps on 11
December 9th. They are working on the plan for how to do a community meeting and what 12
to include in it to reach out to the neighbors, the park users, and the broader skateboarding 13
community about next steps for the skate park. After the meeting it will come back to the 14
full Commission for recommendation to Council and then on to Council. He mentioned 15
that the Friends of Palo Alto Parks indicated their support for fundraising for this project 16
once they have Council approval. 17
Mr. Anderson announced the Grand Reopening of Mitchell Park Teen Center will be 18
celebrated from January 10th to January 14th, 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on those days. There 19
will be workshops, activities, healthy cooking, graphic design, entrepreneurship, makexyz, 20
fashion design and art workshops, to name just a few of the programs that will be offered 21
during the week. There will be free food, video games, resources and information booths. 22
Various competitions such as basketball, ping pong and dodgeball will be available at the 23
Grand Opening. The Mitchell Park Teen Center is open to all Palo Alto students, 6th 24
through 8th grade. The Children’s Theater classes are on track to sell out for the winter 25
session, with creative dramatics and acting classes for youth and teens already sold out 26
with wait lists. The Art Center Youth and Adult Ceramics classes sold out the weekend 27
that registration opened, and other visual arts offerings are filling up very quickly. 28
Mr. Anderson reported that the JMZ opening is going strong. They opened to a full 29
schedule, Tuesday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., on December 21st. The December 30
dates are nearly sold out, and over 650 memberships have been sold since memberships 31
went on sale in October of 2021. Due to the capacity limitations, advance purchases are 32
strongly encouraged. More information is available at cityofpaloalto.org/jmz. Other 33
recreation classes are also filling up fast. Registration opened on December 2nd for 34
residents, December 9th for non-residents, and they are about 60 percent full. With a little 35
over one week since enrollment began, they have seen an increase in revenues of 33 36
percent over the final numbers from last winter. They are still trying to meet demand of 37
the community, with outdoor classes like tennis, soccer and pickleball, which are the most 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
popular. They added seven more tennis classes this winter, and the soccer contractor is 1
trying to provide additional coaches so they can add more soccer as well. 2
Mr. Anderson said Rinconada Pool contractor, Tim Sheeper, is working on staff 3
recruitment so they can offer more lessons within the next month or two 4
The Grand Opening of the Highway 101 Pedestrian Bike Bridge was held on November 5
20th. It was a well-attended event. Staff observed a lot of the use of the new bridge over 6
the last few weeks. So far, it seems to be a great success. 7
Mr. Anderson announced that there is a Holiday Home and Business decorating contest 8
going on right now. People can sign up at cityofpaloalto.org/events where there is a link 9
to sign up for the contest by December 15th. There is also a Holiday Toy Drive. Unwrapped 10
gifts can be dropped off at Lucie Stern Community Center by December 15th. More 11
information is available at cityofpalto.org/toydrive. 12
Mr. Anderson reported that at the City Council meeting last night it was determined that 13
they will defer resuming of in-person hybrid meetings for board, committee and 14
commission meetings until March of 2022. They will remain remote until that time. He 15
will pass any new information about this on to the Commission. The City Council also 16
appointed positions for the Parks and Recreation Commission. He congratulated 17
Commission Chair Anne Cribbs and Vice Chair Jeff Greenfield, both appointed to new 18
three-year terms, and a new Commissioner, Nellis Freeman, Jr., also a three-year term; 19
and Shani Kleinhaus appointed to a one-year term. Mr. Anderson congratulated 20
Commissioner Reckdahl on his appointment to the Planning and Transportation 21
Commission. His position on the Parks and Recreation Commission could not be filled 22
last night because it was not noticed, so it will have to be filled at a future Council meeting. 23
In other Council news, Mr. Anderson said Council will review the NVCAP concept plan 24
on January 10th. They will be on recess from December 15th through January 2nd. When 25
they return they have a Council retreat planned for Saturday, February 5th. 26
Mr. Anderson noted that he was asked for some updates on Cubberley and said, 27
unfortunately, he did not have much information other than in February staff will be 28
bringing status updates on Cubberley to City Council. He will send information when he 29
gets a date on that. It will include the status update on Cubberley Master Plan and 30
everything else going on with Cubberley at the moment. 31
He said at the October meeting they had an agenda item regarding creating an Ad Hoc 32
Committee for Measure E Area at Byxbee Park. He was tasked with confirming what the 33
City’s process will be for Boards and Commissions to add things like this to their Council- 34
approved work plan. He was informed that staff should bring this issue to Policy Services. 35
If Policy Services agree unanimously he thought it could go to Council. Likewise, on the 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation on the new gym, he was directed to 1
bring that to Policy Services first and then that also would go to City Council. 2
Chair Cribbs invited questions from the Commissioners of Mr. Anderson. 3
Commissioner Reckdahl had a question about Cubberley and asked what the renovation 4
was actually doing – just reseeding or more detailed than that. Mr. Anderson said slightly. 5
They ended up aerating as one of the core things that takes time, part of the resting process, 6
plus the seed gets in there, and fertilizing. So, aerating, seeding, fertilizing and then the 7
rest itself. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if there were irrigation changes. Mr. Anderson 8
said yes. That is the perfect opportunity to run all the heads and make sure they have head-9
to-head coverage as best they can, which is essential, especially when they have put down 10
any nutrients, to make sure it gets watered in quickly. That happens, too, but it is not like 11
a major renovation of the irrigation system. 12
Commissioner Reckdahl asked if they aerate all fields regularly. Mr. Anderson said ideally 13
you would be doing it very often. There are different kinds of aeration. The ones that are 14
most impactful are when you see the conical-shaped plugs to pull out. If they are not doing 15
that they are doing what is typically called slit seeding where you’re just carving into the 16
dirt. This doesn’t really relieve compaction. Regarding how often and how regularly, they 17
try to do the athletic fields three times a year. Some are maintained by the contractor, 18
Brightview, whose services were diminished with the budget cuts. They intend to seek to 19
restore that budget which will help with renovations of other fields with greater regularity. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if there has been any outreach to the field users and 21
stakeholders to see if they would like to provide some gap funding for the aeration type 22
services. He acknowledged it isn’t the ideal way that staff would like to approach it but he 23
thought there were resources in the community and perhaps willingness, if there is a clear 24
understanding of what would be done and the timeframe and time period in which it would 25
be done. Mr. Anderson said there has been outreach to some degree. Not for all of the 26
playing fields but for some particular ones. Typically it happens because a group has said 27
they aren’t pleased with the condition of something and offering to help. Usually that 28
discussion entails “X” amount of dollars for a given renovation. This is on a scale. There 29
can be some extreme ones where there is quite a bit of work, and others that are less 30
pronounced. The challenge usually comes in when there is an expectation from someone 31
giving a certain amount of money who expects that the turf is going to look a certain way. 32
This is not something that staff can guarantee. Mr. Anderson said they were actually asked 33
for a guarantee and that is not possible. He said they hope for the best weather and hope 34
for things to take when seeded, and for everything to go well, but there are other criteria 35
that sometimes they cannot control. 36
Vice Chair Greenfield added that another thing the stakeholders will want would be 37
guaranteed access to the fields, which isn’t always possible given the permitting and 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
allocation process. He said, anecdotally, the grass fields at Cubberley are in the poorest 1
shape that he has seen in the last ten or more years, so he was glad work was being done 2
and said it was a wise prioritization choice. 3
Commissioner Moss commented that it’s fantastic about the Children’s Theater and the 4
JMZ and additional classes, which show that they are bouncing back from COVID in a big 5
way. He hoped that continues. He thought it was fantastic that JMZ was selling 6
memberships. He commented that when the Friendship Trail is done in February, he would 7
love to see a grand opening because it is a nice addition to the Baylands. Mr. Anderson 8
said he would suggest that to John Aiken. 9
Commissioner Moss asked if there was any news on the Tidegate and when it was 10
supposed to start. Mr. Anderson said the construction would be in September of 2023. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield observed that they’ve slipped a year. Mr. Anderson said that is 12
correct. They had planned for September of 2022, and because of some delays in 13
procurement and some other permitting issues for Valley Water, they have let them know 14
that the construction won’t start until the following September in 2023. 15
Chair Cribbs commented that it was a good report as they are trying to come out of 16
COVID. She was very happy that the fields are being looked at since they are so important 17
for their kids to get on the fields and play athletics as they come out of that. She encouraged 18
all of the Commissioners to work together to try to see if they can help with funding for 19
those fields that are in need of it, if there is an easy way to do that without burdening 20
everybody too much. 21
Chair Cribbs congratulated Commissioner Reckdahl on his new position and said the 22
Commission will miss him. She asked when his new position started, since they have just 23
a little more work on recreational opportunities for Commissioner Reckdahl to be 24
involved, so she needs to set the meeting pretty fast. Mr. Anderson said he will have to 25
check with the Clerk’s office. He regretted they couldn’t borrow Commissioner Reckdahl 26
on both Commissions for a while. 27
Chair Cribbs commented that Commissioner Moss will also be completing his term and 28
leaving them. She said she would like to wait to discuss that and salute the work he has 29
done. 30
V. BUSINESS 31
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 32
Recreation Commission Meetings During Covid-19 State of Emergency 33
Mr. Anderson explained that this is the same item they had on the November agenda and 34
is required in order to host the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings remotely. He 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
said per Council’s action last night, they will continue to meet remotely through March 1
2022 2
MOTION 3
Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferences for Parks and 4
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency was moved by 5
Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by Vice Chair Greenfield. The motion passed, 6-6
0, by roll call vote. 7
2. Approval of Draft Minutes From the November17, 2021, Parks and 8
Recreation Commission Meeting 9
MOTION 10
Motion to approve the minutes, as revised, of the November 17, 2021, Parks and 11
Recreation Commission was moved by Commissioner Reckdahl and seconded by 12
Commissioner Brown. The motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 13
3. Ad Hoc and Liaison Updates 14
Chair Cribbs said the Baylands Tidegate has turned into a liaison position. The Fund 15
Development Ad Hoc continues to work with the Friends of the Parks and the Palo Alto 16
Recreation Foundation for potential funding for both of those programs and parks. Neither 17
Commission LaMere or Commissioner Brown had anything to add. Chair Cribbs reflected 18
that, reading back over the minutes, they did put forth a lot of suggestions and the next 19
step is probably to corral all of them to see how they get them all to work. 20
Regarding CIP Review Chair Cribbs said they would have discussion later on. There was 21
nothing to report on the Racquet Court Policy Ad Hoc. There was nothing to report on 22
Dog Parks and Restrooms. On New Recreational Activities, Commissioner Reckdahl 23
reported there was still a lot of work to do on the gym. He said he has heard a lot of talk 24
among residents and neighbors, and there is a lot of support in the community, especially 25
if they can get it privately funded. He encouraged the Commission to keep the pressure 26
on. 27
Commission LaMere echoed Commissioner Reckdahl’s comments in terms of his 28
conversations with people. He was excited that they were trying to move this forward and 29
that they are looking at possibilities. Chair Cribbs echoed Commissioner Reckdahl and 30
Commission LaMere’s comments. She has found a lot of support in the community, a lot 31
of ideas, a lot of people saying it is time. She felt the timing of the article in The Weekly, 32
the front page story, was excellent. She thought that as soon as they can get their memo or 33
request to the Policy and Services Committee the more good fortune they would have. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
[audio interference]. 1
Commissioner Moss asked if there was an update on the Cubberley Field restroom. Mr. 2
Anderson thought it would be covered in the CIP discussion. Sidewalk Vendor Policy is 3
now a liaison role. 4
Chair Cribbs said in terms of aquatics they will hear a report from Tim Sheeper in January. 5
She had nothing to report on Baylands 10.5. There was no update on the Community 6
Gardens. 7
Regarding Cubberley, Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson if they will hear something soon. 8
Mr. Anderson thought the update to Council in February would probably be the next 9
opportunity. Chair Cribbs said there is a lot of talk about the extra acres that the School 10
Board might want to sell or share, and people are interested in that, as well as the portables 11
and the school moving in, so it will be good to get that information. 12
Regarding Field Users, Vice Chair Greenfield said there was some good news with the 13
schedule for the work at El Camino Park to get some lines sewn back in. 14
Regarding Golf, Commission LaMere expected to be able to report something about The 15
First Tee next month, but in terms of the golf course, revenue is up about 20 percent in the 16
first months of the fiscal year, compared to the same period last year, so that is very 17
positive. Chair Cribbs added that, anecdotally, to the standing of the course, the desirability 18
of the course is very strong in the greater Bay Area and even outside the Bay Area. 19
Chair Cribbs had no update on the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl said the PAUSD did talk about Project Safety Net at the last 21
meeting. At one time they had a liaison with Project Safety Net. Mr. Anderson did not 22
know if they had that anymore, but he would be glad to check in with them with any 23
specific questions. Commissioner Reckdahl said he just wondered if they should have 24
someone to just be involved. One thing they have been looking at is recreation programs, 25
and they don’t think they are fully serving the youth, so maybe they would have some 26
suggestions for that or a good time for them to insert programs that they are looking for. 27
He thought maybe in February at the retreat they could look at whether they want to have 28
some type of connection. 29
Commissioner Moss asked Commissioner Reckdahl if he had heard anything about the 30
move of Palo Verde to Cubberley. He thought it was going to happen in January, but he 31
did not see any portables being built. Commissioner Reckdahl had no update on this. Mr. 32
Anderson did not have any news either. He said ideally they would know sooner, but he 33
thought it will be some of the information going to Council in February. 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Commissioner Brown had no updates on Sustainability but there was a presentation to 1
Council on the 13th, and the staff report and materials are available online on the 2
Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. The staff report is in the agenda packet in the 3
Agenda Center. The YouTube video has the presentation as well as the extensive public 4
comments. 5
Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson if they were making progress on the Skateboard Park. 6
Mr. Anderson said he felt it was promising coming out of the meeting. One change is that 7
Peter Jensen, the City’s Landscape Architect, was willing to lend a hand and help organize 8
things for the community meeting, which is the next step in the process. He highlighted a 9
little bit about the work, to prepare for it, and making sure they have a vision from the 10
skateboarders that they feel they can support to make it a little easier going into the broader 11
community meeting. 12
On Urban Forestry, Vice Chair Greenfield reported that he and Commissioner Reckdahl 13
met with staff from Urban Forestry Department and Community Services, Peter Gollinger 14
and Mr. Anderson. They reviewed the recommendation of the guidelines for a relationship 15
and did some cleanups and updates and passed them on to the directors of the appropriate 16
departments, Public Works and Community Services. Essentially, after the directors 17
approve it, it should become effective, so they are hopeful it will happen before their 18
January meeting. Vice Chair Greenfield added that when the Tree Protection Ordinance 19
Update goes back to City Council in April along with that would be a recommended update 20
to the Municipal Code regarding the specific responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation 21
Commission. Per the guidance they are getting from the City Attorney there is leeway 22
within the guidelines and the specified tasks for the Commission that they can add this, 23
but given that it would be better to make it more clear and formalize it, the appropriate 24
time to do that would be when Council is taking action on related matters in April. 25
Commissioner Reckdahl said the Ventura Plan will go back to Council on Monday, 26
January 10th, and staff is returning to the Council. The Council gave them guidance last 27
time, and now they will see what staff produces. He said when the packet goes out, they 28
should send an email and have people review it. 29
Chair Cribbs said, regarding Youth Council, they continue to meet. She was hopeful they 30
could come in February, March or April to give the PRC a presentation about their 31
activities. When she last talked to them, they felt it would be something they would like 32
to do. 33
Commissioner Moss commented that the Cubberley track has become extremely popular 34
the past couple of months. There are groups that are running marathons and using the track 35
as their number one training venue. Over the past weekend there were around 28 people 36
running the track on a Saturday and another 25 on a Sunday, so it is very popular, all 37
because they put in a new track. He said they just have to keep supporting it. Chair Cribbs 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
thought it would be fun to do a sign or something online about all the people on the 1
Cubberley track who are making history and running marathons. Maybe some of the 2
Friends of Cubberley could do that, or Friends of the Track, but it would be fun to celebrate 3
the Palo Altans who are so accomplished. Vice Chair Greenfield thought that was a great 4
idea, although he was not familiar with the Friends of the Track. Chair Cribbs answered 5
that they are going to create a Friends of the Track. Commissioner Moss added they will 6
donate, and it would be nice to have a sign there pointing people to the Friends of Palo 7
Alto Parks to donate, because they are willing. 8
4. Foothills Nature Preserve Policy Updates 9
Chair Cribbs asked Mr. Anderson to give the staff report before hearing from the Ad Hoc 10
Committee, whom she said has done much work on this. She said it was exciting to be 11
discussing this and thinking back to last year at this time, where they were, and all of the 12
things that have worked out very well. There is still a lot to do, but she said the Ad Hoc 13
Committee had done good work. 14
Mr. Anderson shared that the Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc Committee has met 15
numerous times over the past eight months to review these policies, including visitor limit, 16
infrastructure improvements, entrance fees, passes, reservation system, bicycle access at 17
Gate D, dogs in Foothills Nature Preserve, wildfire safety, film and video policy. The film 18
and video policy would be addressed in a separate agenda item because it pertains to more 19
than just Foothills and includes all of Open Space and Parks. 20
Mr. Anderson briefly shared the background information on Foothills to give context. On 21
November 2, 2020, City Council voted to open Foothills Park – now Foothills Nature 22
Preserve – to the general public by removing limits on non-residents while maintaining 23
the maximum capacity of 1,000 people at any one time. The motion included a temporary 24
90-day limit of the capacity to 750 people at any one time. The Council had directed staff 25
to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to develop proposals for fees, capacity, 26
park management and environmental integrity studies. 27
The Foothills Nature Preserve opened to the general public on December 17, 2020. Staff 28
began collecting vehicle entrance fees on weekends and holidays beginning Saturday, 29
February 27, 2021. On March 23, 2021, the PRC discussed several Foothills Nature 30
Preserve policies and voted to recommend that Council adopt several new vehicle entry 31
fees and discounts for the Preserve, including fees for medium and large vehicles, busses, 32
free entry on six specific days per year, free passes to be distributed at libraries, free entry 33
for student field trips and all fourth grade students, and directed staff to permanently 34
remove the nine hillside barbecues at Foothills Nature Preserve. On May 10, 2021, City 35
Council approved this Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation. 36
Regarding visitation trends lately, Mr. Anderson presented a four-year visitation 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
comparison. There has been a significant increase in visitation since the Preserve opened 1
to the general public. Mr. Anderson explained that in 2021, January through September, 2
there were 264,057 visitors and 138,365 vehicles. In 2021 visitation increased by about 3
107 percent from the three-year average. On December 17, 2020, when the Preserve first 4
opened to the general public, the temporary visitor limit was 750 people at one time. The 5
high number of visitors and that 750-person limit resulted in traffic and parking challenges 6
in the Preserve. On February 22, 2021, City Council adopted an ordinance to authorize the 7
City Manager or designee to establish the capacity limit at Foothills in the range of 300 8
people to 650 people, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of Preserve users 9
and to protect the natural resources in the Preserve and/or, due to limits in parking facilities 10
or staff availability. Staff have used 500 people at any one time as the visitor limit since 11
that date in February, and the Preserve has not reached capacity since April 5, 2021. Park 12
Rangers have observed that there hasn’t been traffic or parking issues in the Preserve while 13
the limit has been at 500 people. The Preserve has not reached capacity since that Easter 14
weekend on April 5, 2021. 15
The Ad Hoc recommends continuing the current practice of allowing 500 visitors at any 16
one time and adjusting the visitor limit range from 400 to 600 people at any one time. The 17
rationale behind that was that when the visitor was reduced to 500 at one time and the 18
weekend entrance fee was implemented, the Preserve’s visitation and capacity became 19
noticeably more manageable. Previously-observed issues with visitors going off-trail, 20
increased traffic and parking issues were greatly diminished. The Ad Hoc noted that 21
continuing to allow staff flexibility to make minor adjustments in the visitor limit would 22
be helpful in addressing any unforeseen circumstances that may impact the Preserve’s 23
visitation. 24
The Ad Hoc supports narrowing the visitor range, because having fewer than 400 visitors 25
at any one time is unnecessary to prevent traffic and parking problems. A visitor limit of 26
fewer than 400 also leads to frequent Preserve closures, due to reaching the capacity 27
quickly, especially during summer. Having more than 600 visitors at any one time seems 28
to contribute to problems with traffic and parking, especially in the more popular areas of 29
the Preserve. 30
In January, 2020, the City Manager assembled a stakeholder group. There were 31
representatives from Grassroots Ecology, Friends of Foothills Nature Preserve, the 32
Environmental Volunteers, Stanford University, Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, Los 33
Altos Hills and the Chair and Vice Chair of the PRC to help identify and recommend 34
improvements in the Preserve. This stakeholder group developed a list of infrastructure 35
improvements aimed at protecting the habitat and improving visitor safety and visitor 36
experience. Examples of the proposed improvements included the split rail fence to 37
encourage visitors to stay on-trail, a pedestrian pathway throughout the Preserve to allow 38
visitors to avoid walking on the roadway, and better-defined parking spaces, additional 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
crosswalks and speed bumps to improve pedestrian safety, and additional signage to help 1
guide visitors. Mr. Anderson shared photos of what the split rail fence would look like and 2
the temporary measure that was instituted early on when staff observed problems. Caution 3
tape and barricades were put up, which have since been replaced with rope and wooden 4
stakes. Mr. Anderson said it is better, but not as efficient or aesthetically pleasing as split 5
rail would be, and is still temporary. He shared a photo of the pedestrian pathway area, 6
also showing vehicles lined up along the edge, essentially forcing pedestrians to walk right 7
down the middle of the road. Mr. Anderson said if they were able to put in a pedestrian 8
pathway it would stop all parking on the edge and provide a five-foot-wide pedestrian path 9
for pedestrians to walk safely. 10
Mr. Anderson noted that there currently is not staff or funding available to document and 11
compete the conceptual plan of improvements with cost estimates. He said staff will 12
submit a capital budget request to fund the development of the improvement plan in fiscal 13
year 2023, and construction of the improvements in fiscal year 2024. The Ad Hoc 14
recommends moving forward with these infrastructure improvements as soon as funding 15
is available and recommends allocating capital budget towards infrastructure 16
improvements outlined by the stakeholder group, as well as ensuring that the PRC is 17
involved in review of those plans. Reduced visitation has lessened the immediate urgency, 18
but the improvements remain important for visitor safety and habitat protection. 19
The Ad Hoc reviewed the current Foothills Nature Preserve entrance fees and various 20
options for free or discounted entry. There have been 11,436 paid entry fees since staff 21
began collecting the fee on weekends and holidays starting in February, and there have 22
been 1,552 uses of the annual pass during weekends and holidays. There have been 1,036 23
instances of park entries where the fee is waived, accounting for 7.4 percent of all weekend 24
and holiday entries. Staff anticipates implementing weekday fee collection via and 25
automated machine starting in March, 2022. 26
The Ad Hoc recommends maintaining the existing daily fees, standard annual passes, free 27
entry days, free library entry passes, and free entry for pedestrians and bicycles. They 28
recommend adapting the free entry policy for select groups to simplify the entrance 29
stations operations, facilitate entry fee enforcement on weekdays and expand the list of 30
permanent disabilities to be more inclusive, including three elements – changing the 31
existing active military and veteran free entry policy to a free annual pass for those 32
persons; changing the existing student driver entry policy to a 50 percent discount on the 33
annual pass for students aged 16 to 24 and require that student to be present; and expand 34
on the existing free entry policy for vehicles with disabled person placards or license plates 35
to include free annual passes for people with permanent disabilities as defined by 36
California State Parks. The State Parks has a more diverse group of disabilities that they 37
allow the discount for, including developmental, hearing, speech, visual, mental or 38
physical disabilities. These changes are aimed at simplifying the entrance station 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
operations, reducing entrance queues and ensuring that the entrance fees can be fairly 1
enforced on weekdays and making the disabled fee entry policy more inclusive of people 2
with different disabilities. 3
The rationale for the active military and veteran fee was that the existing policy for 4
weekdays would not work because there is no way for them to validate that they are 5
without leaving their identification on the hood of their car, and they don’t want to ask 6
them to leave personal information out in that way. 7
Regarding the student driver entry that currently exists, the Ad Hoc wanted to note that 8
they are very supportive and want to encourage youth and students to visit Foothills Nature 9
Preserve. Unfortunately, there are a few challenges with the free entry for student drivers. 10
It has resulted in confusion for some park visitors. In particular, the fact that the student 11
needs to be driving the vehicle has been frustrating for many visitors, leading to a number 12
of arguments at the entrance station, sometimes requiring vehicles to back up and wait to 13
get in. The Ad Hoc recommends that student driver fee be changed to the discount 14
previously mentioned – 16 to 24, and requiring the student to be present. An additional 15
challenge for free entrance of students is that it will not be enforceable during weekdays 16
when the entrance station is not staffed and there would be no way to identify a student 17
driver. 18
Regarding vehicles with Disabled Person placards, the Ad Hoc recommends making a 19
change to the annual pass, modeling on the State Park model. The Ad Hoc noted that the 20
City’s existing free entry for people with disabilities would be far more inclusive than 21
including these people with different types. The Ad Hoc recommends modeling off of the 22
California State Park examples, which requires an applicant to submit an application 23
signed by a doctor in order to get the free annual pass. The applications would not be 24
processed at the Preserve but rather online or in person at Lucie Stern Community Center. 25
The Ad Hoc Committee looked at a reservation system. They had discussed it early on 26
when the Preserve was inundated with high visitation numbers upon first opening. While 27
visitation at the Preserve is approximately 107 percent higher than historical average, the 28
Preserve has not reached capacity since April, and a reservation system would be complex 29
to implement and would unnecessarily limit the total number of people who are able to 30
visit the Preserve. If visitation increases in the future to the point that the Preserve 31
frequently reaches capacity, a reservation system could be reconsidered. The 32
recommendation from the Ad Hoc is to not pursue a reservation system at this time. 33
Regarding bicycle access at Gate D, Mr. Anderson explained that in August, 2021, the 34
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) voted to request that Transportation 35
Department staff work with the Parks and Recreation Commission to allow bicycle riders 36
to enter the Foothills Preserve from the Arastradero Preserve through Gate D. In 2005, 37
City Council had designated a pedestrian trail through Foothills Preserve to connect the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
Pearson Arastradero Preserve with the adjoining Los Trancos Open Space Preserve in 1
exchange for grant funding. The Palo Alto Municipal Code was amended to allow general 2
access through the two preserves at these designated points for the sake of using the 3
Foothills Trails within Foothills Nature Preserve. These entry points through an existing 4
gate – Gate D – into the Pearson Arastradero and through the existing pathway Gate Z into 5
Los Trancos. This was for pedestrians only and not persons with horses or bicycles. On 6
September 21, 2021, the Ad Hoc Committee met with PABAC representatives to discuss 7
bicycle access through Gate D, and the feedback from that meeting is noted in the staff 8
report. 9
The Ad Hoc does not have a unanimous recommendation on whether to open Gate D to 10
bicycle access. They noted that a benefit to opening Gate D was that it would increase 11
connections between Open Space Preserves, increase recreational opportunities, and 12
provide an additional safe route for bicycle access, allowing them to avoid Page Mill Road. 13
However, they were concerned about some potential impacts, including bikes going the 14
wrong way down a narrow one-way road, an increase in illegal use of bikes on trails, 15
impacts to already-limited staff resources to monitor and enforce issues, and a challenge 16
in reversing course if they piloted such a program and it was unsuccessful. 17
The Ad Hoc reviewed the City’s dog policies in Foothills Nature Preserve and found that 18
the existing Municipal Code for leash requirements – that dogs must be leashed and under 19
physical control at all times while in the Preserve – and exclusion of dogs from the 20
Preserve on weekends and holidays are appropriate. The Ad Hoc noted that the current 21
rules for Towle Camp don’t require dogs to stay confined to the campsite. The Ad Hoc 22
and staff researched what other agencies have for policies for dogs in campsites. With 23
California State Parks, dogs cannot be left unattended, and overnight campers must keep 24
dogs in a tent. Santa Clara County Parks requires dogs to be confined to tents or vehicles 25
at night. San Mateo County Parks does not allow dogs in their campground. The Ad Hoc 26
recommendation is that the rules for the dogs staying at Towle Camp should be updated 27
to state that when the Preserve is closed dogs must be confined to campsites and must be 28
in a tent unless otherwise supervised and accompanied at night. 29
At a City Council study session on Foothills fire mitigation strategies on August 30, 2021, 30
staff discussed a fire safety survey recently done at Foothills Nature Preserve and Pearson 31
Arastradero Preserve. The general feedback was the status of this year’s wildfire 32
prevention work, and what was still visible from previous years’ work appeared to be 33
highly effective. There were several eucalyptus trees that needed to be pruned or removed. 34
There was support for the closure of campfire circles at Towle Camp for the remainder of 35
the camping season. They also noted that the campfire circles and barbecues at Foothills 36
Nature Preserve were well-maintained and low fire risk. There were several comments 37
from City Council regarding these issues and a request to return to Council with options. 38
A date has not been set for when this topic will be brought back to City Council. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
Regarding the eucalyptus trees, staff found there are approximately 65 eucalyptus trees in 1
Foothills and Arastradero and 41 that appear to be on Stanford property, adjacent to the 2
Pearson Arastradero Preserve. Removal of them, the required biological surveys, and the 3
native replanting mitigation would cost somewhere around $350,000. Regarding the 4
campfires, there are two at Towle Camp, and they are typically open with a permit during 5
camping season, May 1st through October 31st, and are prohibited on red flag warning 6
days. No campfire permits were granted this year because of last year’s severe fire season. 7
The campfire circles could be removed to further reduce the risk in Foothills Nature 8
Preserve. If City Council directs staff to remove them, that can be accomplished with 9
existing staff resources. The barbecues are typically open year-round except on red flag 10
days. While there are signs at each barbecue informing people not to move ashes, there 11
have been issues with people putting hot coals from the barbecues into dumpsters and 12
causing dumpster fires. Also, there have been observations of park visitors walking away 13
from barbecues, leaving them unattended. Staff maintains a minimum of ten feet of 14
vegetation clearance around the barbecues and barbecue circles. 15
Mr. Anderson shared the Ad Hoc’s concern about fire safety and the issues highlighted in 16
the Council study session. An additional concern is the limited resources available to 17
monitor campfires and barbecues. The Ad Hoc recommends that Palo Alto Fire 18
Department provide guidance on actions to mitigate wildfire safety concerns. 19
Mr. Anderson concluded the presentation advising that if an action was taken to make a 20
recommendation to Council, the recommendation would be brought in February. 21
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the public on the presentation. 22
Paul Goldstein commented that he has been a Palo Alto resident for over 50 years, and he 23
has always loved Foothills Park. He has been hiking the trails for the last several years, 24
twice weekly on weekdays. He supports the plan to charge weekday admission to the Park 25
and has purchased his annual pass. He added that he has not had an occasion to use it in 26
spite of the fact that he has been visiting the park twice weekly. He urged the Commission 27
to eliminate the bicycle prohibition for Gate D. He is a member of the Palo Alto Bicycle 28
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee who met with the Ad Hoc group. He said the current 29
prohibition makes no sense since bicycles are permitted on the approaches of both sides. 30
The prohibition is a relic of the time when Foothills was open to Palo Alto residents only, 31
and the gate was made accessible to hikers on the Bay to Ridge Trail as a condition of 32
grant money. The only arguments he has heard for maintaining the prohibition are that 33
some bicyclists do illegal, destructive and dangerous things. He suggested that these same 34
people probably ignore the current signage. Allowing and encouraging law-abiding 35
bicyclists in the park aligns with Palo Alto policy to encourage bicycling and will create a 36
more respectful community environment. Opening Gate D will allow leaders of local 37
bicycle clubs to plan outings that include Foothills Park. They will teach respect for the 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
beauty and natural benefits that the Park provides. He urged the Commission to open the 1
Gate and to amend the Municipal Code to allow bicycles through that Gate. 2
Cedric de La Beaujardiere, lifetime resident of Palo Alto, stated he has always loved 3
Foothills Park and even got married there. He supported opening Gate D to bicyclists. He 4
has done the ride through Arastradero to Gate D, and it is quite grueling. Being an 5
experienced cyclist who bikes almost everywhere he goes, he said it is pretty brutal to get 6
up there, and if you have made it that far, you are incentivized to go to the peak and check 7
out the view, which is just a little bit further. He said many of the concerns about opening 8
the gate center around safety concerns, but if that is the case he felt they should consider 9
that opening the gate provides cyclists with a much safer way to get to Foothills Park, as 10
they can avoid two-and-a-half miles of dangerous riding on narrow Page Mill Road. He 11
thought with proper signage that it is a one-way road and warning to not ride against traffic, 12
and proper signage to not ride on the trails, that they could regulate the behavior they don’t 13
want while permitting people who will respect the law to use the facility. The logic of not 14
wanting people to do dangerous things doesn’t make sense, because it is much safer to 15
come in through the gate than driving on the road. He asked the Commission to open the 16
gate to bicycle traffic. 17
Shani Kleinhaus thanked the Ad Hoc Committee and looked forward to joining them next 18
month. She commented on bikes and dog access. She said since COVID started she has 19
visited Foothills Park at least once a week on weekdays because she has a dog. She often 20
visits Arastradero as well. She appreciated the recommendation to continue allowing dogs 21
on weekdays to hike in Foothills Park. Regarding the bikes, she is concerned because there 22
is evidence of damage to trails and habitat in Arastradero Preserve in exercise areas. She 23
said there is no enforcement, and she sees the beginning of damage on Foothills trails. 24
Regulation must have enforcement, and if there is no enforcement perhaps they should not 25
have bikes there. She said one of the biggest controversies currently is what to do with 26
electric bikes, hovercraft and all sorts of types of electronic mobility aides. Studies of the 27
impacts of these on bats and birds shows severe impacts, primarily because the sound made 28
by the bikes, the noise generated, is not audible to people but is audible to bats and birds. 29
The disturbance to maternity routes is shown to reduce survivorship of young bats and 30
abandonment by the adults. She felt that they needed to carefully look at the issue of any 31
kind of bikes, especially electric bikes and similar vehicles. 32
Robert Neff, longtime Palo Alto bicyclist and mountain biker since the start of COVID, 33
requested that they legalize bicycle passage between Arastradero Preserve and Foothills 34
Preserve through Gate D. He said, as the staff report makes clear, there is no intrinsic 35
reason for the gate to be closed to bicyclists anymore. All bicyclists are currently allowed 36
on both the trail on the Arastradero side and the road on the Foothills side. Opening the 37
connection would be a recreational benefit for bicyclists seeking to connect from 38
Arastradero Preserve to Vista Hill in Foothills Preserve, and it would add a beneficial 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
connection between Los Altos Hills, the Palo Alto preserves, Portola Valley and the Palo 1
Alto flatlands. Several objections to this action described in the staff report amounted to 2
describing visiting bicyclists as rogue actors who do not follow rules. He said he has 3
learned through his work on PABAC, the bicycle pedestrian advisory committee, that 4
sometimes they get the users they deserve, whether motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians. 5
Currently Foothills Nature Preserve may be getting the visitor behavior it deserves from 6
the environment created by its own rules. He said certainly bicyclists who currently enter 7
the Preserve using this gate or the fire road break the rules on entry. Riders may further 8
seek to avoid detection and conflict with Rangers by continuing offroad on the single track 9
panoramic trails or downhill on the Vista Hill Road, avoiding passage past the Park offices 10
at the bottom of the hill. He said if the Preserve instead made access aligned with common 11
sense through a gate, with legal passage on both sides and perhaps a legal fire road 12
connection to Alexis Drive, he thought they would encourage rule-abiding behavior and 13
have fewer issues in the Park. Mountain bicyclists have learned that riding on fire roads is 14
generally allowed, and riding on single track trails is generally not, over 30-plus years of 15
collective experience in the San Francisco Bay Area and all over the world. He encouraged 16
the Commission to take up the issue to remove the restriction on bicycle passage between 17
the Preserves and welcome rule-abiding bicyclists and the improved bicyclist behavior that 18
this change would encourage. He thanked the Commission for their service to Palo Alto 19
and has been impressed by the involvement and energy shown by the Commission. 20
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Ad Hoc Committee. 21
Vice Chair Greenfield suggested regarding the format that they use to go through the items, 22
rather than having all of the Ad Hoc Committee members speak to all of the items 23
mentioned, it might be more efficient to talk about them one at a time and get group 24
resolution on consideration of a motion for each given item before moving on. Chair 25
Cribbs was agreeable to this if the Ad Hoc members were okay with it. Commissioner 26
Moss said it was okay with him, but commented that this took eight months and a lot of 27
meetings towards the end, trying to get something completed before the end of the year. 28
He said as they go through the items, if Commissioners have any questions, they have 29
probably dealt with it, and he wanted them to ask and they would try to clarify what they 30
have been going through. Commissioner Reckdahl agreed that they should take this 31
piecemeal. 32
Mr. Anderson shared a slide showing the draft motion in an editable Word document 33
which included everything in the recommendation. Chair Cribbs asked him to leave the 34
document up while having the members of the Ad Hoc Committee speak to the 35
components of it. 36
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Anderson and other staff members for helping the Ad 37
Hoc move along on this project, which has been a long effort and could not have gotten 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
anywhere without staff’s expert guidance and input along the way. First off, Vice Chair 1
Greenfield commented on the visitor limit. He said for him it is pretty straightforward and 2
what they have been doing with the number of 500 is working. The recommendation is not 3
really suggesting that they want to go with a number other than 500 but are just allowing 4
flexibility in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Commissioner Moss added the fact 5
that they have not reached capacity since Easter and also that they added fees indicates it 6
is at a proper level. 7
Commissioner Reckdahl said his first inclination would be to have a lower limit below 8
400 to give them more flexibility to protect the Park. The problem with that is that bringing 9
it that low may result in closing and opening multiple times creating more traffic problems 10
on Page Mill, so he thought keeping the minimum at 400 makes sense. Vice Chair 11
Greenfield was not sure 400 would actually work, but they have the flexibility to try it if 12
needed. 13
Commission LaMere asked what sort of feedback they got with trail use, wildlife and 14
habitat with the number of visitors they have had overall, continuously, as opposed to 15
having certain periods much higher than others or certain times as in the past, and now it 16
seems they are having a more stable visitation. He wondered if there was any data or 17
anecdotal evidence of what the visitation is doing to the Park. Mr. Anderson responded 18
that early on they saw environmental impacts widening, per monitoring done by 19
Grassroots Ecology. The widening was happening due to people stepping off-trail for 20
passing because there were so many people on the trails. This did damage some of the 21
adjacent vegetation. It was limited to the narrow sections and certain spots along trails, but 22
no special habitat has been impacted. Mr. Anderson added that this seems to have abated 23
lately. There is less and less of this and numbers have become more manageable. He gave 24
another example where they had, in January of 2021, begun to see illegal man-made trails 25
into natural areas. With some signage, it grew back in. In that regard, the numbers have 26
not impacted the natural area because of either good education or in some places, they did 27
put in barriers, such as rope and fence. Mr. Anderson said they also tracked invasive 28
species to see if increased numbers were dragging invasive species into areas they weren’t 29
before. Grassroots said they will continue to monitor, but they have not seen anything yet, 30
and it is probably too early to see if that is happening. 31
Mr. Anderson said there was a question regarding visitation trends. Commissioner 32
Reckdahl noted, looking at the visitation trends chart, was that after COVID when it was 33
still just Palo Alto residents, the numbers skyrocketed impressively. Commissioner Moss 34
added that in June and July of 2020 there were more visitors than this summer, even as 35
COVID was reduced, so adding the fees may have played a role in reducing the number 36
of people and therefore the impact, so actually in this case it might be better than it was. 37
Commissioner Reckdahl said one of the things that still bothers him is that they don’t have 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
any baseline to have some way of measuring the impact to both wildlife and to habitat, to 1
facilitate spot checks, so they really don’t have a good answer to Commission LaMere’s 2
question. Commissioner Brown commented that there were a lot of moving pieces at that 3
point, with the visitor limit, the fee, and other things going on, so it was a bit of an educated 4
guess. She was glad to see it was more on the educated side and less of a guess. 5
Chair Cribbs said it sounded like number one seemed to have agreement of the 6
Commission. With no objections raised, number one on the draft motion stood unchanged 7
by the Commission. 8
Chair Cribbs invited comments from the Ad Hoc on the second item - infrastructure 9
improvements. Commissioner Moss said they made a number of improvements already, 10
as mentioned by Mr. Anderson, such as signage. However, there are definitely more 11
improvements they should do to prevent longer-term damage. The only issue was the 12
budget, the fact that additional improvements can’t be made for another year. He strongly 13
believed that this needs to be prioritized and work begun as soon as possible to prevent 14
any more damage, but it will take a year. Vice Chair Greenfield said he was concerned and 15
troubled by the length of time the improvements are being pushed out. He said FY ’23 is 16
when the improvement plans would be developed and actual construction would not 17
commence until FY ’24, which starts on July 1, 2023. Chair Cribbs asked what the cost of 18
this work would be. Mr. Anderson said he didn’t have a good estimate, but in the capital 19
discussion they put a best guess on those numbers. 20
Chair Cribbs asked if the Commission would want to add something to the motion 21
indicating the Commission’s concern about pushing off the improvements. Vice Chair 22
Greenfield thought if they wanted to pursue it further it could be discussed during the CIP 23
item. Mr. Anderson added that in addition to the funding challenge, it’s also a staff capacity 24
issue, and even if they had funding now to implement the plan and make the construction 25
happen it’s sometimes more challenging because of staff resources than it is funding. He 26
felt their proposal was realistic and that they can make it happen. If they tried to expedite 27
it any faster, he questioned whether it would really happen. 28
Commissioner Moss remarked that if an infrastructure improvement is essential for safety 29
or for mitigating damage, a change can be made to pull something up into regular 30
maintenance in the case of an emergency. Commissioner Brown commented that the 31
smaller items, such as the signs and the caution tape, while they may not be permanent 32
fixes, she encouraged staff to continue looking for such opportunities, because they have 33
been successful in what they have seen so far. 34
Chair Cribbs thought there was consensus regarding the capital budget priorities, with 35
some concern about the timeframe on the part of the Commission and staff. Commissioner 36
Reckdahl was somewhat concerned that the term “prioritize” seemed somewhat vague. 37
Mr. Anderson said CSD is already moving this as a proposed budget for the nearest 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
possible term, which is FY 2023, so he felt the proposal was in effect taking an action on 1
this already in terms of its proposal and it would be strengthened by having the PRCs 2
agreement and encouragement for it to happen as soon as possible. 3
The Commission moved on to the third item in the motion, pertaining to the fees. 4
Commissioner Moss said the big thing with this was avoiding conflicts at the kiosk and a 5
smooth flow into and out of the Park. He said their efforts were to try to do that in a number 6
of different areas. Vice Chair Greenfield added that while item three is not a change action, 7
the Ad Hoc felt it was appropriate to specifically call out things that they like as they are 8
and to note it specifically in the motion that goes to City Council so that there is no lack 9
of clarity. Chair Cribbs agreed with this, remembering that when they were thinking about 10
reporting back to Council, they wanted to reserve the ability to look at whether the fees 11
should be lowered or removed. She asked if there was any thought of another review of 12
fees in the future. Vice Chair Greenfield said it is not something that was specifically 13
brought up in the Ad Hoc. He felt it was a best practice and something that the Commission 14
could review on a periodic basis. Commissioner Moss said they did note that there are a 15
number of ways that people can get in and that the number of people didn’t drop off 16
precipitously because he cost was too great or that they didn’t have other options, so they 17
felt it was working. 18
Hearing no further comments on item number three, Chair Cribbs asked if there was 19
agreement to support the item as is. Hearing no further comments, she moved to item four 20
on the draft motion. 21
Commissioner Moss said this item described additional things the Ad Hoc wanted to do 22
to simplify the entrance process. He felt they dealt with the stickiest issues, especially ones 23
that had been brought up by the City Council. Commissioner Reckdahl commented that 24
they are all things that will help the flow and also help the weekday process, so he 25
supported all of them. Vice Chair Greenfield said the major factor that has not yet come 26
into play which will impact this is the weekday fee collection. It has not been instituted 27
yet, so they do not yet have feedback on it. In some ways he said they were fortunate as 28
they have outlined the existing free entry policy to select groups that would make 29
enforcement of weekday fees impossible for staff. Commissioner Brown was interested in 30
hearing a report in the future from either from the Ad Hoc or in a department report on 31
how that change works out in the future, especially for the weekdays. Commissioner Moss 32
noted that the change to the weekday fees is not until around March, so there would be a 33
report back somewhere around June. Vice Chair Greenfield said in the likely event that 34
they choose to form a Foothills Nature Preserve Ad Hoc next year they will have to come 35
up with a specific goal and area of direction for it, and monitoring the weekend entry fee 36
collection would be an obvious one to include. 37
Moving on to item five, pertaining to the reservation system, Commissioner Moss 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
commented that the big driver of this was closure on weekends at the very beginning. 1
Because that has not happened since Easter, all through the Memorial Day weekend, and 2
July 4th weekend, they felt it was not appropriate to go to this level of complexity at this 3
time. Chair Cribbs asked if there was any research done on other parks that do have a 4
reservation system. Mr. Anderson said they researched with other agencies and had 5
extensive dialog with one particular park in Santa Clara Country who had recently 6
implemented a reservation system, primarily for the same reasons – the spike in visitation 7
due to COVID. They had shared a little about how it was working. As their problem 8
seemed to abate, the less they continued those conversations, so he did not have anything 9
new in this regard. Vice Chair Greenfield said they felt there is limited benefit to pursuing 10
a reservation system and lots of potential problems with it in terms of how to set up a 11
ticketed time for entry and exit. They did not feel it was practical or realistic for the 12
Preserve, given the nature of the visitor experience and also the staffing available for 13
enforcement. 14
With no further comments on item five, Chair Cribbs moved on to the next item – the dog 15
policy. Commissioner Moss said this was precipitated by an article in The Palo Alto 16
Weekly by a reporter who brought their dog to Foothills camping in the middle of the week 17
and decided to take a jog with the dog throughout the park after dark, after park closure. 18
This prompted them to think it was not appropriate because the trails are really for wildlife 19
after the park closes. There were no questions or comments on this item from the 20
Commissioners. 21
Chair Cribbs invited comments on item seven, regarding wildfire safety. Commissioner 22
Moss said some things have already been done. He said they did not feel confident in their 23
expertise to be able to make significant recommendations above and beyond those things, 24
without the help of the experts. They have heard from several experts that it “seems to be 25
okay,” but they felt totally inadequate in being able to make additional recommendations. 26
Vice Chair Greenfield said they identified concerns, and City Council is already working 27
with Fire Department staff and expect a recommendation, so the Ad Hoc also felt that if 28
they made a recommendation that was potentially different from the Fire Department’s 29
then it would not be providing straightforward guidance, so they deferred to the expertise 30
of the Fire Department. Mr. Anderson concurred with that and the concern that they might 31
get ahead of the experts on this item. He felt more comfortable with the Fire Department 32
providing the specific details that the Council may want, beyond what they already have. 33
Commissioner Moss said he felt that their role as a Commission was really to ask, do we 34
want campfires at all? And what would the camping experience be like without campfires 35
at all? Likewise for barbecues. If campfires and barbecues were disallowed anywhere in 36
the park, ever, would it be a good thing? His guess was that there were people in the city 37
who would absolutely agree with this. The Ad Hoc did not want to go that far, but he asked 38
if the rest of the Commission wanted to go that far. Commission LaMere understood not 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
wanting to get ahead of the experts, but he had great concern for fire safety and looking at 1
the area as a preserve he was not sure of the necessity of barbecues and campfires, 2
especially there. Commissioner Moss was willing to entertain campfires separate from 3
barbecues if someone had a feeling about campfires versus barbecues. Commissioner 4
Reckdahl’s first instinct was in agreement with Commission LaMere’s concern and 5
whether they really want to be taking those chances. He said the Fire Department wasn’t 6
concerned about those chances, and he wondered if they were being callous or if they have 7
better information. He suspected that they are best off recommending that the Fire 8
Department address this. Vice Chair Greenfield added that doesn’t mean it isn’t an area 9
that they can comment on in the future if the Resolution and recommendation from the 10
Fire Department to City Council is not something that the Commission is comfortable with 11
in the near-term or mid-term. 12
Commissioner Moss said there are rules for campers already in place. No bonfires, for 13
instance and what Mr. Anderson mentioned earlier about leaving coals in the barbecues 14
unattended. Those rules already exist, so this is above and beyond those rules, and he 15
thought that was why the Fire Department has said in the past that it is not as big a risk as 16
they might think. Commissioner Reckdahl said the Ad Hoc had a big discussion about 17
using the word “defer” in regard to deferring to the Fire Department’s expertise. They took 18
it out because they didn’t want to make it sound too passive. They wanted to push the Fire 19
Department to make a recommendation. They didn’t want to just sit on the sidelines, but 20
did want them to take action and address their concerns. 21
Chair Cribbs asked if they wanted to say, “make a recommendation within a certain 22
timeframe.” The Commission would then review it again. She liked the fact that they could 23
learn from the Fire Department but then make their own recommendation. She said she is 24
also concerned with the fire danger. Vice Chair Greenfield said that sounds appealing; 25
however, he felt it was not their place to direct the Fire Department. Chair Cribbs denied 26
wanting to direct the Fire Department. Vice Chair Greenfield wondered how to specify a 27
timeframe without the Commission directing them. Commissioner Moss suggested a 28
request that the Fire Department recommend actions before the fire season starts in April 29
or May. Chair Cribbs liked this idea and invited others’ comments. Vice Chair Greenfield 30
felt it was too much “directing.” He felt it was stepping out of their lane in this case and 31
that City Council had already requested an update from the Fire Department on this. Mr. 32
Anderson concurred. City Council has directed staff to come back on this. A City 33
Manager’s staff report has been generated; they just have not gotten the date. He felt 34
confident that this will go to Council in the near term, and he was less comfortable going 35
beyond requesting that the Fire Department provide the recommended action. Chair Cribbs 36
said that their role then was to discuss the recommendations, decide if they all agree with 37
them and make a motion to go on to the Council or not. 38
Mr. Anderson said one little piece is the Gate D discussion. The Ad Hoc did not come to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
agreement, and he felt it would be a good one for them to dive into and see if the 1
Commission can come up with a recommendation. Vice Chair Greenfield agreed it was an 2
item that is not straightforward and that should be discussed as a full Commission. Chair 3
Cribbs asked for discussion on Gate D. Mr. Anderson pulled up pages 8 and 9 of the staff 4
report listing the pros and cons on this subject. Vice Chair Greenfield felt it was important 5
to indicate that the Commission has reviewed this and made a formal comment on it. 6
Commissioner Moss stated he definitely believes in the benefits listed. The connection 7
between open space preserves is something he has wanted to do for his entire term on the 8
Commission. Increased recreational opportunities and also the safe route up to the Park is 9
something that is definitely worthwhile. He said the big problem is finding ways to 10
mitigate the potential impacts of opening the gate. He said they can add to this, which 11
would allow more people to go there and go faster. He said he has always deferred to 12
staff, and the fact that impacts to already-limited staff resources to monitor and enforce 13
issues especially involving illegal use of bikes on trails, and the bikes going the wrong 14
way is a real concern for staff. He debated wanting to go against staff in expecting them 15
to deal with it or not because of his firm belief in increasing those connections and the 16
other benefits. He said this has essentially been the entire discussion the Ad Hoc has had 17
since September when they met with PABAC. Are the benefits enough to overcome these 18
potential impacts? He said this is the question for the Commission. 19
Commissioner Reckdahl said he thought overall they should be opening Gate D. He 20
appreciated that there are risks with this, but his reason for supporting it was that the upside 21
is more compelling than the downside. In particular, he felt the current rules were 22
penalizing people who follow the rules. The people who don’t follow the rules are already 23
going through the gate and are already in Foothills Preserve, so he felt they are not 24
penalizing the right people. He said, looking at the advantages, they are all legitimate. The 25
connecting of the two open space preserves is a high priority. They are also getting people 26
off Page Mill. He said there are potential downsides, but he didn’t think there was any hard 27
data saying that those bad things are going to happen. They are just worried that they are 28
going to happen. He did not want to make work for staff, and said he appreciates how hard 29
Mr. Anderson and his staff do work and that they are stretched very thin. He did not want 30
to have damage to the Preserve. He felt that it most likely will not be a big deal and that 31
they are penalizing people who should not be penalized right now. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield said the Ad Hoc was fairly unanimous in their feeling that 33
increasing the connections and adding the safe route are absolute positives that they 34
support and are reasonable and important changes to make for the bicycling community. 35
With that said, he suggested that, on balance for him, he felt like the timing was just not 36
right to pursue this, given that they are already outlining a range of infrastructure 37
improvements that they want to make to the Preserve which will be pushed out into the 38
next two fiscal years to plan and then do the construction of the improvements. He said 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
there will be infrastructure improvements required for this as well. He said he looks at 1
Gate D and sees that someone has come up on a bike from Arastradero Preserve and at 2
that point there is a steep road that goes up to Vista Point and back down to the Interpretive 3
Center. At the same point there is also a dirt trail that goes laterally in either direction. He 4
said it feels like it will take some time and some staff resources if they were to open this 5
up to get people to do the right thing. He did not feel it was realistic to expect that opening 6
up the gate would not increase bicycle traffic on the dirt trails. As mentioned earlier, there 7
is an expectation of bicyclists that bikes are permitted on fire roads, if not on trails, and in 8
Foothills Nature Preserve bikes are not permitted on the fire roads and that is not 9
something that is being considered. This will make for further confusion and education 10
needed. 11
Vice Chair Greenfield said ultimately there is no enforcement available to Foothills Nature 12
Preserve right now, so he felt the overwhelming impact on staff in terms of the resources 13
that would be needed to change the infrastructure, to educate and guide and monitor the 14
behavior, and the fact that there is no enforcement available, no extra resource pool. He 15
said in the last year-and-a-half there has been a much larger portion of open space 16
resources dedicated to Foothills Nature Preserve at the expense of other open space 17
preserves because of the changes happening at Foothills. This is just exacerbating the 18
situation before staff has had an opportunity to catch their breath and catch up and get 19
things back under control. He thought once they were able to get the other infrastructure 20
improvements in place it would be appropriate to have another discussion on. However, 21
he felt the timing was not right presently. 22
Commission LaMere was in favor of connections and access. Commissioner Brown 23
agreed with the comments regarding access and opportunities; however, she felt they 24
should take the recommendations of Parks and Recreation and Community Services staff 25
and Ranger on what they feel is best and what is feasible. She thought they should listen 26
to their recommendations based on the resources currently available, although she did have 27
some thoughts to consider, moving forward, to potentially identify opportunities, and if 28
there were staff available in the future, to do targeted enforcement during a busy bike 29
season rather than year round. She thought once good practices were in place people 30
returning would get into the same habits and spread the word. She suggested that another 31
opportunity is to offer individual days or guided rides on the path to allow the opportunity 32
so that people could sign up, get the hang of it and know what to do before they end up 33
doing any sort of next steps. 34
Chair Cribbs affirmed these ideas and wanted to make sure they don’t lose sight of them. 35
Commissioner Moss agree they were excellent suggestions and also wanted to suggest that 36
it is really the responsibility of the City Council, and perhaps the PRC should make a 37
recommendation that if there were more resources, and if they could put some of the 38
infrastructure changes in sooner, to try to put one-way signs and split rail fences in to keep 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
bikes out of some trails, then it’s the Council’s responsibility to help them get there. They 1
would like to get there at some point, but there are some real issues with timing and 2
resources. They’ve talked with PABAC about self-policing so that the staff doesn’t have 3
to do it, so on a busy Saturday or Sunday morning there could be people to help monitor. 4
There was not much desire on their part to do that, and that is why Commissioner Brown’s 5
suggestion about guided rides and individual days where there could be somebody there 6
to monitor it was an excellent suggestion. 7
Vice Chair Greenfield added, on the subject of eBikes, that they are a double-edged sword. 8
Though it is great that they will provide a broader swath of the population access where 9
they wouldn’t normally have it, they will also increase ridership and potentially raise 10
environmental concerns. He felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to be 11
considering an overall eBike policy for the City. It would be a complicated undertaking 12
but might be something else that would be appropriate to consider before opening Gate D 13
as well. 14
Chair Cribbs invited Mr. Anderson to share his thoughts on the motion. Mr. Anderson 15
thanked the Commissioners for their thoughts and comments. He said he does have 16
concerns, in talking to the Rangers who would be the ones ultimately enforcing issues or 17
responding to complaints if there were some. He referenced a prior Commissioner 18
comment that they have no assurances that there would be problems. He thought this was 19
true. He said he did not claim to know for sure there that would be issues. His hunch was 20
that this would most certainly bring more bikes into Foothills Nature Preserve and 21
typically when there is more of anything there is a small percentage that causes some sort 22
of problem. He thought there would be a small percentage of bikes that are new to the 23
Preserve that would end up going off-trail and exacerbating that issue that they already 24
struggle with enforcing. 25
Mr. Anderson said he also worried that when making a change like this they would want 26
it to be monitored and to get data to help them know how it’s working. He said they do 27
not have staff to monitor this and see how it’s working, nor do they have the additional 28
enforcement. He said it is possible that there wouldn’t be an issue, but he was a little 29
worried about it. He was not totally convinced that the infrastructure improvements would 30
make it less likely for this increase in bikes going off-trail. He didn’t see it making a 31
difference, although it would make it safer for pedestrians so they would have a place to 32
get off the road that they would otherwise be sharing with bikes and cars. He said he could 33
definitely see both sides of the argument. There are many pros to opening it up and it 34
would make some things a little easier because the Rangers are always dealing with people 35
complaining. He just thought with this change there would likely be new problems. 36
Chair Cribbs commented that after listening to both sides, that certainly they all want to 37
increase the connections between Open Space preserves and have more recreational 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
opportunities, but when they started out the staff report they noted that November 20th of 1
last year was when they opened Foothill Park, and it has only been a year and a month. 2
During that time, the staff has addressed a lot of issues that have come up because they 3
did open up the Park to everybody, which was the right thing to do from her perspective. 4
She said she would like to keep Gate D closed for now, for at least a couple of years, so 5
that they have some time to rest, to see what the impacts are of the people who are currently 6
in the Park, see the other things that are going to happen in a year or two, see how things 7
go when COVID goes away, and just give themselves a little bit more time. She felt they 8
did not have to rush into it, although she recognized that there is pressure to do so. She 9
supported keeping Gate D closed at this point She didn’t have an opinion about setting a 10
timeline to review it again. If they did keep it closed she wondered if they would get 11
enough information in two or three years, or what an appropriate time would be. She added 12
that they do not have to put a time in this. 13
Commissioner Moss said he liked Commissioner Brown’s suggestion of maybe once a 14
month or once a quarter having an open house, where you can have group rides that come 15
one Saturday a month, or one Saturday morning a month, sometime in the next year or 16
two. Chair Cribbs thought it was a good idea but would not want to start anything like that 17
for at least two years, preferring to keep it closed until they all have a bit of a rest, 18
acknowledging the fact that they are in favor of connecting things. She proposed looking 19
at the topics discussed in the motion and adding their decision regarding Gate D. 20
Vice Chair Greenfield offered a starting point, assuming there was a majority not 21
supporting the opening of Gate D to bicycle access. He suggested verbiage such as 22
“maintain the current policy prohibiting through access at Gate D.” Commissioner Moss 23
advocated using wording to stress that the City Council has the ability to add funding for 24
more staff. Vice Chair Greenfield felt there should be a statement that the Commission 25
supports the goal of opening the gate. 26
The Commissioners worked together on verbiage for item number 8, regarding Gate D, 27
resulting in the following: 28
8. Opening Gate D to bicycle access would result in benefits including increased 29
connections between open space preserves and safe routes for bicycle access. 30
The Commission recommends monitoring and evaluating potential policy 31
changes in conjunction with available staff resources, but recommends 32
maintaining the current policy prohibiting bicycle access at Gate D at this time. 33
Vice Chair Greenfield asked Commissioner Reckdahl what he thought of the resulting 34
text. Commissioner Reckdahl expressed that he understood and appreciated what the 35
Commission was trying to do, but to him the issue was not a slam dunk. It was more like 36
a 70/30, with 30 percent of him understanding what they’re doing, but the 70 percent feels 37
like it’s not a big deal to open the gate. He said his crystal ball – which is not always 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
accurate – says that there won’t be problems. Therefore, he was not going to support the 1
proposed text, although he feels it is reasonable. 2
Vice Chair Greenfield wondered if recommendation 8 should be moved to be above the 3
dog policy recommendation, to be consistent with the discussion of items within the staff 4
report. Mr. Anderson agreed that this would be a good idea. Further discussion ensued 5
regarding wording and position of item number 8, as well as other verbiage changes within 6
the motion for clarity and consistency with the staff report. 7
Chair Cribbs asked for a motion to approve the recommendation. Vice Chair Greenfield 8
recommended having a split motion, first voting on items 1 through 8, not including item 9
6, and then having a separate vote on item 6. 10
MOTION 11
Motion to approve the Recommendation as stated to City Council was moved by Vice 12
Chair Greenfield. Seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl, the motion passed, 6-0, by roll 13
call vote. 14
MOTION 15
Motion to approve Item 6 as stated to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Brown, 16
the motion passed, 4-1-1 by roll call vote. 17
Commissioner Reckdahl asked a follow-up question regarding eBikes, whether it is 18
something the Parks and Recreation Commission has to get permission to address from 19
the Council, or if they can take action to evaluate eBike usage in parks on their own. Mr. 20
Anderson thought it would need to be added to the work plan, by going to Policy and 21
Services, or it could be discussed at their retreat. Vice Chair Greenfield felt it was a retreat 22
item, to propose it as part of their new work plan. 23
5. Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy 24
Mr. Anderson said the Ad Hoc and staff support a PRC recommendation that City Council 25
adopt the draft policy listed in attachment A of the staff report. The Foothills Ad Hoc 26
Committee reviewed the existing photography and film policy as part of their review of 27
multiple policies relating to Foothills Nature Preserve. Because the policy applies to all 28
open space parks and preserves, this policy was separated as its own agenda item. 29
Mr. Anderson said one of the goals in drafting this policy was to make it clear when a 30
permit was required and clarify what type of activities may be allowed. The current 31
practice is for a permit applicant to discuss the particulars of their photograph or film event 32
with an Open Space or Parks Manager. The Ad Hoc and staff believe the draft policy 33
presented will help make things more transparent and consistent. The policy was broken 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
into three areas – personal photography and film, which does not require a permit; low 1
impact photography and film, which does require a permit; and high impact photography 2
and film, which is not allowed at all. 3
Mr. Anderson highlighted the categories addressed in the policy as stated in the staff 4
report. The personal photography and film category would not require a permit, provided 5
the following: it was anon-commercial use; no impact on vegetation, habitat, wildlife or 6
visitor use; maximum duration of one hour; 24 or fewer people; duration of one hour or 7
less; and no exclusive use of parks or preserves, for example, blocking trails, parking 8
spaces, roads, pathways, et cetera; and in compliance with all municipal codes and park 9
regulations. Examples of personal photography and film include photography that does 10
not require additional permits. For example, if they needed a generator there would be a 11
separate permit for that. Other uses not requiring a permit include small professional group 12
shoots with limited subjects and crew, such as an engagement or immediate family 13
photography session, with no impact to the preserve vegetation, habitat or wildlife. 14
For low impact photography and film, a permit would be required. This is generally 15
associated with smaller shoots, also with no impact on the habitat, wildlife, visitor use. 16
Maximum duration of two hours. This would not be permitted on weekends and holidays. 17
Permits would be required if it is a commercial shoot as defined in Palo Alto Open Space 18
and Parks Regulation R1-21A. Duration would be up to two hours, with multiple camera 19
shoot and additional lighting, sound or other equipment. 20
High impact photography will not be allowed. These are generally associated with medium 21
or large commercial shoots, with significant impact to City-owned property or right-of-22
way, involving traffic control and street closures and shoots with multiple cameras, 23
photographers, assistants and talent. 24
Mr. Anderson went over the conditions included in the draft policy as listed in the staff 25
report, aimed at minimizing the impact to open space and parks and to the visitor 26
experience. For example, utmost care will be exercised to ensure that wildlife, habitat and 27
natural/historic/cultural resources are not disturbed or impacted. Photography and film of 28
wildlife will be permitted only when wildlife will not be approached within 100 feet, fed, 29
harmed or otherwise disturbed from their natural behavior. Drones are not allowed. 30
Exclusive use of any significant area is not permitted. Permit fees for parks and open space 31
may range from $324 to $2,163. This is the same range as the special event permits. 32
Mr. Anderson said in general the Ad Hoc believed the open space and parks are not 33
appropriate locations for commercial photography and film due to its impact on vegetation, 34
habitat, wildlife and visitor experience. Additionally, limited staff resources cannot 35
provide proper oversight for this type of activity. This could be re-evaluated in the future 36
if appropriate staff resources were available. The recommendation would go to City 37
Council in February. Mr. Anderson concluded by thanking the Ad Hoc committee for their 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
work on these two items, thinking through the situation and coming up with good policy. 1
The draft policy was included as Attachment A of the staff report. 2
Chair Cribbs invited public comment on this item. Hearing none, she invited comment 3
from the Ad Hoc Committee members. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield felt Mr. Anderson’s summary statement spoke for itself in that their 5
general belief is the open space and parks are not generally appropriate for commercial 6
shoots at the expense of the environment and visitor experience, and additionally, staff 7
resources are limited. This was the general basis for all of the policy considerations they 8
developed. 9
Commission LaMere appreciated the detailed work and time put in on this comprehensive 10
policy. Commissioner Brown felt it was a great balance of flexibility, protection of the 11
environment and adherence and consistency with other City policies. 12
Chair Cribbs also felt the policy was very well done. She was curious whether Mr. 13
Anderson has had requests from commercial entities to do large-scale filming in the park. 14
Mr. Anderson said they have. Recently, they had a request from an automobile company 15
to do a commercial shoot for multiple hours using almost all of the preserve. 16
Mr. Anderson shared the text of the recommendation to City Council for discussion by the 17
Commissioners. Minor changes in verbiage were decided upon, particularly with regard 18
to item 13. 19
MOTION 20
Motion to adopt the Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy in its 21
final form was moved by Commissioner Moss. Seconded by Commissioner Reckdahl, the 22
motion passed, 6-0, by roll call vote. 23
Chair Cribbs affirmed the work of the staff and Ad Hoc Committee on this item. 24
6. Review of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan 25
Chair Cribbs thanked Mr. Lam Do for his work on this item and said she was very happy 26
to have the opportunity to see this item a little bit earlier. 27
Mr. Do provided a brief presentation to supplement the staff report, which encompasses 28
primarily fiscal year 2023, although the Capital Improvement Plan as outlined in the report 29
is actually a five-year plan. The plan will be implemented in July of 2022. 30
Mr. Do recapped what a capital improvement plan is, explaining that the projects in 31
included have to do with the City’s infrastructure. In particular infrastructure that impacts 32
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
the Community Services Department. Capital Improvement projects essentially need to 1
either extend the life of an existing asset or provide a new functional use for an existing 2
asset. Mr. Do explained a few criteria which distinguish a capital improvement project 3
versus an operating expenditure. The expenditure needs to provide a useful life of at least 4
five years with a minimum threshold of typically $50,000 or more. In the Community 5
Services Department it can range from several hundred thousand dollars, or to a golf 6
course renovation which is in the millions of dollars. 7
Capital improvements work on a rolling five-year plan, looking forward at fiscal years 8
2023 through 2027, with fiscal year 2023 starting in July of 2022. Because there are many 9
possibilities for capital improvement projects, staff applies several factors of criteria to 10
prioritize them, as listed in the staff report. For example, they look at City Council 11
priorities, health and safety implications, or things that are impacted by changes in code 12
or legal requirements. They also consider funding availability and balance needs between 13
daily operational needs and improving efficiency. They consider Parks and Recreation 14
Commission priorities and/or needs the community has expressed through the 15
Commission as well. For example, the site amenities replacement at Heritage Park. Mr. 16
Do explained that this is a proposal from the Adopted Capital Proposal book, fiscal year 17
2022. For all capital projects that are proposed, several factors are reviewed. One, 18
identifying a fund source. In this case the source is the Capital Improvement Fund which 19
for Community Services is funded primarily by the General Fund. Other factors reviewed 20
include its category, location, who will be managing it, a proposed fiscal year and a project 21
number. A description of the justification for the project is provided as well as whether the 22
infrastructure needs to be repaired or replaced. They also consider what they anticipate 23
staff capacity will be. In the past they have had to bump some projects to into the future, 24
because between the Community Services Department and Public Works Department they 25
have a backlog of projects. This involves consideration of the current lifespan and how 26
much longer they can use the existing infrastructure. 27
Mr. Do explained that the Heritage Park project is looking at fiscal year 2025. He shared 28
the Funding Sources Schedule and the Expenditure Schedule which do not always match. 29
On the expenditure side they look at construction and design costs and also a five-year 30
capital improvement project total. In this case because this project is planned for one fiscal 31
year it is one and the same, but looking at a larger project such as Rinconada Park that is 32
being done in phases, there may be different amounts in year one, three and five. That will 33
all roll up to a five-year CIP total, so depending on the type of project and size it may be 34
funded in one or multiple years. 35
Mr. Do pointed out that while looking at the five-year rolling plan, when Council reviews 36
and approves budgets they approve for the upcoming fiscal year only – a one-year budget 37
and then a five-year plan. As years approach they look at the budget and approve one year 38
at a time. The process begins about this time of year with Council approval in June, so the 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 31
timeline is around November when staff starts to assess needs and proposals and discuss 1
these with Ad Hoc committee to help prioritize projects. Towards the end of December 2
and in January staff submits their proposal for the next five years, which is Attachment A 3
of the staff report, with a focus on what they really want to get funded for the next fiscal 4
year. They submit this to the Office of Management and Budget and they review it during 5
February and March, not just Community Services but citywide, perhaps shuffling and re-6
prioritizing, and they may make recommendations. They are also looking at the financial 7
status of the City, regarding what can be considered for funding and what may need to be 8
deferred. Ultimately, the Office of Management and Budget makes a recommendation 9
around April to the City Manager’s Office, who presents to the City Council a proposed 10
Capital Improvement Plan. This is about the same time the City Manager also proposes an 11
operating budget as well. 12
There is review by the Planning and Transportation Commission sometime in April or 13
occasionally in May, as the timeline can slide a little bit. The purpose of the Planning and 14
Transportation Commission is to ensure that the proposed projects remain within the 15
City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. Soon after that, the City Council asks the Finance 16
Committee to review the Capital Plan and also hold budget hearings. From there, the 17
Finance Committee makes recommendations which ultimately lead to Council adoption 18
of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. This occurs sometime in June. 19
Mr. Do pointed out they are within the five-year rolling window with a focus on what is 20
being proposed for the next fiscal year. After that he will discuss what is not on the CIP 21
plan that the Commission has considered and which he would perhaps like some input 22
from the Commission on as well. 23
Mr. Do shared that for the next fiscal year he and Mr. Anderson have spoken with the 24
Public Works Engineering Department to balance to what they think they have staff 25
capacity to work on between the two departments. They are looking at proposing design 26
of the next phase of Rinconada improvements, Phase 2. Phase 1 is currently underway and 27
should be complete by the end of the fiscal year, so they are looking at designing Phase 2 28
for the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2024, constructing Phase 2 of Rinconada Park. 29
In the next fiscal year they would also like to do repairs to Sunfish Island in Foothills 30
Nature Preserve. This is in reference to a pedestrian bridge to access the island which is in 31
need of repair. They are funded every other year for dog park improvements, via either an 32
installation or renovation. They hope to be able to achieve that in the next fiscal year as 33
well. They also have two design items to propose regarding Foothills Nature Preserve. 34
One, as discussed earlier, the opening of Foothills Nature Preserve to the general public 35
prompted some needs for improved infrastructure for logistics and for public safety, which 36
they would like to put into design. They also would like to come up with design plans for 37
replacing the three restrooms in the Preserve. Lastly, every year they have ongoing CIPs 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 32
to continue to work on. These are infrastructure annual needs, including such things as 1
trail maintenance, maintaining Boronda Lake and funding for court repairs or 2
replacements on tennis courts, pickleball and basketball courts. There is also funding for 3
emergency repairs as the need arises, whether for weather or vandalism-related damage. 4
Attachment A of the staff report includes other items planned to be proposed for fiscal 5
years 2024 through 2027, as part of the rolling five-year plan. 6
Mr. Do continued, there are also needs that could potentially be a CIP, where they have 7
identified them, but they either haven’t been fully developed yet, or they are still in initial 8
discussions or exploration stage. They are identified but not placed in the rolling five-year 9
window yet. Some of these are also of interest to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 10
In the past they have discussed several items and improvements to Rinconada Pool, 11
involving replacement of starting blocks. The current pool length is not ideal for 12
competition, so they would like to consider extending the length of the pool and also add 13
timing touch pads. He said the Commission is aware of discussions they have had with 14
initial stakeholders regarding the skatepark. A project they have struggled to find funding 15
for over the years is The Baylands Athletic Center and developing plans for the 10.5 acres. 16
He said last month, the Commission discussed a gymnasium. Also, down the line they will 17
need to do work at Eleanor Pardee Park, due to age. 18
Regarding Open Space, infrastructure is deteriorating after years of repairs but a large 19
overhaul is needed at the sailing dock station at the Bayland Nature Preserve. Other areas 20
in Open Space that have needs include Buckeye Creek Improvements, regarding major 21
needs for addressing the creek flow and channels. 22
The former ITT site adjacent to the Renzel Wetlands has hydrology needs. The 7.7 acres, 23
they have discussed having passive use there. In Foothills Nature Preserve there are needs 24
over the years that continue to age, including the carport, the garage and exhibits in the 25
Interpretive Center that don’t fit the current education needs. 26
Outside of Parks and Open Space there are also needs for the Lucie Stern Center signage 27
for the Community Center, the JMZ and Rinconada Park. Each have had improvements 28
over the years and they would eventually like to get a cohesive area using signage there. 29
Mr. Do said that these are items that have been discussed but are not included on the CIP 30
plan yet, but he said perhaps in the future they can place them somewhere. Aside from 31
fiscal year 2023, he said there are items that are in Attachment A for fiscal years 2024 32
through 2027, which are tentative and can be moved or shifted. 33
Chair Cribbs invited public comments on this item. Hearing none, she invited comments 34
from the CIP Ad Hoc Committee. 35
Commissioner Moss commented that the reason they are starting now is that there may be 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 33
opportunities now for the Fundraising Ad Hoc to get some items not on the CIP moved 1
up. The problem is that each one requires staffing time. So while they would like to throw 2
a lot of money at these projects, the staff to manage and maintain it has to be considered 3
as well. 4
Commission Brown thanked staff for the preparing the information. She said it is 5
especially helpful to look at the planning process as it relates to maintenance. A number 6
of conversations were helpful, with one or two items pointed out that were slated to be 7
addressed in a coming year but ended up being well-maintained, so they could be pushed 8
back. So you actually see the dollars coming back to be able to address newer priorities 9
that come up. She described that the flip side of that is that very expensive things come up 10
that were not necessarily anticipated. She said it is complicated and hard to plan out in 11
advance, dealing with competing priorities. She thanked staff for staying on top of this and 12
presenting this in such a succinct fashion. 13
Commission LaMere echoed thanks to staff for their time preparing this in such detail. He 14
appreciated the prioritization and timelines, which are very helpful, and the transparency 15
is also very important. He said it is remarkable to see how many projects there are. He 16
agreed that staff time is limited. 17
Chair Cribbs invited comments or questions from the Commission. 18
Vice Chair Greenfield appreciated the opportunity to get visibility and insight early in the 19
process. He asked what exactly the nature is of the input staff is looking for from the 20
Commission and what they are aiming for at this meeting. He said he is a little confused 21
at what he saw in terms of projects being proposed by the Department for fiscal year 2023 22
at the top of page 4 of the staff report, and what they are looking at in Attachment A, and 23
whether these items are from the current CIP from last year. Mr. Do responded that, first, 24
they are seeking several things from the Commission. He asked for feedback on whether 25
they are heading in the right direction in what they are proposing, and also, whether the 26
Commission sees things that perhaps staff has prioritized or de-prioritized that they think 27
need to be shuffled. He said Attachment A is essentially a re-shuffle of the prior rolling 28
five-year cycle, based on what they feel they have the capacity for, the funding for, or 29
based on what they feel the lifespans are of existing items. Sometimes they think they 30
don’t have enough funding for a certain project, so they bump the project down the line so 31
that they can consider other projects sooner. 32
Vice Chair Greenfield asked whether the Ad Hoc Committee has commented on that and 33
advised staff in that re-shuffle before it was done, or if they were shown the information 34
later. He wondered what the input from the Ad Hoc has been. Mr. Do replied this was 35
shared with the Ad Hoc; however, they were not given a lot of advance notice as it took a 36
while for CSD staff and Public Works Engineering staff to coordinate and figure out what 37
they thought their first pass would look like. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Do’s response 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 34
and added in regard to their request of the Parks and Recreation Commission, he also 1
wanted to hear the PRCs questions and feedback on what may or may not be clear, or what 2
may or may not be clear for transparency purposes to the rest of the community, so 3
everyone can hear what they are prioritizing and why. 4
Vice Chair Greenfield asked in regard to the restrooms for Cubberley Stadium, Ramos 5
Park and another park, if they are already budgeted in the current fiscal year 2022 and will 6
be rolled over, because he did not see them in the 2023 plan. Mr. Do said Cubberley was 7
previously funded and, due to several staffing capacity and engineering review and other 8
delays, they have had to roll those funds forward and skip fiscal year 2023 and look at 9
installing it in the future. The funding is rolling forward, but not for fiscal year 2023, but 10
for 2024 and beyond, based on staff capacity to manage the projects. They will likely be 11
managed by Public Works Engineering and not CSD staff, so CSD staff consulted with 12
them. They support projects that impact other departments as well, so they do have a 13
backlog of projects to work on. Vice Chair Greenfield said he has a big problem with this, 14
and wanted that noted. He felt it is very important to particularly move forward with the 15
restroom at Cubberley Stadium. He wanted to understand what the competing priorities 16
are that prevent it from moving forward until at least fiscal year 2024, when it was planned 17
to be done in either fiscal year 2020 or 2019. 18
Vice Chair Greenfield also commented that looking at the previously-planned fiscal year 19
2023 details he wondered if the planning for Buckeye Creek grade control structures would 20
be pushed back to another year. Mr. Do confirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Greenfield 21
wondered why it is being given lower priority than the infrastructure improvements 22
previously talked about and the restrooms. Mr. Do said the Buckeye Creek item is intended 23
to be a design solution, not funding for the solutions. The design is being pushed out to be 24
looked at in fiscal year 2024, he thought, as stated in Attachment A. Vice Chair Greenfield 25
said Attachment A indicates Buckeye Creek design planning is to be in fiscal year 2023, 26
yet it is not in the CIP proposal for 2023, so he asked where it ends up. He commented 27
that it would be helpful in seeing what the proposals are for 2023, and also what they are 28
proposing moving out of 2023. 29
Commissioner Moss said what they are seeing is that there are two organizations or more 30
involved, and when it says “design,” that is being done by a different organization than 31
actual implementation, so what they are seeing here is that there is only enough time in 32
2023 to do a little bit of design for something and that is separate and distinct from the 33
implementation of other things. So, his understanding of Mr. Do’s comment was that they 34
only have staff to do design for the Foothills Nature Preserve improvements and the 35
restrooms and no other staff availability to do design for anything else this year. Mr. Do 36
said that is correct. In fiscal year 2023 they also anticipate having some projects that they 37
will initiate in the fiscal year but unfortunately may not finish, so they will continue to 38
work on those in fiscal year 2023 in addition to the proposals shown. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 35
Vice Chair Greenfield asked if Buckeye Creek design is being pushed out to 2024, or later. 1
Mr. Do said it is being pushed out to fiscal year 2024. Vice Chair Greenfield said looking 2
at Attachment A, it says design plans in 2023 under Open Space areas for Sunfish Bridge 3
and for Buckeye Creek, and then in 2024 design for Buckeye Creek grade control 4
structures in Los Trancos trail bridge, but he didn’t see any of the construction included in 5
the CIP for subsequent years. Mr. Do replied that was correct and said that particular CIP, 6
although they have had to push it out, about two years ago it was clarified that the funding 7
for the CIP is for the design part, not to fund the implementation or construction of the 8
solutions. They will have to determine how to source the funds for it. 9
Vice Chair Greenfield remembered a few years ago when they were reviewing the 10
Buckeye Creek improvement plans and the structures that were approaching failure and 11
were in place for a few years down the road, and now that they are a few years down the 12
road he was concerned that there is nothing there. Mr. Do said that Community Services 13
in consultation with Public Works Engineering have assessed and addressed how long they 14
can perhaps delay this item. They are aware it is an item they need to get to and take action 15
on, but at present they feel the current infrastructure based on other assessment as is, could 16
probably wait a few more years, so as a result they have pushed out how to manage 17
holistically the design/funding aspect of it. He said it is correct that it was initially 18
identified four to five years ago and at that time they felt they had four to five years to take 19
action. However, they have taken another look at it, and feel they still have a few more 20
years. Vice Chair Greenfield expressed concern about the bridge at the Los Trancos Trail 21
across from the Interpretive Center that was planned for 2024, that the items are not even 22
in the five-year plan. 23
Commissioner Moss responded that the bridge is not part of the Buckeye Creek item. He 24
asked for Mr. Anderson’s confirmation that the repair is going to be done. Mr. Anderson 25
replied that it is uncertain exactly when. They will be having a bridge analyst look at it this 26
year to give them recommendations. This is independent of the capital process, being 27
maintenance. 28
Commissioner Reckdahl asked for clarification that the design is in the CIP but the 29
construction is not. He inquired as to why it would be designed now if it won’t be 30
constructed for several years. Mr. Do replied that it does not necessarily mean that it won’t 31
be planned or constructed. The design will help staff to get a better idea of what is truly 32
needed and perhaps a better cost estimate. At that point they will assess and make 33
proposals. Though it is not in the five-year, it doesn’t necessarily mean it would have to 34
wait another five years. They can slot or propose it any future time within the five-year 35
window. He described that the project could “cut in line” and bump other CIP projects if 36
there is more immediacy. 37
Commissioner Reckdahl stated in regard to Buckeye Creek, a few years ago they discussed 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 36
a fiber optic line that Utilities was concerned about and which was driving some of the 1
schedule. He asked if that is still an issue. Mr. Anderson explained that Utilities has not 2
been overly concerned about it; it is Open Space staff that have driven concern about 3
Buckeye Creek. In addition to the fiberoptics there are several utilities that run along the 4
banks of Buckeye Creek that are of concern if there was a significant washout and failure 5
of the structures. Utilities analyzed it and have not voiced excessive concern. They were 6
grateful for the analysis that was done and were supportive of doing the design work to 7
figure out exactly what should happen, but there has not been any call for action from the 8
Utilities Department saying it needs to be done by any specific time. From the Buckeye 9
hydrology study, the consultant advised that they have five or so years left in the grade 10
control structure system. Commissioner Reckdahl asked if that was being conservative, or 11
if things have changed. Mr. Anderson replied it was hard to say. He has to rely on what 12
Public Works engineers, who are the experts, to give him guidance on something like this. 13
They seem to feel there is some additional lifespan on it and can defer the design to the 14
proposed year. 15
Commissioner Reckdahl brought up the subject of donations, and said he felt the exhibits 16
in the various interpretive centers would be very attractive. More attractive than fixing a 17
carport, which they probably won’t get private funds for. He said at one time they hoped 18
to partner with JMZ and that they would do the exhibits for all of the interpretive centers. 19
He inquired whether this was lost in the JMZ remodel. Mr. Anderson responded that it has 20
fallen off to some degree. The focus for the JMZ staff has for many years now been all 21
about rebuilding the JMZ and wholly dedicated to that. He felt it might be a good time to 22
re-engage them. He thought they would be more likely to support the PRC in terms of 23
going out to bid for a re-design, as opposed to doing it themselves. Commissioner Moss 24
said most importantly is that it doesn’t involve staff. Mr. Anderson noted that it would still 25
involve staff to manage and do the design, but the JMZ staff has great expertise in that. 26
They might have capacity to help to some degree, but he didn’t believe they would be able 27
to design and build, themselves, new interpretive displays, nor have they ever proposed it 28
to him. 29
Chair Cribbs remarked with regard to Commissioner Reckdahl and the potential 30
partnership that was previously discussed with the JMZ, and wondered if the Foothills 31
stakeholder’s group could possibly do something more with the Environmental Volunteers 32
and Grassroots Ecology, for displays and exhibits. Mr. Anderson affirmed that guidance 33
from those groups would be tremendously helpful. In many ways, supplanting what would 34
be paid for some design work to do, in terms of ideas, but ultimately it still needs to be a 35
CIP, where the City funds it to make it happen. Chair Cribbs thought it would be a great 36
opportunity for partnership with the City and other outside groups and some specific 37
fundraising. 38
Commissioner Reckdahl referred to the list in the Appendix and noted that there are many 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 37
that mention irrigation. He said if that irrigation is leaking they should “cut the line” and 1
move it up. On the other hand, do they want to be adding irrigation if they will be cutting 2
back? For example, Foothills Nature Preserve in 2027 shows a huge irrigation amount. 3
He wondered about evaluating and possibly shrinking that to save money and also save 4
water by not irrigating as much at Foothills. Mr. Anderson says they have definitely 5
considered that. It is another project that has been on the books for a very long time. They 6
look at the age that a given piece of infrastructure was installed and their programmed 7
lifespans. They get put into a spreadsheet which tells them in 15 years they have to look 8
at a particular playground, for example. In 30 years from when that irrigation was put in, 9
it should be replaced. In reality, some irrigation systems or playground will need to be 10
replaced many years before the defined, schedule date, or sometimes many years after, 11
depending on the nature of how it was built and maintained. 12
In the case of the irrigation system for Foothills, he said they have done a number of repairs 13
to extend the life of the infrastructure. It is performing okay, and that is why they push it 14
out. Sometimes it stays on the list four or five years out, but that doesn’t mean it is in 15
desperate need, but is there because they think it can last that long. In regard to re-16
evaluating whether to irrigate at all for this recreational turf in the Nature Preserve. He 17
affirmed this is an essential question to be analyzing, and they are. There have been parts 18
of the turf that have been taken back and naturalized through their partnership with 19
Grassroots Ecology. 20
Commissioner Reckdahl asked whether they have a dependable way of checking on 21
whether components are leaking, or if things could quietly leak for many years. Mr. 22
Anderson indicated that in some areas they are not good at catching it, unfortunately. One 23
system they have tracks water flow, and the Utilities Department will notice excessive 24
flow from a certain meter, prompting them to check it. What he hoped for was to have 25
their four sprinkler repair people that have zones throughout the city, enormous zones, but 26
they check them every week, looking at irrigation areas, running them and searching for 27
problems. They are catching a lot, but once in a while they miss one until it gets reported 28
in some other manner. 29
Commissioner Moss commented in response to Commissioner Reckdahl’s question. If 30
they say they will do design in 2024 and they do not see even a phased implementation, 31
he thought they should, in 2023, put a TBD, which he felt Mr. Do was alluding to. If they 32
don’t know how big the project is, how many phases are needed, there ought to be a 33
placeholder in the CIP that says they will implement it eventually, but without information 34
on cost and phasing, et cetera. He inquired if they could put a TBD in with regard to 35
Buckeye Creek implementation, just to keep it on the list. Vice Chair Greenfield further 36
commented that if there is planning and design times on the CIP which are not followed 37
up by construction items, he questioned the transparency. He felt it would be a best practice 38
to include subsequent construction following a design. Otherwise, why are we making 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 38
design expenditures, at least for planning purposes. Relying on cutting in line to get 1
something done, he felt was problematic on many levels. 2
Mr. Do agreed that there are instances, such as the 10.5 acres, where it was funding for a 3
plan on development of the 10.5 acres, and eventually they determined that with the state 4
of the budget right now it does not make sense to proceed with a plan to develop it if there 5
is no possibility of funding construction and development of it. Thus, they did remove any 6
funding for planning of the 10.5 acres. He understood Vice Chair Greenfield’s point with 7
regard to Buckeye Creek and explained that it is slightly different. The reason why they 8
may still want to consider having a plan for it in place is because they don’t know the exact 9
dollar figure and planning and design and consultation that gets them a dollar figure. He 10
said in the past they have received different direction on how to go about finding funding 11
sources for it, whether it be general fund, grant funding or other sources. 12
Chair Cribbs asked about the family restroom/changing room at Rinconada, whether it was 13
still on a list, as it got pulled out a couple years ago. She was hopeful they were going to 14
be able to take care of that somehow. Mr. Do said it is, in fact, in place, not called out 15
specifically by itself, but they have discussed it with Public Works Engineering, and it will 16
be included in Phase 2 design of Rinconada Park as a whole. Chair Cribbs was sure the 17
families will appreciate this. She asked if there is a way the Cubberley restrooms could 18
“jump the line” in priority. Mr. Do said Mr. Anderson and he will take the Commission’s 19
feedback and discuss this with Public Works Engineering to see what they can do about 20
another re-shuffle. As the staff report indicates, all projects and budgets are subject to 21
change, so it is something that he and Mr. Anderson can discuss with them. 22
Chair Cribbs commented regarding extending the length of Rinconada pool, and explained 23
that what they really mean is shaving part of the plaster off at either end of the pool so that 24
the it is the correct size to allow swimmers to set records when they put the touchpads in. 25
She said it is almost under the maintenance area, where you drain the pool to plaster it and 26
take some of the plaster at each end. It is not like building a whole new pool. Commissioner 27
Reckdahl asked how much would be shaved. Chair Cribbs replied that it can be as little as 28
an inch, because if you’re swimming a 500, which is 20 laps, then it really adds up. It 29
depends on the measurement. She said when Rinconada was built, it was built to the specs 30
but then the touchpads came in and were required by the swimming organizations. When 31
they’re installed in the pool they take up space, so now they have to accommodate that, 32
and it is very little, a small thing in her opinion. 33
Chair Cribbs said it had been a good discussion and hoped the Commission could continue 34
it to that they keep abreast of what is planned even thought it is difficult with budgets, and 35
re-shuffling priorities, et cetera, but she felt it was important to have this information as 36
they go through the budget cycle. She thanked the staff and Ad Hoc for working on this. 37
Vice Chair Greenfield added a quick comment regarding Cubberley restrooms, in that they 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 39
know they get significant funding each year designated for use at Cubberley. Though 1
Cubberley is in a state of flux, investing in a restroom at the stadium is a safe long-term 2
investment and would immediately benefit the community. 3
VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY 25, 2022, MEETING 4
Mr. Anderson advised there will be election of the new Chair and Vice Chair, as well as 5
updates from Golf and Aquatics, tree protection, and court usage on the agenda. 6
Commissioner Reckdahl asked whether court usage referred to results of surveys taken. 7
Chair Cribbs said it should. Vice Chair Greenfield thought there was a possibility that tree 8
protection may slip from the agenda. 9
Chair Cribbs asked if they could see the swimming and golf reports in advance. He 10
responded that he has talked to Sarah Duffy about that, and she will try to get a copy to 11
Chair Cribbs before it gets posted. Chair Cribbs requested that they discuss the date for 12
their retreat. Mr. Anderson said they will do a Survey Monkey. Council’s retreat is on the 13
5th and they typically make sure it is after that, to allow strategy time after hearing their 14
priorities. He suggested mid-February. Chair Cribbs agreed with this. Vice Chair 15
Greenfield suggested at least a week to 10 days before the scheduled PRC meeting. They 16
will also need to keep in mind there will be a new member added to the Commission. 17
VII. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 18
Mr. Anderson thanked Commissioner Moss and Commissioner Reckdahl for their service 19
on the Commission and their commitment to the community and how supportive and 20
helpful they have been to staff. He said it is deeply appreciated and will not be forgotten. 21
Mr. Do echoed the comment, adding that they have been another set of eyes and brains to 22
help them make their way through the daily and monthly needs. 23
Chair Cribbs agreed that these were the most important comments. She added 24
congratulations to Commissioner Reckdahl for moving to the Transportation role, 25
although they would miss him. She said she has learned much from him and appreciated 26
his thoughtful questions and comments. Vice Chair Greenfield pointed out that in his nine 27
years on the Commission, Commissioner Reckdahl has been their “Senior Statesman.” 28
Vice Chair Greenfield said when he first joined the Commission it was quite young, with 29
four fresh members and two with only one year of experience. He said Commissioner 30
Reckdahl was the institutional knowledge source and voice of reason. He appreciated his 31
guidance and steady input. Commission LaMere was grateful for Commissioner 32
Reckdahl’s example. He said when he came on the Commission, Commissioner Reckdahl 33
provided a great example of what to do and how to be very intentional with the 34
Commission, providing deep analysis. He always perceived how much Commissioner 35
Reckdahl cares about their community and very much appreciated that. Commissioner 36
Brown added that she thought she loved Palo Alto until she heard Commissioner Reckdahl 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 40
talk at Commission meetings. She thanked him for asking brilliant questions and wished 1
him the best at the Transportation Commission and the best of luck to them at answering 2
his tough questions. 3
Chair Cribbs acknowledged her long friendship with Commissioner Moss even before the 4
Commission, around Gunn High School pool fundraising. She was delighted to be on the 5
Commission with him and stressed that his love of Palo Alto brought a great perspective 6
– from the prospective of his grandchildren, his hikes, his Cubberley affiliation and many 7
other interests. She said they will miss him and she appreciates all he has done for Palo 8
Alto. 9
Commission LaMere reiterated that he appreciates Commissioner Moss’s service and the 10
passion he shows, particularly for the outdoors and everything Palo Alto. He felt his points 11
and his energy have been infectious and showed how much he loves Parks. He has learned 12
much from him. 13
Commissioner Moss had a comment. He appreciated Commissioner Reckdahl, because 14
when he came in fresh he had already been on for a few years. Most importantly was the 15
politeness, the absence of infighting and arguing, that it was a civil organization, which is 16
not universal. He said the best way to get things done is to be civil. He appreciated staff 17
putting up with them, and at the same time, they try to treat staff well and that mutual 18
respect is important. He said the other important thing is passion. Everyone is passionate 19
about something, but not all about the same thing. He felt it important that each bring their 20
passion to the rest and get them excited about their passions. He said the newbies will need 21
role models of how to get things done while bringing their passion to the Commission. 22
Chair Cribbs echoed Commissioner Moss’s comments and followed his op ed, which 23
contributed to them having so many applications for the new Commission. They know and 24
appreciate that he will be around for a long time. 25
Vice Chair Greenfield thanked Commissioner Moss for his passion and love for Palo Alto 26
that comes out in things like his hike from the Bay to the ocean, going through all the 27
planning and showing people how it could be done. He said this will be a good legacy. 28
Commissioner Brown said she was fortunate to work on some Ad Hoc committees with 29
Commissioner Moss and learned much just from those meetings. She said the 30
conversations will help her to move forward. She thanked him for everything he has done 31
for her to teach her about the Commission and its impacts on Palo Alto. 32
Commissioner Reckdahl thanked Commissioner Moss for his infectious enthusiasm and 33
said he has had a very good Commission-mate, making him appreciate how wonderful 34
things are when others are overlooking it. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 41
Chair Cribbs said they can all be very grateful to serve on this Commission. She said she 1
continues to think they are the “fun” Commission, and she is glad they all get along as 2
well as they do. 3
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 4
Chair Cribbs ended the meeting by wishing everyone a very happy holiday season, a time 5
for rest and reflection and good health, with a thank you to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Do for 6
all they do for the Commission and to all for helping to make Palo Alto better. 7
Motion to adjourn by Vice Chair Greenfield, seconded by Commissioner Moss. 8
Meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m. 9
1
Team Sheeper Inc./Palo Alto Swim and Sport
Presents:
2021 Annual Aquatic Report
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Parks and
Recreation Commission
January 2022
2
Table of Contents
Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Table of program hours per week 2019, 2020 and 2021 ............................................................................. 4
Profile of 2021 lap swim population at Rinconada Pool .............................................................................. 5
Lap Swim Survey Responses ......................................................................................................................... 6
Summary of satisfaction percentages from lap swim respondents of the 2021 annual survey .............. 6
Summary of comments from lap swim respondents of the 2021 annual survey ..................................... 6
Average lap swim fees .................................................................................................................................. 7
2019-2021 Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 7
Resident vs. Non Resident usage for the past 3 years .............................................................................. 7
Senior vs. Adult usage for the past 3 years .............................................................................................. 8
Total lap swim visits over the past 3 years ............................................................................................... 9
Lap Swim monthly memberships over the past 3 years ........................................................................... 9
Lap Swim membership usage vs. drop-in usage in the past 3 years ...................................................... 10
Total volume of facility visits-past 3 years ............................................................................................. 10
Total volume of lessons-past 3 years ..................................................................................................... 11
Total volume of open swimmers-past 3 years ....................................................................................... 12
Total volume of lessons given in summer camp-past 3 years ................................................................ 12
Pool Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Survey Responses ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Survey Requests ..................................................................................................................................... 20
Employee Data ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share ...................................................................................................... 21
Risk Management Documentation ............................................................................................................. 22
Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 30
3
Introduction:
We are once again proud to be in the position to deliver this annual report to the City of Palo Alto. This
submission signifies that we were able to survive a year that included:
1. 6 months of regulated and competitive reservations for pool usage
2. Highly restrictive guidelines impacting community usage of facility.
3. Pandemic weariness from all involved.
This year also included:
1. 6 months of unrestricted usage for lap and team swimming.
2. Swim community members making the sometimes awkward transition from isolation to
integration in the aquatic setting
3. Adjusting to new less restrictive programming, but not yet fully traditional.
Navigating the path forward to provide the best service in the safest environment was a chore that
required constant interpretation of data and information distributed by various sources that allowed us
to then package and deliver evolving rules of engagement to our somewhat anxious but always
supportive community of swimmers.
A highlight in this report is showing with supporting data that demonstrates how the Palo Alto lap swim
program has risen to prominence and is among the leaders in the Bay Area measured in time available
to swim, space available to swim and value of that swim experience.
Needless to say, 2021 had plenty of distractions and complexities. Many of the hurdles have been
thankfully cleared. We are looking forward to the New Year with the intention to settle into a rhythm of
serving, rebuilding and rejuvenating.
We will continue our search to strike the balance to achieve peace and contentment for all user groups
of the Rinconada Pool.
4
Table of program hours per week 2019, 2020 and 2021
Summer Non-Summer Summer Non-Summer Summer Non-Summer
Lap Swim 68.5 68.5 68.75 68.75 75 72.75
Open Swim 32 0 31.5 0 80.5 9.5
Swim School 15 10 15 0 38 23
Palo Alto Masters 13.5 13.5 9.5 9.5 17.25 17.25
PASA 23.5 23.5 26.5 26.5 17.5 21
2021 2020 2019
Program
5
Profile of 2021 lap swim population at Rinconada Pool
Members are defined as swimmers who purchase a monthly swim pass.
Drop-ins are defined as swimmers who purchase a daily pass to swim.
6
Lap Swim Survey Responses
Summary of satisfaction percentages from lap swim respondents of the 2021 annual survey
Summary of comments from lap swim respondents of the 2021 annual survey
7
Average lap swim fees
Average volume per month: 4,250 lap swimmers
Average swims per member per month: 9.5
Average cost per swim for members:
2019-2021 Comparison
Resident vs. Non Resident usage for the past 3 years
Avg cost per swim Resident Non-Resident
General $6.74 $7.26
Senior $5.68 $6.21
8
Senior vs. Adult usage for the past 3 years
9
Total lap swim visits over the past 3 years
Lap Swim monthly memberships over the past 3 years
10
Lap Swim membership usage vs. drop-in usage in the past 3 years
Total volume of facility visits-past 3 years
11
Total volume of lessons-past 3 years
*Camp lessons not included
Facility Visits:2019 2020 2021
Lap-Member Visits 19,560 22,830 39,764
Lap- Drop-Ins 16,712 11,782 13,971
Open Drop-Ins 29,794 4,065 8,226
Masters Visits __1,361 5,482
Camp Visits 3,515 1,050 3,560
Swim Lessons 7,514 617 173
TOTAL 77,095 41,705 71,176
12
Total volume of open swimmers-past 3 years
Total volume of lessons given in summer camp-past 3 years
13
Pool Comparisons
Lap Swim information gathered from municipal pools along the greater peninsula region of the San
Francisco Bay Area. Captured for comparison purposes.
* By appointment only
Municipal Pool Hrs/Week Lane Space Fees
Santa Clara 33 20 $11 R/NR, 10 pass-$70
Mountain View*38 8 $6R/$7NR 25 pass-$99/124 Sen $34/$43
Burlingame*38 20 $8 R/NR Senior $6.40 R/NR
Campbell*44.5 8 $15 R/NR
San Jose 39 8 $6 R/NR $3 Senior Monthly-$90/$45 Senior
South San Fran 20 6 $5.25 R/NR DI, Monthly $56/63 R/NR $45/$51 Sen R/NR
Sunnyvale 28 20 $10 R $12 NR $7 Senior
Santa Cruz 49 6 $7 R/NR $5 Sen R/NR 10 pass-$63 R/NR $45 R/NR Sen
Menlo 87 17 $9/$10 R/NR $8/9 R/NR Sen Monthly $64/69 R/NR $54/$59
Palo Alto 68.5 14 $9/$10 R/NR $8/9 R/NR Sen Monthly $64/69 R/NR $54/$59
San Bruno**Closed pool permanently
Redwood City **Closed 2 municipal pools indefinitely
14
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
* By appointment only
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
15
Chart displays resident pricing at lowest cost. Membership (based on the average of 9.5 swims per
month), punch pass pricing, or drop-in pricing if not other pricing is available.
* By appointment only
** Pool(s) closed indefinitely
16
Survey Responses
17
18
19
20
Survey Requests
Employee Data
2019 2020 2021
Camp Counselors 14 5 20 (shared)
Camp Managers 2 0 1
Lifeguards 58 8 25 (shared)
Customer Service 7 0 4
Customer Service Managers 2 (shared)2 (shared)2 (shared)
Swim Instructors 34 0 1
Facility Directors 1 1 2
Masters Coach 0 2 1
CFO/HR 1 (shared)1 (shared)1 (shared)
Operations Director 1 (shared)1 (shared)1 (shared)
CEO 1 (shared)1 (shared)1 (shared)
117 21 59
(5 shared)(5 shared)(50 shared)
Total
21
Palo Alto Revenue and Revenue Share
For Period January 1 through October 31
Jan -
Oct 21
Jan -
Oct 20
Jan to
Oct 19
Camps 241,650 84,977 192,439
Laps DI 136,967 91,568 85,618
Lessons 19,878 50,279 196,035
Memberships 285,637 136,342 109,983
Open Swim 56,465 31,034 137,198
Total Fees 740,597 394,200 721,273
Rentals 111,070 94,130 98,214
Total income 851,667 488,330 819,487
Revenue Share 8,516 4,883 16,390
Revenue share is based off of number of lessons given:
2018 Revenue share is 1%
2019 Revenue share is 2%
2020 Revenue share is 1%
2021 Revenue share is 1%
Explanation:
1. Camps revenue increased from 2019 to 2021 due to the addition of several camps options including
morning and afternoon options
2. Lap drop ins increased due to the reservation system that was introduced in 2020 and continued into
2021 & increase in usage
3. Lessons have been virtually eliminated due to the pandemic
4. Memberships increased due to addition of masters programming plus additional participation Also,
price increases to cover additional staffing costs and pandemic related expenses related to staffing
5. Open swim was drastically reduced due to the pandemic
6. Rentals were increased during the pandemic, to rent the pool to programs in the community that
needed pool space due to closures of other facilities
7. Rental model was instrumental in making up lost revenues during the pandemic restrictions, but is no
longer a part of the current business model
22
Risk Management Documentation
Emergency Action Procedures (EAP)
The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is a protocol that describes the roles and responsibilities of the staff
during an emergency. EAPs are a very important aspect of lifeguarding because by designating roles
prior to emergencies, lifeguards can rescue and treat victims more quickly and effectively. This can only
be achieved when the EAP is known by all and practiced with regularity. Emergencies are not all the
same, it follows that the response to a passive drowning victim in the water would differ from that of a
stroke victim on land. While there will be areas of crossover from one plan to the next, it is important
that you are aware of each plan and when to activate them. Palo Alto Swim and Sport has three main
EAPs: Water Based Emergency, Land Based Emergency, and Environmental Emergency.
Water Based Emergency
Reacting to water based emergencies is the main reason lifeguarding exists as a profession. Three
common examples of water-based emergencies include: distressed swimmers, drowning victims and
nonfatal submersion victims. Injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water. When
incidents occur in water then you have a water based emergency.
Common examples of injuries and sudden illness may include: head, neck or back injuries, severe
bleeding, wounds, fractures, dislocations; heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures
and strokes, temperature-related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and
hypothermia.
Water based emergencies require at least two guards in order to extricate the victim from the water,
meaning that those lifeguards cannot perform patron surveillance. To speed rescue and prevent
collateral damage the pool must be empty of patrons, or in the process of being evacuated, while
extricating a victim. Because of these reasons the pool will remain closed until the emergency is over
and all lifeguards can return to duty.
EAP - Water Based Emergency
1. Primary rescuer performs 3 short, loud whistle blasts and yells “WATER EMERGENCY, CLEAR
THE POOL”. All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and yelling “WATER
EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL”
2. Secondary rescuer tells the front desk and informs them as to the nature of the emergency
and if they need to call 911- if that has been determined yet.
3. Primary rescuer performs rescue and calls for backboard if needed.
4. Secondary rescuer gathers equipment such as, the AED, Oxygen, and backboard and
then assists with rescue.
5. Other guards will take on the role first of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment
23
(oxygen, AED, BVM,etc.) and communicating with front desk to ensure 911 has been
93
called; and second by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways
clear and directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location.
6. Primary and secondary rescuers should stabilize and treat victim until EMT’s arrive.
Treatment should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This means that
after water extrication a different lifeguard may take over treatment. Lifeguards will only stop treatment
once EMS personnel take over treatment.
**Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty**
Land Based Emergency
Land based emergencies are another type of emergency that lifeguards must be able to react to. As
stated above, injuries and sudden illness can occur either in or out of the water.
Common examples of injuries and sudden illness include: head, neck or back injuries, severe bleeding,
wounds, fractures, dislocations, heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures and strokes,
temperature- related emergencies such as cramps, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and hypothermia.
All of these are examples are land based emergencies, provided of course that they take place on land.
Unlike water based emergencies, the pool may be able to stay open during a land based emergency.
This is because treatment of the victim may only require one guard.
The following conditions would require shutting down the facility to allow for enough room to treat the
victim and to prevent secondary injuries due to normal facility operation: head, neck or back injuries,
heart attacks, breathing and cardiac emergencies, seizures and strokes.
EAP - Land Based Emergency
1. Primary rescuer communicates to other guards that someone has been injured, and
tells them that another guard needs to come out to cover primary rescuer’s pool, or to
assess the victim.
2. Primary rescuer then assesses victim to determine if 911 needs to be called. If 911 needs to
be called, perform 3 short, loud whistle blasts and yell “LAND EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL”
All guards on deck respond by echoing the 3 whistle blasts and yelling “LAND EMERGENCY
CLEAR THE POOL”.
3. Secondary rescuer tells the front desk to call 911, include a short explanation such as “we
have an unconscious adult male, approximately 30 years of age...” then proceed with
appropriate treatment.
4. Secondary rescuer gathers equipment, such as, AED and Oxygen, and assists with rescue.
24
5. Other guards will take on the role first of assisting with treatment by obtaining equipment
(oxygen, AED, BVM, etc.) and communicating with front desk to ensure 911 has been called;
and second by assisting with crowd control – pool evacuation, keeping walkways clear and
directing EMS personnel to the appropriate location.
6. Primary and secondary rescuers stabilize and treat victim until EMS arrives. Treatment for a
victim should always be performed by the person with the highest level of training. This means
that after the assessment or starting of treatment, a different lifeguard may take over treatment.
Lifeguards will only stop treatment once EMS personnel take over treatment.
**Pool will remain closed until emergency is over and all lifeguards can return to duty**
When to Call 911
Land EAP -
1. The primary rescuer then does a primary assessment of the victim to determine if 911 needs
to be called. If 911 does not need to be called, they begin the secondary assessment of the
victim. When in doubt about whether or not to call 911, ask your supervisor for help. If your
supervisor is not present, then tell the patron you believe that 911 should be notified. If a
patron refuses 911 assistance, the patron must sign a refusal of care form.
2. If victim is a minor, then all efforts should be made to locate their parent or guardian. The
secondary rescuer 13
Victim is unconscious, loses consciousness, or has a decrease in their level of consciousness.
Victim has any difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
Victim has severe bleeding, severe burns or is vomiting due to heat stroke or excess water
ingestion. Victim has a head, neck, or back injury.
Victim has possible broken bones, excessive swelling or deformity.
You suspect a cardiac emergency (heart attack) or cerebral attack (stroke). If CPR is being
administered.
If a lifeguard is treating a victim outside of the facility.
If a woman is going into labor
Based Emergency (non-911)
Not all land-based emergencies require 911 to be called. This decision to close the pool should be made
by the lifeguard who is watching the pool, taking into account bather load and the programs in the
water at the time. If the lifeguard feels uncomfortable with their bather load, or feels that patron safety
is compromised, close the pool.
Land Based Emergency (non-911)
25
1. Primary rescuer communicates to other guards that someone has been injured, and tells another
guard
1. a) will need to come out to cover primary rescuer’s pool or to assess the victim.
2. b) can communicate with the front desk to call the parent/guardian if needed.
The victim should be moved to the first aid station if injuries allow movement.
3. c) The primary rescuer then treats victim according to their injuries. Once
treatment is complete, release victim back to coach or parent/guardian, if a minor and fill out
all necessary paperwork.
** It is always important to remember that a victim’s condition can always deteriorate. Primary rescuer
must constantly reassess and be prepared to call 911 if victim’s condition worsens.**
Environmental Emergency
Environmental emergencies happen when the surrounding environment poses a risk of injury to staff
and patrons. Severe weather and natural disasters are an example of environmental emergencies.
Severe weather and natural disasters can involve violent winds, thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning,
earthquakes, mudslides and flash floods. In addition, certain emergencies may result from a specific
facility problem, such as a fire or chemical
spill. Communication is of utmost importance. Lifeguards should be communicating with supervisors,
front desk and other staff during an environmental emergency. It is also important to communicate the
nature of the emergency to the patrons; however stopping to answer questions is rarely possible during
an emergency. The first two steps for these EAPs are the same; the latter steps are determined by the
nature of the environmental emergency.
EAP – Fire
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as:
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle
blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck respond by
echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. The next steps are determined by the nature of the environmental
emergency.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit. Lifeguards
must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal belongings due
to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and that patrons do
not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, guards must check in with
26
a supervisor. After supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, lifeguards exit through the emergency
exit closest to them.
4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the absence
of supervisors the highest ranking lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms. After patrons have
exited the pool deck through the emergency exits the building must be cleared. Clear the break room
and office first, then the bathrooms. Move into the bathroom and check each stall, while stating loudly,
“Everyone out of the building there is a fire!” Once the bathrooms are clear, lock the door and exit
through the main entrance. If anyone is in the building they should exit through the closest exit as long
as it is not blocked by fire.
5. Patrons and staff then wait for the fire department to come fight the fire or to give the “all clear.”
EAP - Earthquake
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle
blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck respond by
echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. Beware that during an earthquake pool water can violently slosh
over the edges. For this reason it is important to quickly get patrons out of the pool and to ensure
patrons promptly get away from sides of pool.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her pool and directs patrons to the closest emergency exit. Lifeguards
must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal belongings due
to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and that patrons do not
crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, guards must check in with a
supervisor. After supervisor is aware of the deck being cleared, lifeguards exit through the emergency
exit closest to them.
4. Lifeguards must keep in contact with a supervisor. If no supervisors are working at the time of the
earthquake, lifeguards must wait for about five minutes after all shaking has stopped then check the
building for injured staff and patrons. If injuries are found call 911 if warranted, or if unsure about how
to treat victims. If any small fires are discovered use fire extinguishers to put them out and/or call 911 if
fire is not easily dealt with. Leave building as soon as it has been swept through, do not stay in building
longer than absolutely necessary.
5. Emergency personnel or official media broadcasts (radio, TV, internet) will inform the patrons and
staff when it is safe to re-enter buildings and obtain their possessions.
27
Chemical Spill
Chemical spills are a very rare but serious emergency. While there are many chemicals utilized for the
proper functioning of a pool, there is only one chemical that would cause an emergency related spill,
Hydrochloric Acid (Muriatic Acid). It is stored in a tank, in a room, near the front of the building.
If a spill were to take place it may happen in the following areas: 1) when the tank is being filled; or 2)
because of material failure of the storage tank. Either way the spill will mostly likely occur near the front
entrance of the building.
EAP - Chemical Spill
1. Lifeguard observes an environmental emergency that warrants immediate pool closure such as:
thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, or fire. Lifeguard performs one, loud and long whistle
blast, and yells “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.” All guards on deck respond by
echoing the whistle blast and yelling “ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY, CLEAR THE POOL.”
2. Establish communication with front desk and supervisors to inform them as to the nature of the
emergency while clearing the pool. Beware of the fumes and do not let the liquid touch you or any
patrons. Tell front desk to call 911 and immediately direct all patrons to exit the facility through the
closest exit away from the spill.
3. Each lifeguard clears his or her own pool and directs patrons to the closest exit away from the spill.
Lifeguards must inform patrons that they CANNOT go back into the building to obtain any personal
belongings due to risk of injury. Guards must make sure all patrons exit through the closest exit, and
that patrons do not crowd around the other side of these exits. Once all patrons have exited, guards
must check in with supervisor via radios. Ensure 911 has been notified of the spill. After supervisor is
aware of the deck being cleared, lifeguards then exit through the closest emergency exit that is away
from the spill.
4. Supervisors and other staff will be responsible for clearing the building and bathrooms. In the absence
of supervisors the highest ranking lifeguard will clear the building and bathrooms. After patrons have
exited the pool deck the building must be cleared. Clear the bathrooms first, and then move to the rest
of the building. Move into the bathroom and check each stall, while saying loudly, ”Everyone out of
the building there is a chemical spill!” If anyone is in the bathrooms they must exit through the exits on
the pool deck. Once the bathroom is clear, lock the doors. After bathrooms are cleared and locked, clear
the rest of the building, starting with the front office and the break room. If anyone is in the building
they should exit through the exits on the pool deck.
5. Patrons and staff then wait for the fire department to respond to the spill and give the “all clear.” If
the chemical smell becomes strong enough to be painful to eyes and lungs, the lifeguards must move
everyone farther away from the spill.
Pool Closure
28
There are a many reasons why the pool may be closed due to non-medical emergencies. The most
common issues are: biohazards, pump room issues and weather conditions.
Biohazard Procedure
If a biohazard happens, you must take immediate and swift action. Biohazards range from fecal incidents
to large volumes of blood contamination. Once aware of the situation immediately blow your whistle
and yell, “Clear The Pool Please!”
In the event of solid fecal matter, vomit or excessive blood, notify the front desk of pool closure and
estimated 16
time of reopening. The chlorine level must be raised to 2 parts per million (ppm) and the pool closed for
30 minutes to properly decontaminate the area. The pool are normally kept at a higher level than 2
ppm, see Pool Closure Binder for proper dosing charts.
Once the pool is evacuated obtain the following items:
• ● The proper amount of chlorine from the wet chemical storage area
• ● A biohazard disposal bin
• ● A pool scoop and gloves
• ● Put on gloves and proceed to scoop the contaminate out of the pool. Place the net and
contents into the biohazard disposal bin and add the chlorine to affected area. Collect all
items and return to the pump room for complete decontamination and disposal.
• ● Place contents of scoop into the biohazard bin and rinse the scoop under running water
• ● Fill a five gallon bucket 3⁄4 full with a chlorine/water solution: one part chlorine for
every nine parts water
• ● Detach the net from the pole and place the net in the solution for 20 minute
• ● Once clean, dispose the gloves in the biohazard bag, tie the bag off and then place the bag in
the garbage receptacle When this last step has been completed, obtain and complete a
“pool closure form” from the pump room desk. Pump Room Issues As lifeguards, there are
few times that you will be in the pump room however, it is important to know what issues
may require the pool being closed. The first thing to do when coming across most of these
problems is to notify your manager or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts
list to receive further instructions. Circulatory Pump If the circulatory pump for a pool is
turned off then the pump is off and the filters cannot function, and without filters patron
cannot be in the pool. To determine if a given pump is on or off look at the breaker panel; if
the light is off then the pump is off. First notify your supervisor, and then clear the affected
pool. If no supervisor is present, first clear the affected pool and then call individuals on the
Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further instructions. Pool Chemistry
Issues pH Levels pH levels that are out of prescribed ranges have the potential to cause
injury or illness to those in the water. If the pH is lower than 7.2 or higher than 7.8, notify
your supervisor or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further
instructions. A pH level that is out of the prescribed range may require the pool to be
cleared. Chlorine It is imperative to ensure that the pool has the proper part per million
(ppm) of chlorine. If the chlorine levels are below 1 ppm or above 10 ppm then notify your
29
supervisor or call individuals on the Facility/Maintenance Contacts List to receive further
instructions. With this issue the pool may need to be cleared. Hazardous
Weather Lightning, thunder, hail, and tornado watches or warnings are all possible reasons
for pool closure due to weather. However, the most common of these are thunder and
lightning. If you hear thunder or see lightning, then the pool must be closed and the deck
must be cleared. The deck and pool must remain closed for 30 minutes after each instance of
thunder or lightning. For example, a lightning strike occurs so you close the pool for 30
minutes. If 25 minutes passes and you see lightning again, the clock would reset. Everyone
must wait 30 minutes from the last lightning strike before reentering the water.
Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol:
Due to the common occurrence of wildfires in the Northern California region, Team Sheeper Inc has
implemented our own Air Quality Facility and Program Closure Protocol. The data in which we will use to
implement our company protocol comes from the website PurpleAir.com as it displays a more accurate
and current air quality reading.
The primary colors you should be aware of when the air quality starts to become hazardous
are: Orange (Unhealthy for sensitive groups) – With an air quality index between 101-150
Red (Unhealthy) – With an air quality index between 151-200
Please check PurpleAir.com and add our zip code “94303” as well as set the ‘conversion’ to “AQandU”
to get a more current reading for our location. The AQandU conversion is the closest to what the EPA
calculations.
Orange Protocol
It’s OK to be active outside, especially for SHORT ACTIVITIES such as recess and physical education.
For LONGER ACTIVITIES such as athletic practice, take more breaks and do less intense activities.
All long-duration, high-intensity activity groups, including Swim School will be cancelled when air quality
reaches 130.
Red Protocol
The Rinconada Aquatic Facility will be CLOSED and all staff sent home when air quality reaches 150.
Open Swim and Lap Swimming will be the only programs operational between the air quality of130-150.
*Current Covid-19 Standard Operating Procedures at Rinconada Pool is available upon request as these
protocols change to match the state and county guidelines in current time.
30
Summary
Each year an annual report is prepared, it demands an extreme team effort to collect, review, analyze,
contemplate, display, discuss and submit data that we believe best and truly depicts our motives and
intentions as a community pool operator.
Each year an annual report is prepared, it allows us to slow down from the frenetic pace of daily
responsibilities to take a hard long look and listen to the collection of individuals and families that make
up the Palo Alto Aquatic Community. We are able to learn more about their interactions and
experiences as they move about and engage in the programming that is presented.
Each year an annual report is prepared, we learn a bit more about the facility users. We learn how, why
and when the community engages with the facility. We are afforded the opportunity to read
community members feelings and thoughts about a very important place that allows them to enter a
liquid environment that soothes, calms, heals and cleanses minds, bodies and souls.
Each year an annual report is prepared, we as operators revisit how vital and important the usage of this
shared and somewhat scarce body of water is to thousands of individuals. Information gathered
reaffirms the importance of our role as stewards of the facility. A role we assume with great care and
sensitivity. We rely heavily on our company core values to make objective and equitable decisions that
benefit the most, while inhibiting the least. As a result of experience we have learned that decisions and
changes made in the name of equality and fairness are not always the most popular, but are the most
sustainable.
We are proud of the body of work that our community of swimmers in collaboration with our
organization has been able to present to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
PLEASE NOTE FOR RAW SURVEY DATA SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS
31
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: LAM DO
SUPERINTENDENT OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND GOLF
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 25, 2022
SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE PERFORMANCE FISCAL YEAR 2021
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report. No action is recommended.
BACKGROUND
In July 2016, the City closed the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course for a full course renovation and
reconfiguration based on a selected design by Golf Group, Ltd. (Forrest Richardson & Associates).
The design was for an 18-hole course layout to conform to a Baylands setting. The reconfigured
golf course incorporated or modified existing low-lying areas, raised other areas to provide contours
and course views, reduced the area of managed irrigated turf, and introduced areas for native
vegetation and wetland habitat. The renovation also included modification to the practice facilities.
The project design was developed to achieve the following objectives:
• Creation of a golf course providing a more interesting layout for golfers of all levels, with
enhanced wildlife habitat, improved wetland areas, and reduced usage of potable water,
pesticides, and maintenance labor for turf and landscaping;
• Integration of a Baylands theme into the golf course with a links style course;
• Improvement of golf course playing conditions – turf, drainage, and irrigation;
• Mitigation for impacts on the golf course resulting from the adjacent San Francisquito Creek
Joint Powers Authority’s flood control expansion project; and
• Expansion of adjacent areas for future recreation needs.
During construction, the driving range, practice facilities, golf shop, and restaurant remained open
for business under three different operators while the City solicited proposals from golf management
companies and restaurant operators. After a review and interview process, OB Sports was selected
to operate the course entirely, inclusive of golf course play, course maintenance, practice facilities,
merchandise sales, and food and beverage services. Prior to reopening, OB Sports renovated
clubhouse facilities including the golf shop, restaurant, and patio. With course construction and
facility renovations complete, the golf course re-opened on May 26, 2018 as the Baylands Golf
Links.
DISCUSSION
The selection of OB Sports to manage the golf course on the City’s behalf included assessment
of their management operations as well as financial performance projections. The City reviewed
OB Sports’ projections, compared them to pro-formas prepared by the National Golf Foundation,
and asked for an assessment by an established industry consultant.
When the golf course re-opened, green fees were established with a range to accommodate
dynamic pricing, where green fees fluctuate based on time of day, day of week, and demand.
Green fees are also tiered with Palo Alto residency, Bay Area residency, and visitor rates. The
combination of dynamic pricing and tiered residency pricing has resulted in strong green fee
revenue to support operating costs.
In Fiscal Year 2019, green fee revenue from course play and tournaments overachieved its
financial pro-forma projection and budget. However, revenue from merchandise sales
underachieved sales targets. Numerous retail and online vendors competing for golf related
merchandise sales remains an alternative for players. Overall revenue from golf operations
ended Fiscal Year 2019 at 6% under target.
For Fiscal Year 2020, the overall revenue target was increased in alignment with prior pro-
formas. As the prior fiscal year resulted in strong green fee revenue, this revenue category was
increased while the revenue target for merchandise sales was decreased.
However, in Fiscal Year 2020 the golf course underperformed financially by 26% less than
target. Revenue was $2.8M with a target revenue budget of $3.8M. During part of the first eight
months of the fiscal year, the course was impacted by poor air quality from the 2019 fire season
and was performing on par in comparison to the prior Fiscal Year 2019. But the course closed in
March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s shelter in place Health Order initially
implemented by County and remained closed during most of the key Spring season. Upon re-
opening at the end of Spring, the course operated at drastically less than capacity in accordance
with the State and County Health Orders. Initial re-opening was singles play only and as the
Health Orders further changed, the course allowed doubles play with members of the same
household.
The fire season and COVID-19 pandemic impacts to financial performance can also be viewed
from the perspective of golf rounds played at 42,429 rounds where the target was 58,449 rounds.
This reflects 27% fewer rounds of golf played than targeted rounds. Similarly, overall revenue
was 26% less than targeted budget.
With an uncertain pandemic outlook, the revenue target for last Fiscal Year 2021 was not
increased and remained at $3.8M. However, upon State and County Health Orders changing to
allow for group foursome play, the impact on golf operations was an increase in daily capacity
for golf rounds which accommodated a high demand for golf play. With few social distanced
activities and options, the general public continued to choose golf throughout the fiscal year
resulting in revenues of $4.9M. This represents 29% higher than target and the first year since
course renovation that the golf course exceeded revenues above target. A comparison of rounds
of golf played in Fiscal Year 2020 vs. 2021 reflects a 49% increase of 42,429 vs. 63,352 rounds.
The increase in revenue and rounds of golf played are also reflected in golf courses in the region
and throughout the country, each with varying degrees.
In the current Fiscal Year 2022, the strong revenue performance of the golf course has continued
based on revenue figures of the first five months. Much of the outlook for the remainder of the
Fiscal Year is dependent upon the COVID-19 pandemic and winter weather. Omicron or a
different COVID variant may bring back State and County restrictions negatively impacting
course play. The multiple atmospheric river rainstorms in December has brought heavy rain
periods surpassing the Year to Date rainfall of prior drought winters. If the full winter season
results in overall rainfall higher than prior years, there will be fewer days available for ideal golf
play.
The following table reflects golf rounds played and player residency for the current FY 2022.
The course continues to draw players from Palo Alto and Santa Clara County during the
COVID-19 pandemic. This is reflected in 70% of players thus far residing in Santa Clara
County, including 33% from Palo Alto.
Leading up to the start of current Fiscal Year 2022, the City and OB Sports elected to mutually
extend the course management agreement for three years through Fiscal Year 2024 based upon
OB Sports establishing the golf course as a premiere municipal golf course with a regional draw.
To achieve this OB Sports has focused on the overall player experience consisting of course
maintenance, playing conditions, customer service, and food and beverage service. As OB
Sports operates the Baylands Café under a lease, food and beverage revenue and expenses are
not factored in the golf course’s operating budget.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for golf operations is budgeted in the Community Services Department’s General Fund
budget.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________________________________
LAM DO
Superintendent Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division
Community Services Department