HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-22 Parks & Recreation Agenda Packet
Parks and Recreation Commission
Special Meeting
March 22, 2022
7:00 PM
Council Chambers and Virtual
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
***BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***
Pursuant to AB 361, Parks and Recreation meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the
option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety
while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to
participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and
participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://zoom.us/join)
Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone: 1 (669) 900-6833
The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 or 29 of the
Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/.
IN PERSON PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT:
• Masks are strongly recommended
• Maintain social distancing
• If you cannot or do not wish to comply, you can still participate virtually
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom meeting. All requests to
speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public
comments can be submitted in advance to ParkRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and
will be provided to the Commission. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are
referencing in your email subject line.
Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda.
Commissioner Names, Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available
online:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Other-
Services/Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
BUSINESS
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency - Action - (5 min) Attachment
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the Board on matters within the jurisdiction of the City, but not on this
agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
This is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add or change the order of the agenda to improve
meeting management.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the February 11, 2022 and February 22, 2022 Parks and
Recreation Commission Meetings - Action - (5 min)
Attachment (Feb 11, 2022) Attachment (Feb 22, 2022)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
3. Department Report
BUSINESS
4. Ad Hoc Reports - Discussion - (15 min)
5. Grassroots Ecology Partnership Presentation – Alex Von Feldt - Discussion - (30 min)
6. Parks and Recreation Commission Workplan – Chair Greenfield - Action - (75 min)
Attachment
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily
accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require
auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-
2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted
at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
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 for the
appropriate meeting 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 will 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
moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to
unmute your microphone when it is your turn 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 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
Board. 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 number: 1 (669) 900 6833
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: MARCH 22, 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.
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 City’s Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) 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,
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, PRC 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 PRC will occur using
teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of PRC 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 PRC staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to
this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of PRC within the next 30 days. If PRC does not meet
under the Brown Act within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on
the agenda of the immediately following Brown Act meeting of PRC.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
PRC Staff Liaison Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney Director, Community Services
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
February 11, 2022 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield and Vice Chair LaMere; Commissioners Nellis 12
Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Anne Cribbs and Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Council Member Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Lam Do and Kristen O’Kane, Adam Howard, Megha 16
Bansal, and Peter Jensen 17
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 18
Chair Greenfield welcomed the group to the 2022 Annual Parks and Recreation 19
Commission Retreat. 20
I. PUBLIC COMMENT 21
II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 22
Chair Greenfield invited any questions or suggestions on the detailed agenda that was sent 23
out earlier. He noted a few housekeeping matters that the Vice Chair LaMere and he had 24
discussed. First, at the recommendation of former Chair Cribbs, the Parks and Recreation 25
website needs a refresh and an update, so that will be a focus. They will probably set up 26
an ad hoc group to work on that with staff. He said they will all need to do their own part 27
in that, including submitting bios to add to the website. In addition, the new members need 28
to be set up appropriately on the website. They also need to make sure there is a photo for 29
everyone, and the minutes from previous meetings need to be refreshed and easily 30
accessible as a link from the website. They also want to look at what documents and what 31
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
plans should be readily accessible. 1
Chair Greenfield said current terms will be ending on March 31st, as opposed to December 2
15th. They have been extended as part of the effort to align the timeframe for when all 3
boards and commission members are appointed. The first day of the new Commission will 4
be April 1st instead of December 16th, as it has been. As a result, their next retreat is likely 5
to happen sometime in May of 2023. Their next work plan, which they would be 6
discussing, will be for the 15-month timeframe as well. This is a one-time transitional 7
change. 8
III. BUSINESS 9
1. Review 2021 Parks and Recreation Commission Priorities and 10
Accomplishments 11
Vice Chair LaMere reviewed highlights of 2021. It was a busy time for the Parks and 12
Recreation Commission from early 2021 into early 2022. Since the last retreat on March 13
12, 2021, the Commission continued to meet remotely and held 11 public meetings. With 14
an emphasis on the Council-directed work plan, the Commission was very active. The 15
Commission held discussion and took action on 15 items. The Commission nudged along 16
recreation projects, tackled rules updates for court usage and policy updates for Foothills 17
Preserve, and provided a forum for discussion on topics ranging from fundraising to water 18
recycling, while receiving updates on aquatics and the golf course. They were grateful for 19
the guidance and regular attendance of Council Member Kou and look forward to 20
welcoming Council Member DuBois. 21
Vice Chair LaMere thanked staff for all of their hard work and all they did in the prior11 22
months, as well as former Commissioner Cribbs and former Vice Chair Greenfield for 23
driving the many projects that were pushed forward, and for following the agendas and 24
Work Plan as best they could. He welcomed Commissioners Freeman and Kleinhaus, 25
whom they are excited to work with and share the review of their accomplishments. He 26
said they tried to align their priorities with City Council’s, including maximizing 27
recreation opportunities using available resources; establishing equity access and inclusion 28
for programs, parks, and open space; promoting Foothills Nature Preserve stewardship; 29
and addressing environmental sustainability and climate change. 30
Vice Chair LaMere commented on the Commission’s accomplishments for the prior year. 31
They approved a couple of Park Improvement Ordinances. The Baylands Tide Gate project 32
was interesting because they discussed it in one meeting and then there were some items 33
within the project that changed it a little bit, and they were able to push that to another 34
meeting to take action on it. Boulware Park and the other PIOs were very important. The 35
Ad Hoc committees spent a lot of time on policy updates and reviews. There was an Ad 36
Hoc Committee for the Sidewalk Vendor policy, which became a very detail-oriented 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
policy. There was continuing work with Foothills Nature Preserve. The Open Space Photo 1
and Videography policy was approved, which covers all of the parks. The pickleball court 2
usage policy was also reviewed, with its heavy usage and figuring out the right policies 3
for them, including how it affected other court users was important. 4
Vice Chair LaMere shared a summary of the projects the Commission worked on, 5
including the skateboard park, First Tee’s presentation and making a recommendation on 6
the public/private partnership on that, developing the vision for a new Palo Alto gym. He 7
said that he enjoyed the discussions and speakers who presented on sustainability at their 8
meetings. Their information gave a great overview of what the City is doing now and 9
looking at doing looking forward. These discussions included water recycling, the Valley 10
Water purified water discussion. A liaison was selected for the Mid Pen Regional Open 11
Space Hawthorne’s Area Planning process. The Commission also gave some input on the 12
Baylands Nature Interpretive Signs. 13
The Commission wrote letters and memos to the Council regarding such topics as the 14
Junior Museum and Zoo ticket price, and parkland within the NVCAP. Community 15
highlights included some ongoing projects, such as completion of the Highway 101 16
Pedestrian Bridge, opening of the beautiful Junior Museum and Zoo, and the Rinconada 17
Park project, which is almost completed. 18
The Commission spent a lot of time at their previous retreat and in one of their meetings 19
on the 2021 Work Plan. Vice Chair LaMere said he felt the Work Plan is very important 20
and helped guide what they tried to do with their agenda and their meetings. He felt their 21
meetings and discussions were very much in alignment with the Work Plan. They will be 22
using the 2021 Work Plan to inform the 2022 Work Plan. 23
On the Baylands Tide Gate Project, the Commission made a recommendation on July 27th, 24
and City Council approved it on February 7th, which successfully completed the Work Plan 25
and Ad Hoc goal, which they are very excited about. With Fund Development, they had 26
the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Friends of Parks present to them. The Ad Hoc 27
met a few times to discuss fundraising opportunities and to figure out how best to come 28
up with sponsorship guidelines, which is one thing they will revisit on the 2022 Work Plan 29
and see where that falls into how they move forward. There was a review of the CIP on 30
December 14th. The racquet court policy will also be revisited in 2022, but they did make 31
a recommendation with the new pickleball court rules on October 26th. Council is set to 32
review those on March 7th. 33
Foothills Nature Preserve was a subject the Commission spent a lot of time on the past few 34
years. It was exciting to see many of the ideas come to fruition. Vice Chair LaMere 35
commented that there were things done earlier in 2021, January and February, which he is 36
not covering, as he is only covering things that occurred since their last retreat. There were 37
additional items related to Foothills Nature Preserve which occurred earlier in 2021, but 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
they did make another recommendation on March 23rd as well as December 14th. They 1
also recommended with the Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy which 2
encompasses both Foothills Nature Preserve and other Open Spaces and Parks on 3
December 14th. 4
The New Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc was very busy. They had a youth leadership 5
update. Vice Chair LaMere said it is always wonderful to have the youth present, as with 6
all the other presenters, they sometimes forget the voice of their youth. They have 7
wonderful ideas, such as the young man who called into the Commission a couple years 8
ago which prompted them to start moving on a skatepark. He said continuing to listen to 9
the youth and tapping into their ideas can be a motivating factor for the Commission, 10
because their time goes so fast. If it takes them five years to complete a project, all of a 11
sudden the great idea that young man had at age 14 or 15, he or she may never see that, so 12
he felt they should keep that in mind as they try to push through projects and look at 13
priorities. 14
The Commission’s work with First Tee continued last year, and they gave a 15
recommendation on a public/private partnership. They also recommended their vision for 16
a new Palo Alto gym which Council will review on March 7th. 17
Vice Chair LaMere said these were the actions and discussions taken from the 2021Work 18
Plan. He said looking back on all of the discussion items was extremely informative 19
because those items often are things that provide a great education both on what their city 20
is thinking about, as well as just different policy ideas. He thought those would be helpful 21
in making the Commission more informed and well-rounded in their decision-making and 22
in setting priorities. Overall, Vice Chair LaMere felt the last 11 months were packed with 23
great accomplishments, with compliments to the former Chair and Vice Chair. He 24
concluded by stating that without the work of staff, none of this happens. They need to 25
keep staff always in mind as they develop different projects, different ad hocs, different 26
roles for what they try to accomplish. He appreciated everyone’s hard work for the Parks 27
and Recreation Commission. 28
Chair Greenfield also thanked Commissioner Cribbs for leading them through the past 29
year, which he thought was very successful and they accomplished quite a bit amidst a 30
very challenging environment. He commented that meeting remotely is unfortunate, 31
especially when they are unable to have an event like an annual retreat in person, but 32
hopefully they will get there next year and be meeting in person before then. He said there 33
are tradeoffs and benefits. Some things have been easier meeting in this manner but overall 34
it would be nice to have more human interaction. He echoed Vice Chair LaMere’s thanks 35
for staff and said he values the working relationship that the Commission shares with their 36
staff liaison and the rest of the staff that they work with. They are fortunate to have a 37
relationship with this dedicated group of individuals who do such an awesome job making 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
it easier for the Commissioners to continue to participate in the same manner. 1
Chair Greenfield invited comments from Commissioners and staff in looking back over 2
the record of the past year. Mr. Anderson appreciated the Commission’s hard work and 3
the accomplishments achieved together. 4
Adam Howard thanked the Commission for ongoing support and help with tough issues. 5
He said the youth appreciated Commissioner Cribbs for coming to the meetings. He 6
appreciated support with some of the tough decisions and conversations that needed to 7
take place. 8
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought it looked like a tremendous amount of work had been 9
done, and she looked forward to more. She asked if they could do some introductions, as 10
she had not met everyone present. Mr. Anderson, Assistant Director for Community 11
Services, said he helps serve as staff liaison to the Commission. Kristen O’Kane, Director 12
of Community Services, said it has been a great Commission to work with, and the breadth 13
of work they do is impressive. They appreciate the hard work the Commission does. Lam 14
Do, Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, said he also supports the Commission. Adam 15
Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, Recreation Department, overseeing youth 16
and teens, said he has done fields and courts and is currently at Mitchell Park Community 17
Center. Megha Bansal, Senior Engineer, Public Works Engineering Department, manages 18
the Parks and Bridges group within the Engineering Services Division. Peter Jensen, 19
Landscape Architect, City of Palo Alto, working with Public Works Department on 20
primarily park renovation projects and capital improvements projects. Council Member 21
Tom DuBois, Council Liaison explained his role is to mention if Council has taken an 22
official position on anything. He will primarily be listening but will be available if there 23
are questions for him or Council feedback. 24
Chair Greenfield appreciated Council Member DuBois’s approach as a listening role. As 25
they start reviewing their Work Plan from last year and moving forward to this year’s, they 26
are still going through some uncharted waters, as are other commissions. Working through 27
the process and finding the most appropriate way to develop and report on work plans, 28
they would be looking for any input and guidance Council Member DuBois would like to 29
offer, given that he had worked directly with developing the handbook providing the basis 30
for the work plans, 31
2. Establish priorities for 2022 32
Chair Greenfield said in the past these have been calendar year priorities, but this year 33
they would look at priorities for the next 15 months. Chair Greenfield explained that they 34
will go over where the Commission’s purpose and duties are defined and spend some time 35
reviewing highlights from the Handbook. Next would be discussion about alignment. As 36
an advisory group working directly with staff, their priorities would need to be in 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
alignment City Council’s priorities, recently established at their annual retreat, and also 1
consider staff’s priorities and their available resources. Establishing priorities, establishing 2
the ad hoc groups and liaisons, and the work plan would be interrelated and overlapping. 3
As they talk about priorities, Chair Greenfield said they would take a bottom up approach, 4
first looking at the work they want to do. This will help define what is most important to 5
them. Focusing on the projects they want to work on can be used to help inform and clarify 6
their priorities. In the process, they will look at the previous ad hocs and the work the 7
Commission has done, and consider work not yet completed. Looking at successes and 8
shortcomings would help them better refine the focus so that they can achieve their goal 9
in the specified timeframe. He defined ad hocs as a specified group identified to do 10
specific work over a defined time period. 11
Chair Greenfield turned the discussion to considering priorities, including specific areas 12
the Commission wants to focus efforts on, while considering alignment with Council 13
priorities and working directly with staff in an advisory role to City Council. Other 14
considerations would include consistency with the Master Plans which define the 15
overarching goals, or otherwise specified goals through direction from City Council. He 16
said the duties of the Parks and Recreation Commission are defined in the City Municipal 17
Code as an advisory body, focused on planning and policy for goals, services, construction 18
and renovation. Financially, the Commission can specifically review with staff. Serving 19
as a conduit to the community is a key role as well. Since staff and Council’s reach is 20
limited, the Commission is a next level that can be more in touch with the community. 21
Community members are able to reach out to Commission members as a first point of 22
contact. The Commission can be involved with community meetings on specific areas, 23
such as park renovations, dog park considerations, et cetera. The Commission may also 24
look into certain matters as directed by Council. An example is the recent directive from 25
Council to serve as a community forum for the Urban Forestry Division. Highlights of the 26
agreement, approved by Directors of Public Works and Community Services, include 27
helping to implement programs within the Urban Forest Master Plan, such as preserving 28
and growing the tree canopy in the community and fostering community communication 29
and collaboration. 30
Chair Greenfield explained the new Handbook which defines general guidelines for the 31
City boards, commissions and committees, such as standards of conduct, duties, 32
commitments, et cetera. He highlighted the item, “Creation of the Annual Work Plan and 33
Report.” The work plans are approved by Council and serve as direct feedback to progress 34
forward with the primary items the Commission will work on for the period of the work 35
plan. Regarding ad hoc committees, they are temporary committees with a specified task 36
and purpose, with a specified timeframe in which to accomplish the task, which should be 37
less than one year. One of the reasons for this is to make sure that ad hoc committees are 38
not standing committees, which would be subject to Brown Act constraints. This allows 39
for flexibility to meet regularly with a small group and not be subject to the Brown Act 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
constraints. It is a minority group of the Commission, with two or three members and may 1
work directly with staff or meet independently. The ad hocs are created by an action of the 2
Commission, with members appointed either by the chair or the action. For the Parks and 3
Recreation Commission, members are typically appointed by an action of the full group. 4
Chair Greenfield invited questions or comments. 5
Mr. Anderson emphasized, from a staff perspective, the value of the ad hocs. He said they 6
are instrumental in getting the work prepared for Commission review, doing the research 7
and assisting the staff to work through issues in great detail, and that they are a great benefit 8
to the community. 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus said she was wondering about identifying items within the Parks 10
Master Plan which may not be the highest priority for the City or easily fit into the City’s 11
priorities for the year, but are things that the Commission thinks are high priority. She 12
wondered if they can still work on things for which there is a program or policy in the 13
Parks Master Plan, but the bucket they fall into are not in the current City priorities. Chair 14
Greenfield answered that if the Commission feels strongly that there is something that 15
should be a priority which is not directly addressed in the Council or staff priorities, it 16
would be something the Commission could discuss. If staff felt it was a reasonable idea 17
that could be supported, they could include it in the work plan as a recommendation to 18
Council, requesting the green light to move forward with it. 19
Mr. Anderson addressed the question, saying that everything in the Parks Master Plan is 20
fair game for including in something they do. They could have a work plan item 21
specifically dedicated to implementing elements of the Parks Master Plan. On the other 22
hand, there is the balancing act of limited resources for all the things they want to achieve. 23
Also, different items rise in priority throughout the year. There may be a Parks Master 24
Plan element that becomes high priority for one reason or another and jumps to the top, 25
but as long as they are considering the prioritization process, including everything they 26
want to achieve, the Parks Master Plan is definitely on the list. 27
Commissioner Freeman commented that they are in a fast-moving world that changes as 28
a result of effects of the pandemic, resources, et cetera and he wondered if there was a way 29
to have an addendum that might not have been part of the Master Plan or initiated from 30
the Council. He wondered if there was any kind of vehicle that adds to the Master Plan to 31
become a priority. Mr. Anderson thought there was a component of the Master Plan that 32
talks about updating it. It is a living document that is refreshed and re-analyzed. He thought 33
the timeframes for that might be spelled out in the Plan. He said it may be that they set the 34
cycle and the plan for a refresh or an addendum. Or it may be that they keep an ongoing 35
list of priorities, and re-examine them. 36
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought the timeframe was five years, and since it was done in 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
2017, it may be time to start thinking about it. She thought there were a lot of things they 1
may want to re-examine at some point, or bring to the community to examine. She said 2
that the goals in the Master Plan each have policies and programs under them, and there is 3
no clear equity among the goals. Some may get a lot of work, while others didn’t get any. 4
She thought it would be interesting to have this information. Chair Greenfield felt this 5
was a good idea, relating to what is appropriate for the five-year review. He thought they 6
should consider available resources and if it is something they should begin to take up this 7
year. He thought they should at least work to create a list of things to consider to be 8
included in the living document, and also learn the process for getting updates into the 9
Master Plan as well as what a five-year review includes and at what level of detail. Since 10
they will not have answers to these questions at the retreat, it is something to revisit at a 11
later date. 12
Chair Greenfield shifted the conversation to highlights of the Master Plan and alignment 13
with aspirational documents. Other plans are applicable as well, including the City’s 14
overall Master Plan; the Park and Recs Master Plan, including Parks, Trails, Open Space 15
and Recreation Master Plan; the Urban Forestry Master Plan; the SCAP (Sustainability 16
Climate Action Plan); and the GSI (Green Stormwater Infrastructure) plans. He reviewed 17
the principles defined in the Parks Master Plan and said the important principles to keep 18
in mind while considering priorities include Playful, Healthy, Sustainable, Inclusive, 19
Accessible, Flexible, Balanced and Nature. Discussions of priorities should be consistent 20
with most of these principles. Specific goals called out from the Master Plan include 21
providing high quality facilities and services for the community; enhancing what they have 22
both in breadth, quality and variety of use within Parks and Rec and Open Space facilities; 23
creating environments that include regular active and passive activities to support health, 24
wellness and social connections (consistent with the City’s annual priority); preserving 25
and integrating nature, natural systems and ecological principles throughout the city 26
(consistent with Council’s sustainability priority); developing innovative programs, 27
services and strategies, which has been important over the past few years with new 28
challenges and the need to re-think different areas; and managing Palo Alto’s land and 29
services effectively and efficiently. 30
Chair Greenfield invited comments or questions. Hearing none, he continued the 31
discussion on priorities. 32
Chair Greenfield presented the City Council’s priorities for the coming year. The four 33
top-level priorities are economic recovery and transition; climate change protection and 34
adaptation; housing for social and economic balance; and community safety and health. 35
He said in looking at the priorities, there are clearly two specific ones speaking directly to 36
the work of the Parks and Recreation Commission with staff – climate change and 37
community safety and health – but t will be important to try to find alignment with these 38
priorities. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Chair Greenfield invited comments from Council Member DuBois. 1
Council Member DuBois remarked that there was a lot of discussion under community 2
safety and health on a wide range of topics, so this is an area where Parks and Recreation 3
work plan can really contribute, as well as climate change. There was discussion about the 4
tree ordinance, about potentially dedicating more parks space, air quality, and many people 5
spoke about noise, particularly airplane noise. Chair Greenfield asked if specific items 6
under community safety and health were listed as priorities. Council Member DuBois 7
replied it was a broad discussion and did include a lot of talk about crime under the 8
community safety piece, and funding of public safety positions, among other things. Chair 9
Greenfield said the Commission has struggled with broadness and specificity in 10
developing priorities. Council Member DuBois said the City’s work plan is much broader, 11
and the PRC work plan didn’t have to align with it one hundred percent. 12
Chair Greenfield initiated the topic of staff priorities, which became somewhat less 13
aspirational and more of a reality check in defining what is possible with existing 14
resources. Mr. Anderson shared the list of items which are above and beyond staff’s day-15
to-day activities, but which are significant – maintaining parks and open space preserves, 16
offering recreational programs, and staffing facilities. Some of their priorities are capital 17
improvement projects, a few of which are longstanding and need to be finished, such as 18
the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which started before the pandemic and 19
was derailed by a number of issues, including need to focus on higher priorities. They hope 20
to finish this soon, hopefully coming to the Commission in March and wrap it up in April. 21
Mr. Anderson went on to say they have improvement projects they are working on as well, 22
including Boulware Park, coming soon, dealing with improvements to the park expansion 23
land that was purchased and dedicated in 2020. That project will include renovating the 24
playgrounds, pathways and amenities. There will be a new restroom and a new dog park 25
associated with the project. This is another project which the Commission had already 26
taken action on by approving a Park Improvement Ordinance, which was approved by 27
Council. They are now at the stage of building them out. These include Ramos Park 28
improvement project, with new playground, pathways and restroom; Cameron Park 29
improvement, with new playground replacement; Cubberley Field restroom, a 30
longstanding project they look forward to making progress on; and the Magical Bridge 31
playground improvement, replacing existing surfacing and a adding a shade element. 32
Other Parks priority projects include the skate park, which needs a push with extra staff 33
attention to get it to the next step of another community meeting. They have been working 34
on this with the stakeholder group and will bring it to the Commission for a 35
recommendation and then take it to Council. Another project is implementing weekday 36
fees at Foothills Nature Preserve. They have only been charging for holidays and 37
weekends, and will implement weekdays after some preparation. A new endeavor is to 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
develop an e-bike, electric bike, policy for Parks and Open Space. Current regulations are 1
outdated and need a fresh look at this emerging and growing activity. The First Tee driving 2
range and youth area improvement project was presented to the Commission, and they 3
have a recommendation from the Commission. It is now up to staff to take it to Council as 4
a discussion item, which will happen soon. This project is heavier in terms of staff 5
involvement, guidance and management, so as it moves forward it will take a fair amount 6
of staff resources and time. 7
Mr. Anderson shared some Recreation-focused priorities. Continuing to offer diverse 8
programs to meet enhanced needs of the community. In Aquatics, they need to hire new 9
swim lesson teachers and expand lessons and group swim hours during spring and 10
summer. They will continue their work on the Racquet Court Policy. The Pickleball rules 11
were recently updated, but there is more work to do, which Mr. Howard is working on and 12
will be bringing to the Commission. Another priority they are working on is filling vacant 13
positions. They recently filled a Supervising Park Ranger position at Foothills which had 14
been vacant for two years. Shortly after that, one of the park rangers moved on to another 15
job, creating another vacancy. A Coordinator of Recreational Programs is a position which 16
will help facilitate and support the Commission when filled, among other things, such as 17
the Community Garden program. There are two vacant Park Maintenance positions which 18
they hope to fill soon. A Program Assistant I, a Program Assistant II, a full-time Custodian 19
and a Facility Attendant are also open positions. The work of these vacant positions is 20
currently being spread over existing staff, which spreads them thinner and makes it more 21
challenging to address the previously-listed priority programs. 22
Chair Greenfield invited comments and questions of the Commissioners. 23
Regarding the electronic bikes policy, Commissioner Kleinhaus stated that it came up at 24
Mid-Pen on Wednesday, and they decided to not allow them, because of the high-pitched 25
noise in the spectrum inaudible to humans, but which causes wildlife to disappear from an 26
area. She suggested that perhaps they should not allow electronic bikes in certain open 27
space areas and asked if they were thinking about how to regulate it. 28
Mr. Anderson replied that there is currently outdated language in the regulations which 29
prohibits motorized bicycles from Parks and Open Space, unless handicapped-related. The 30
California Vehicle Code has new language, and their regulation needs to be updated, but 31
they have not looked at the issues and the policy, so they need to do this. He has been in 32
touch with Mid-Pen staff, who worked on the recent policy review, and he felt staff could 33
learn a lot from their research and conclusions. His recommendation was that they 34
eventually form an ad hoc committee to help work through this policy to create their own, 35
as well as updating the regulation. Commissioner Kleinhaus said their Board of Directors 36
did not accept staff recommendations because they thought that they were too liberal. She 37
said regulating this seems like there is a tremendous amount of work for staff, and although 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
very important, it would be a difficult thing to ask of staff. 1
Chair Greenfield agreed that it is a reasonable and important observation that staff has a 2
list of priorities they are planning to work on and given discussion of the vacant positions, 3
staff resources are limited right now, more so than usual. If things go well, they may be 4
less limited going forward, but they have to get there first. Regarding the e-bike discussion, 5
he said it is a policy area that has never been specifically addressed in terms of Parks and 6
Open Spaces. It is something that makes sense to him to address as a Commission. It won’t 7
be an easy project and not a one-year project, so they may look at it in terms of scoping 8
things out during the first year to better define what they are aiming for. 9
Commissioner Freeman added that it is a great report and it is nice to see many things 10
happening. Staff has many challenges, especially with filling the vacant positions and 11
competing with other cities in recruitment. Regarding e-bikes, he said the fact that they 12
are trying to be proactive and stay ahead of something that is in the environment, getting 13
a lot of growth and momentum, it was nice to know they are somewhat in front of it. E-14
bikes are starting to become the norm, so he thought it would be a great effort. 15
Chair Greenfield also saw the size and speed of e-bikes increasing, with more of the 16
monster bikes with big tires, going faster. He said there are obviously ranges of e-bikes 17
and different uses and nuances to consider when developing a policy. 18
Chair Greenfield welcomed Commissioner Brown who joined the meeting, and updated 19
her on the discussion. He invited further comments of the Commission. 20
Commissioner Cribbs asked whether there was a timeline on filling the vacant positions, 21
and also whether there have been resignations as well. Mr. Anderson responded that the 22
timeline is tricky. The vacant positions are for community services which predominantly 23
fall into the Park and Rec category; however, it is across the board throughout the City, in 24
different departments, many of which Parks staff rely upon, including to fill their positions. 25
For example, Human Resources is understaffed and struggling, which expands the typical 26
timeframe for filling a position. It may have been three to four months in the past, but is 27
now closer to six. They were given the opportunity to prioritize certain positions, but those 28
get counter-balanced with the entire City, so it is difficult to give an accurate timeframe. 29
He thought in the ballpark of four to six months may be realistic. In terms of resignations 30
within Community Services, he said there have been some resignations, as well as others 31
leaving for jobs elsewhere. 32
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought there was a component of a native plant garden in the 33
Ramos Park Improvement Project, where it shows playgrounds, pathways and restroom, 34
Mr. Anderson confirmed this is the case. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked that native 35
planting be specified in the item. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
Chair Greenfield was pleased with the interaction in this section and added that 1
everything they are talking about was meant to be collaborative in the manner of how the 2
Commission operates, in which everyone has a voice. He continued the discussion, adding 3
that as they consider priorities to keep in mind three pillars of the Commission, which are 4
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, so as they consider priorities, they should consider 5
which priorities fit into each area. Also, they should consider the alignment of the three 6
pillars with the Council priorities, focusing specifically on Climate Change Protection and 7
Adaptation and Community Safety and Health. He said as they consider prioritization of 8
what they will select as their focus, it is clear that they have resource limitations. Normally, 9
when resource limitations are considered, it is financial resources that come to mind. As 10
they look into the aspirational Master Plan, there are many projects and great ideas that 11
have been lacking funding in the past. He said a more immediate constraint currently is 12
staff resources, so they need to be careful to make sure the Commission is making things 13
easier for staff on a net basis, with the goal of a net positive, so that staff is getting more 14
out than they are putting in, based on their recommendations and the policies and projects 15
they are working on. 16
Chair Greenfield said as they consider priorities over the past year and new priorities, it 17
is helpful to look at the work done in detail. Priorities for the past year included 18
maximizing Rec opportunities with available resources, equity access and inclusion for 19
programs, Parks and Open Space; Foothills Nature Preserve stewardship; and 20
environmental sustainability and climate change. The end goal of their action was to add 21
their priorities for the coming year. Looking back at the past priorities there is generally a 22
recommendation that something shouldn’t continue as a priority for more than three years, 23
so they would look back at the Commission’s ad hocs and use that to review which projects 24
would be their priorities for the coming year. 25
Chair Greenfield shared the chart of where they were last year. The chart was updated 26
after spending some time with the Vice Chair, staff and others considering what they might 27
want as a starting point for next year. His feeling was that they didn’t need to have an ad 28
hoc for Foothills Nature Preserve in the coming year, but moving that to a liaison role 29
would probably make more sense given that major work has been done in terms of 30
recommendations sent to Council. Looking to better design a specific ad hoc focus for the 31
next 15-month period, he said the CIP Review is done on a short basis every year, over a 32
shorter period of time, as well as information trying to project a time period when 33
something would be addressed. The rough draft of what could be done with ad hocs 34
included addition of an e-bike policy ad hoc to develop a scope for e-bike usage in Park 35
and Open Spaces was touched on. They also thought it would be appropriate to include an 36
ad hoc to make a recommendation regarding potentially rededicating the Byxbee Park 10 37
acres that were part of Measure E, which undedicated the area for potentially putting in an 38
anaerobic digestor. Also, a website refresh was listed as an ad hoc. It would not become 39
part of the Work Plan, but would be something that two to three people could be working 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
on. 1
Chair Greenfield invited comments from the Commission on the proposed starting point 2
for ad hocs for the coming year. 3
Commissioner Brown noted in regard to Website Refresh that Communications was listed 4
under Funding Opportunities so she recommended thinking about somehow consolidating 5
those, to avoid duplication of efforts, because it would essentially be two groups working 6
on communications. Chair Greenfield thought the Website Refresh would be at a higher 7
level, looking at the website as a whole, looking at other commission websites within the 8
City or potentially other cities. Looking at what is obsolete and doesn’t belong, what they 9
want to add. He said Funding Opportunities is an important area they will want to have 10
included in the website update, but as a fairly small subset. He said it was a good point to 11
consider. 12
Chair Greenfield invited further comments from the Commissioners. 13
Commissioner Cribbs commented she was glad they were continuing to have the Funding 14
Opportunities because she continues to have faith the community that if there is a need 15
that is evidenced that they can find a way to do accomplish it, despite the lack of City 16
budget and staff resources. She felt it was an important ad hoc to continue, although she 17
acknowledged that they don’t want ad hocs to go on forever. She felt that defining the role 18
a bit tighter might be good. She said she was always happy to see Recreation Projects 19
continuing, along with the Racquet Court Policy. Regarding Park Amenities, she thought 20
they had made a lot of progress so it may be good to have a scorecard about timelines, et 21
cetera, that the ad hoc could work on. She said she liked all five of the suggested ad hocs. 22
Chair Greenfield wondered if they needed an ad hoc for Park Amenities or whether a 23
liaison role would be sufficient. Commissioner Cribbs thought it was a good question for 24
staff, but felt that a lot of that is currently in progress and funded, and if there were 25
timelines and a scorecard so that they could just applaud the fact that they are making 26
progress on the renovations, it could possibly move to a liaison role. Mr. Anderson said 27
there were some achievements coming for the Dog Park. Boulware will be adding a new 28
one, which is great, because they don’t do that very often. Advancing other dog park-29
related things such as the off leash program they talked of, which didn’t made much 30
headway, an ad hoc would probably be helpful, although it could be revisited next year. 31
He thought the Restrooms were dialed in fairly well, with four on the agenda, so an ad hoc 32
was probably not necessary to help with that. Park Amenities, for things such as benches, 33
et cetera, he thought a liaison role would be fine, but he was open either way. 34
Commissioner Cribbs asked for an opinion on having a liaison role for the Dog Park 35
specifically so that the dog community has a contact, especially since the one at Boulware 36
is set to be done and there is a little bit of funding for renovation of others, but she didn’t 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
foresee other dog parks being redone in the near future for which an ad hoc would be 1
needed. Chair Greenfield was also thinking of moving this to a liaison role, so that there 2
would be a dog park-specific one and perhaps a restroom one, although Park Amenities 3
could include restrooms and benches. 4
Commissioner Kleinhaus referred back to the goal, “Preserve and integrate nature, natural 5
systems, and ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.” She suggested that one way to 6
do that would be looking at Green Streets and the Urban Forest together. She thought it 7
felt well within what they are asked do under the City Council Sustainability and Health 8
goal. She said bringing nature to the city is something they can do, along creeks, planting 9
native trees and other things that could be looked at and other groups to work with such as 10
the people working on bicycle connectivity. She thought there were connectivity issues 11
that could be looked comprehensively, which she is interested in. She said there is a lot of 12
work being done in other cities in connection with that. 13
Commissioner Kleinhaus said another goal she would like to see as a staff priority is 14
completing Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which has been sitting on the 15
back burner. Under Park Dedication, she expressed interest in looking at the ten acres. 16
There was a City priority in which one of the programs was to look at all the other types 17
of park-like land that the City owns, to see which ones could be dedicated as parkland. If 18
the Commission was going to look at Park Dedication, it might be good to expand it to the 19
other properties in City ownership that could be dedicated. 20
Chair Greenfield said there has been a Park Dedication in the past that has reviewed 21
opportunities, as Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested, which is partly why he suggested 22
calling it the Park Dedication ad hoc, rather than limiting it specifically to Byxbee Park. 23
He thought the focus with the ten acres could include considering other opportunities 24
within the city. On the BCCP, it is on staff’s plan, and set as a liaison role. 25
Commissioner Kleinhaus responded that she is not sure what a liaison is, versus and ad 26
hoc. Chair Greenfield explained that the way they have defined ad hocs is that it is a 27
committee that will work on something that is part of the Work Plan submitted to the City 28
Council for approval, something with a specified timeframe and a specific goal and focus, 29
not something that would be there year after year. It is not a catchall for multiple issues 30
that would become more of a standing committee. He said the liaison roles are typically a 31
single person, one who interacts with a certain group of stakeholders in the city, attends 32
the meetings and reports back to the Commission. A liaison can have a variety of different 33
roles depending on the topic. For example, a Dog Park Liaison would be a conduit to the 34
dog park community. The Field Users Liaison might work with stakeholders and soccer 35
clubs and baseball organizations, in terms of issues they have with fields. In many cases 36
they try to be a point person that relieves some of the burden on staff in terms of 37
community outreach. With respect to BCCP, a liaison would be someone to be the point 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
person to help the project get across the finish line, that staff can work with. In some cases 1
it may be helpful for staff to speak with a Commission member before bringing an item to 2
the full Commission to get a first pass of questions and a focus. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought, in light of this explanation, her previous opinions might 4
change. Chair Greenfield responded that the meaning of her idea of bringing nature to the 5
city may need to be clarified, but it might be something that could be a project with a 6
liaison working with staff in developing ideas to bring to the Commission for 7
consideration, and then potentially creating an ad hoc and Work Plan item. Commissioner 8
Kleinhaus said that native plants and trees in parks is really looking at other things. She 9
said the BCCP didn’t need to be there because that would be a liaison role. Chair 10
Greenfield said that is the recommendation. 11
Commissioner Freeman said in looking at the e-bike policy, he wondered if it incorporated 12
the growth in electric scooters and if they are able to ride those in the parks, since they are 13
probably pretty fast as well. He wondered about changing the title on this to cover different 14
types of electric modes that could be used in parks, whether bike or scooter. Chair 15
Greenfield responded their focus is definitely on parks and open space areas, as opposed 16
to streets and sidewalks, which is out of their purview and is part of the Department of 17
Transportation. Mr. Anderson thought that it should be added, and thought it could be for 18
e-bikes and other things motorized. The existing regulation is outdated, but does call out 19
electric motorized bikes and also mentions scooters, so he felt they could look 20
comprehensively at the ordinance, which is broader than just bikes. Chair Greenfield 21
mentioned Segways, which Mr. Anderson said would also fit in that category. 22
Commissioner Freeman suggested, under Recreation, that another area that continues to 23
grow nationwide is pickleball. Though there is pickleball in one location, there might be a 24
need to cover some of the other communities. He wondered about adding that as one of 25
the items under Recreational Projects, or if it would fall somewhere else. Chair Greenfield 26
thought one thing to look at was the “Projected Duration” column and that the Racquet 27
Court Ad Hoc is policy-focused and something they will look to wrap up in the first half 28
of this year, as with Funding Opportunities, which is looking at a narrow focus, to finish 29
and get some ideas posted on the website and disseminated to the public. He said 30
Recreation Opportunities is a broader ad hoc. They may need to refine the definition, but 31
something like additional new courts would certainly apply to that ad hoc. He agreed it 32
would be something appropriate for this Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc to include in 33
their focus, but it would be separate from the Policy Ad Hoc, so having two separate ad 34
hocs is appropriate, although he was open to other opinions. 35
Chair Greenfield asked if the Commissioners leaned toward not having a Park Amenities 36
Ad Hoc. 37
Council Member DuBois suggested making Park Dedication more broad. Byxbee Park is 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
important, but other park opportunities are also important. Otherwise, he felt the 1
Commission’s direction seemed very logical. 2
Commissioner Kleinhaus brought up lighting as an emerging potent pollutant that is 3
impacting ecosystems and human health in teens. Outdoor lighting has been connected to 4
mental health issues, such as anxiety. She said she was not thinking there was something 5
they could do about it, because it is not necessarily only in parks; however, there is more 6
and more interest in more lighting on trails and allowing extended use. The extended use 7
is also causing harm. She thought there were discussions in Palo Alto in the past in this 8
regard, but they died off. She wondered if the Parks and Recreation Commission had any 9
interest or jurisdiction, or should just be aware in case something comes up that they should 10
look at it. Chair Greenfield wondered if there was some way to combine the two items 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus had brought up – bringing nature to the city and the outdoor 12
lighting, as sort of a naturalist overview focusing on ensuring that impacts to the natural 13
environment are properly considered, as well as growing the natural environment and 14
extending its reach. He was not sure if there was a liaison role that could be developed to 15
work with staff. Perhaps it would be related to the Sustainability Liaison role, which is 16
also somewhat ambiguously defined. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus thought putting it with Bringing Nature to the City would be a 18
good idea. Commissioner Brown thought these concepts would fall under the 19
Sustainability Liaison role, especially with the SCAP going on right now, in which there 20
are a lot of policy changes and opportunity for community engagement around them. She 21
felt the ad hoc role should be reserved for specific projects that arise from the liaison role 22
that have a set timeframe and objectives, and require the input of other committee members 23
on that ad hoc, versus a smaller project that can be done just with the liaison and staff. For 24
example, the sensors at Rinconada Pool is something that Commissioner Cribbs and staff 25
handle and doesn’t need to be a full ad hoc committee. Some projects need a little more 26
specifics and identification of resources required and a timeline before they should rise to 27
an ad hoc committee level. Chair Greenfield agreed and thought they did not have enough 28
at this point to define a specific role for an ad hoc, although he appreciated Commissioner 29
Kleinhaus’ interest in the topic and that it fits within the scope of the Commission, but 30
looking at it as a liaison role initially, working with staff on something that could become 31
an ad hoc would be appropriate. He advocated moving the idea to the liaison list. 32
Commissioner Kleinhaus said since the SCAP is focused primarily on electrification, this 33
probably would never float beyond the bottom of their priority list. She said it is one of 34
the primary goals in the Park Master Plan, and there are a lot of policies and programs 35
associated with it that have not yet been addressed, so having it as a liaison to 36
Sustainability doesn’t actually address it and is basically saying it’s not going to happen. 37
Chair Greenfield said the Sustainability Liaison has in the past been someone liaised with 38
staff. In the past, there were a number of presentations and updates on GSI, on Urban 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Forestry, on the SCAP itself, on sea level rise. The liaison role could be defined to be 1
whatever they want, and, as she pointed out, the overall SCAP focus is electrification 2
which doesn’t fit so much with what they Commission is doing, but that doesn’t mean that 3
the Parks and Recreation Commission’s Sustainability Liaison couldn’t be more focused 4
on the natural elements. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she didn’t understand how the 5
liaison influences what the other groups are working with and bringing back to the 6
Commission. 7
Mr. Anderson said, regarding how to include things like bringing nature to the city and 8
addressing lights, he thinks of sustainability in a much broader context and wouldn’t limit 9
it to any one area. For a liaison role it is wide open, so it could include all of those things. 10
He suggested regarding bringing nature to the city, one way to address it would be to make 11
it an ongoing thing, looking for opportunities, calling out issues that are observed or 12
reported from the community, and working with staff on those. Another way would be for 13
the point person on Park Improvement Project review to raise those items. Asking, “What 14
are we doing for native plantings in here?” “Are their native trees addressed?” “Are we 15
addressing native species?” “How about lighting?” That kind of focused view on every 16
project that it brought, with the special attention of a liaison, would fit well. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus said one of the three maps in the Parks Master Plan looks at 18
connectivity in terms of the Urban Forest, in terms of pollinator corridors. The map looks 19
not only at parks, but also areas near creeks, trees on streets, et cetera, to bring nature’s 20
fingers and patches into everywhere in Palo Alto. She wondered if and how that would 21
ever materialize. The liaison role sounded good as described, but it doesn’t really look at 22
the whole fabric of a city. She didn’t know if it was something they could even do. Chair 23
Greenfield thought part of the liaison role in working with staff is to help determine what 24
can be done and answer some of Commissioner Kleinhaus’ questions. Starting off with a 25
liaison role to research and investigate further would be the right approach. 26
Vice Chair LaMere thought it was important to keep in mind as they go through this with 27
their priorities, how many ad hocs they can manage, how many staff can handle, and their 28
own commission of six members. He thought as they come up with ideas and priorities, it 29
was important to keep that in mind as well. They will need to agree on priorities and what 30
can be accomplished. 31
Chair Greenfield concurred and asked for the Commissioners’ thoughts on Park 32
Amenities in terms of trying to limit their ad hocs. He asked if they should move forward 33
for the time being with a Dog Park and a Park Amenity Liaison. Commissioner Cribbs 34
thought they should try that, and they could always revisit it if it’s not working. There was 35
no opposition expressed to this. Chair Greenfield summarized that the ad hocs they were 36
then focused on included CIP; Funding Opportunities, publishing and communicating 37
tools; Recreation Projects, which needs more focus on how to define it to be achievable 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
within 15 months; Racquet Court Policy, which will be disbanded once the policy update 1
recommendation goes to Council; the e-Bike Policy, possibly with an updated name; Park 2
Dedication; and Website Refresh. 3
The Commission discussed more appropriate names for e-bike policy, including 4
Motorized Mobility and Motorized Conveyances. Chair Greenfield asked if people would 5
know what motorized conveyance meant. Commissioner Freeman thought someone could 6
easily think of a small motorbike as a conveyance. He said they might just make it e-bikes 7
or scooters. Chair Greenfield said there are scooters and skateboards and one-wheeled 8
devices, and thought maybe Electric Conveyances Policy would work, because they are 9
not talking about a gas-powered device. Commissioner Brown thought it would be fine. 10
Chair Greenfield said if nothing else, the name will serve to educate when people ask 11
what it means. 12
Chair Greenfield moved to discussion on liaison roles. He shared a list of proposed 13
liaisons, based on conversations with staff and the Vice Chair. The proposal would fold 14
the Baylands 10.5 Liaison into the Rec Projects Ad Hoc. Commissioner Kleinhaus 15
interjected that when the City did the outreach on the 10.5 acres, there were equal numbers 16
of people who asked to make part or all of it into a natural area. Given that the loss of 17
habitat on the golf course has been tremendous and that one of the goals of the project on 18
the golf course was to increase habitat and that did not happen, she thought that the 10.5 19
acres should have both the natural habitat restoration aspect and recreation aspect, 20
probably 50/50. Chair Greenfield felt that might be getting too far in the weeds. He said 21
Baylands 10.5 is not specifically a recreation project but something to consider all 22
potential uses. He asked if they should keep it as a liaison role, since the likelihood of 23
something coming in the next year doesn’t seem high at present. 24
Mr. Anderson said this was a challenging one. The 10.5 acres, the First Tee and the 25
Skateboard Park all fall into categories of large projects that require a lot of public 26
outreach, staff time and funding to make progress on. He said it was possible they may get 27
to the 10.5 Acres this year, depending on how things shift, and direction from Council 28
once items like the gym occupy their attention for discussion and direction to staff. He was 29
not sure whether there should be an ad hoc or liaison role, although he thought it should 30
be, at minimum, a liaison role. Chair Greenfield said there is not any immediate activity 31
on it, unless it started from an activity from coming out of a Rec project which would need 32
consideration of environmental impacts and potential environmental uses. Overall, he did 33
not see a role of a liaison for the coming year, but was open to opinions of others. 34
Commission LaMere wondered if they could add a liaison later if it looked like there was 35
going to be activity. Chair Greenfield said it was something they could easily add. 36
Commissioner Cribbs said it could be merged into the Recreational Opportunities, and if 37
it came to the top, then it could go back to being a liaison specifically for 10.5. She felt it 38
should go someplace. Chair Greenfield said they wanted to try to avoid overlap. If there 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
is a liaison for 10.5 that is not part of the Rec projects then there are potential concerns. 1
Commissioner Cribbs said that is why they would put it in the Rec projects for now and 2
take it away from where it is now. Chair Greenfield agreed. 3
Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered if, when it came back, it would be more focused on 4
the recreational opportunities and not the nature restoration opportunities which at least 5
half of the people commented on in the Parks Master survey, asking for it to be a natural 6
area restoration. Chair Greenfield said that would be the case if it came back as a 7
Recreation project, but if it was coming back as more of a Sustainability project, then that 8
would have a different focus. It is something the Sustainability Liaison could potentially 9
make a recommendation on. If there is a group that is looking to develop it for other, non-10
recreation purposes, that is something else that the Commission should consider. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus didn’t think people saw it as non-recreational, but just as a 12
“birding issue” rather than development of intense use. She pointed to that day’s front page 13
of the Mercury News, stating that people from all over the country are flying to Palo Alto 14
to see one bird that happened to be somewhere in midtown. She said it has been going on 15
for over a week. The birding part is a recreation facility. It’s just different than a gym, and 16
she thought when the surveys were done in the past, at least half of the respondents asked 17
for a birding park. Chair Greenfield said he understood that she was saying that the natural 18
project would be recreation as well and something else that the Recreation Ad Hoc could 19
take on. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she wasn’t trying to create more and more 20
committees and liaisons, but was concerned with this issue. Chair Greenfield said if there 21
is a group that comes in with a potential project to develop, then they can consider where 22
it fits in. 23
Chair Greenfield moved on to other liaisons. The recommendation was to continue with 24
Baylands Tide Gate, Community Gardens, Cubberley Field Users, Golf, and GSI. He said 25
on Hawthorne’s Area Planning, there was no activity on it last year but it did get 26
information from Mid-Pen and was something appropriate for the Commission to continue 27
having a liaison for and would probably have some activity in the coming year. He said 28
they are looking to create a Funding Partner Liaison, who would be the partner for both 29
the Palo Alto Rec Foundation and the Friends of Palo Alto Parks. For Brown Act purposes, 30
this should be someone who is a point person for these organizations, but is also part of 31
the Funding Opportunities Ad Hoc. Keeping the PAUSD and Safe Routes liaisons, the 32
Sidewalk Vendor Policy would be a short term role, just to help the policy across the finish 33
line. The Skateboard Park would get folded into Rec Projects. 34
Commissioner Cribbs asked what the current situation was with the Ventura plan. Council 35
Member DuBois advised that they have an Ad Hoc that is talking to Sobrato, and the Fry 36
site is a key part of that. Council had a meeting with some preferences and are waiting for 37
that conversation to finish, and it will then go back to Council to select a preferred 38
alternative. He thought Council was very strong about some of the creek restoration. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Commissioner Cribbs thought that was good to know because the Commission was 1
concerned that the area doesn’t have as much parkland as maybe it should, so before it 2
goes farther along, it would be nice to keep up with it. Chair Greenfield said the role of 3
this liaison would be to monitor the activities of that Plan, and report back to the 4
Commission, particularly as it applies to parks in the area, looking to ensure that park 5
resources are included in conjunction with new developments. 6
Chair Greenfield said they would finalize the roles and assignments in the next action, but 7
he directed that they go back to talking more about specific priorities for the year and how 8
the ad hocs fit in with the City Council priorities in terms of climate change, community 9
safety and community health, looking to start articulating their priorities. He said they 10
would take a ten-minute break and he asked the commissioners to think about how these 11
roles would apply directly to their priorities. 12
[The Commission took a ten-minute break] 13
Chair Greenfield said it was time to try to nail down their priorities and noted the 14
discussion they’ve had on ad hocs and liaisons was to include preliminary discussion 15
focused specifically on how to inform what areas and what projects should fall under their 16
priorities. This could include more discussion of points such as those Commissioner 17
Kleinhaus brought up regarding inclusion of a natural focus. He added for consideration a 18
liaison role of Natural Environment Ambassador that they could consider in addition to 19
the Sustainability liaison. He said they will also want to consider under Park Amenities 20
Liaison, with that person being the first contact that staff would reach out to for Park 21
Improvement Plans and PIO reviews, if that was something mentioned as a Sustainability 22
Liaison, or maybe both of them. He felt it would be helpful to look at the 2021 priorities 23
and determine which ones would apply moving forward and which ones would not. He 24
thought they should aim for three or four priorities and try to keep them as concise as they 25
can – and broad at the same time. 26
Commissioner Cribbs said she thought that the Recreational Projects specifically is talking 27
about capital improvements, or things that have to be built. She was concerned that they 28
don’t specifically call out recreation programs, such as new programs that the community 29
might want to see instituted having to do with kids or seniors or adults, or something that 30
is specifically a recreation program. For example, a new dance opportunity in town that 31
everybody wanted to take lessons. Or maybe a senior’s exercise class that they are missing 32
and should have. Chair Greenfield suggested Recreation Projects and Programs. 33
Commissioner Cribbs agreed. 34
Chair Greenfield said looking at their priorities from last year, at a quick glance it would 35
make sense that Foothills Nature Preserve Stewardship would not a be a specifically 36
called-out priority for them, but is one they have completed work on to the extent of not 37
even planning to have an ad hoc specific to that. Having been a specific focus for the past 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
two years, it would be nice to be able to move on. He said, looking at the ad hocs and 1
considering how they mesh with the Council priorities, it makes sense for them to align to 2
the Community Safety and Health and the Climate Change Protection and Adaptation the 3
Funding Opportunities, which applies to all of them, also, Capital Projects applies to 4
everything they do in a high level sense. The Rec Projects and Programs applies to 5
Community Health. He was not sure it applied to Community Safety. Commissioner 6
Cribbs thought that it did, because offering programs or projects for people to become 7
involved in may result in crime becoming less attractive. Chair Greenfield said Racquet 8
Court Policy is about health. Electronic Conveyances would apply to all and would be 9
primarily on the Safety front. Park Dedication is about Health and Climate Change. Chair 10
Greenfield was interested in ideas from people on what to state as their priorities for the 11
coming year. 12
Commissioner Heinrichs said they have environment and nature as a big part of the Parks 13
Master plan, and should be there, too. It fits well with Community Health and Safety, with 14
Climate Change, and with Economic Recovery. She thought they should have improved 15
nature in the city rather than always mitigating. Chair Greenfield asked how it would be 16
articulated it as a priority for them to consider. Commissioner Heinrich liked the term 17
Nature in the City. 18
Commission LaMere asked if there were any worthy of carrying over, or if they were 19
trying to come up with completely new ideas and directions similar to City Council, who 20
carried over some that they are able to do. Chair Greenfield said that is an obvious place 21
to start. He thought they do want to consider carryover. They could start by copying the 22
other three priorities in and discuss whether they want to keep them, edit them or omit 23
them, or combine them in some manner. 24
Commissioner Freeman thought Nature in the City could possibly be considered part of 25
Environmental, Sustainability and Climate Change as it is in some ways related, with the 26
tree canopy and other such priorities. Commissioner Heinrich shared a distinction between 27
the understanding of climate change as opposed to biodiversity and ecology, things she 28
has been working on for many years. She explained that nature and biodiversity is the first 29
layer. Sustainability comes under that layer and focuses on humans and how to use less 30
resources and how to share more of the resources. When they do that without taking care 31
of nature and without taking care of the non-human-focused part, then the result is 32
essentially that they will lose everything. She said sustainability, the human part, is part of 33
the natural world, not above it. So, while having Environmental, Sustainability and 34
Climate Change as priorities is critically important, she felt they should also look at Nature 35
and Biodiversity, which are not the same. She suggested perhaps stating Biodiversity as 36
the priority instead of Nature in the City. She said other City Councils and government 37
agencies are recognizing that sustainability is really anthropocentric, and nature and 38
biodiversity are bigger than that. She said it is not easy, but people think they just have to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
change how they consume and whether they use electric or gas, or whether they recycle or 1
not, to save the planet. But they have to look at both pieces – the biodiversity part and the 2
human focus. 3
Commission LaMere wondered if it would be appropriate to put Biodiversity, 4
Environmental Sustainability, and Climate together as one priority. Commissioner 5
Heinrich felt if they were all equally weighted that would be fine, although some cities do 6
separate biodiversity and sustainability. Chair Greenfield appreciated raising the 7
distinction regarding biodiversity and advocated combining it with sustainability. The 8
Commission continued to discuss the wording of this priority and came to agreement on 9
Biodiversity, Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change. 10
The Commission discussed Maximizing Recreation Opportunities Using Available 11
Resources. Chair Greenfield asked if the Commissioners preferred to focus on “projects 12
and programs” as opposed to “opportunities,” with areas identified to pursue, highlight 13
and emphasize, or leave the statement as it is. Commissioner Freeman wondered if “using 14
available resources” could be seen as an opt-out opportunity. Commissioner Brown said 15
this was something she felt strongly about last time they were doing this, because it does 16
fall in line with the economic recovery and transition and everything the City has been 17
going through, being strapped for resources and staff. She thought it was important to keep 18
that top of mind, especially because the City Council wanted to focus on economic 19
recovery and transition, and efficient use of staff resources is key to that. The Commission 20
agreed upon the wording, “…considering available resources.” Regarding “Equity, Access 21
and Inclusion,” Commissioner Cribbs felt it was important to keep it as is, since equity is 22
so important in thinking about programs and parks and open space, along with access and 23
inclusion. 24
Commissioner Kleinhaus wondered if the issue of sea level rise should be called out as a 25
separate item. There is a lot of current work being done in Public Works on sea level rise, 26
mitigations, adaptations and many discussions. The Tide Gate is part of that, to protect the 27
community. Since there is so much going on, she wondered if they should consider it this 28
year, separate from climate change. Chair Greenfield thought if they consider their 29
alignment with Council priorities, climate change means protection, adaptation, sea level 30
rise. If they consider that climate change encompasses protection and adaptation, then sea 31
level rise is part of climate change adaptation, and is covered under that priority. 32
Chair Greenfield suggested a check of how the ad hoc priorities aligned with the priorities 33
they proposed. He worked through each of the ad hoc committees, to identify which 34
priority it falls under, and said it looks like all of the ad hocs are consistent with what they 35
are setting up as priorities. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to consider any further 36
update to the proposed priorities. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Vice Chair LaMere moved to adopt the 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission priorities 1
as discussed. Seconded by Commissioner Brown, the motion carried 6-0, by roll call vote. 2
3
3. Establish and Assign Parks and Recreation Commission Ad Hoc Committee 4
and Liaison Roles 5
Chair Greenfield shared the list of proposed ad hoc committees for the Commissioners’ 6
consideration and discussion pertaining to the titles. The Racquet Court CY 22 was 7
changed to Racquet Court Policy Update Ad Hoc since it was close to finished and would 8
be disbanded later in the year. 9
Chair Greenfield requested feedback on the list of staff liaison roles. He pointed out 10
regarding the Baylands 10.5 Liaison that it did not portray the nature-related orientation. 11
Also, in response to the discussion about adding a “Bring Nature to the City” type Liaison, 12
he had added a “Natural Environment Ambassador” as an idea. There was a question of 13
separate roles for a Sustainability Liaison and a Natural Environment Ambassador, and if 14
so, if it would better to have that as two different people. Mr. Anderson thought it would 15
be helpful to have one person cover both of those areas. Chair Greenfield said if there was 16
a need to split it into multiple roles, they could easily do that, as the ad hoc and liaison 17
roles are created by an action of the Commission and could be changed if needed without 18
impacting the Work Plan and did not require Council approval. 19
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked that the Sustainability Liaison be changed to 20
Sustainability and Biodiversity Liaison if it was to be just one person. The Commission 21
was fine with this. 22
Chair Greenfield asked what the consensus was on the Baylands 10.5. Commissioner 23
Cribbs thought it was to be put back in the Recreation Ad Hoc and that if it were to become 24
a passive nature preserve, then that would actually be recreation, too, just a different kind 25
of recreation, so it could fit there. If the need arose, they could change it around. 26
Commissioner Kleinhaus was agreeable as long as the idea of so many people in Palo Alto 27
who wanted it to be a more natural park was not forgotten. 28
With the Commission in agreement as to the list of ad hoc committees and liaisons, they 29
then proceeded to making assignments for the committees and liaisons. Chair Greenfield 30
advised that they should keep in mind that there would be another Commissioner added to 31
the group within the next few months and they will want to get the new person involved 32
in some of the roles. He said if someone’s load gets heavy they may want to give up some 33
space moving forward. Typically, there were three people on the ad hocs. Given that they 34
were looking at seven ad hocs for six people, he highlighted that Website Refresh, CIP 35
Review and potentially Park Dedication were ad hocs that probably could get by with two 36
people, although it would probably be better to have three people on the other ad hocs. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
The Commissioners proceeded to communicate which ad hocs they were interested in. 1
Commissioner Freeman was interested in the Electric Conveyance Policy, the Racquet 2
Court Policy, and Recreation Projects. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose the Electric 3
Conveyance Policy. She asked why the Park Dedication ad hoc would take so long. Chair 4
Greenfield said it was because it was an open item. The committee would stay active until 5
a potential item is taken up by City Council. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose the Electric 6
Conveyance Policy. Commissioner Brown preferred the CIP, the Website Refresh and was 7
happy to stay on the Racquet Court Policy for continuity. Commissioner Cribbs was happy 8
to stay on Funding Opportunities and Recreation Projects. Chair Greenfield pointed out 9
that the committees are new committees continuing in a similar related effort. Vice Chair 10
LaMere chose Recreation Projects, Funding Opportunities and CIP Review. Chair 11
Greenfield said his interest would be CIP, Electric Conveyances and Park Dedication. He 12
volunteered to help with Website as well. Commissioner Cribbs added that she would also 13
be on the Racquet Court Policy. 14
The Commission then made assignments for Liaisons. Commissioner Brown volunteered 15
to continue on the Sidewalk Vendor Policy and Dog Parks , in honor of her pet that passed 16
away last week. She was interested in the School District citywide also, but said she could 17
be flexible. Chair Greenfield asked if she would be able to attend the meetings on a 18
Wednesday morning, somewhere around 8:30 or so. Commissioner Brown would check 19
on that. Commissioner Kleinhaus chose Baylands, BCCP and Sustainability and 20
Biodiversity. She was also interested in Foothills and Urban Forestry. Commissioner 21
Freeman assumed most of these meet on a weekly basis. Chair Greenfield clarified some 22
might be monthly, others more quarterly or less frequent, but some will be more than once 23
a month. The nature of the activity and what is happening with it will determine the 24
frequency, and it may not be consistent. Commissioner Freeman went with Park 25
Amenities, Golf and Cubberley. Chair Greenfield shared that Cubberley is a role that is 26
more of a basket waiting for something to happen. If something is happening at Cubberley, 27
it could quickly become a top priority for the Commission but is in more of a monitoring 28
status at present. Commissioner Freeman said Field Users would be another one for him. 29
Commissioner Cribbs chose the Youth Council and Aquatics – unless someone else 30
wanted to take it on – and Funding partners. Vice Chair LaMere volunteered for 31
Community Gardens and Safe Routes. Chair Greenfield remarked that Foothills is where 32
they could potentially have two liaisons, and Ventura Plan was an open possibility. Vice 33
Chair LaMere indicated he would take the Ventura Plan. Chair Greenfield volunteered for 34
Baylands Tide Gate, Field Users jointly with Commissioner Freeman in a transitional 35
manner, Hawthornes and Urban Forestry. Chair Greenfield summarized that all were 36
covered, with two on a couple. He asked if there was any interest in joining anything else. 37
A second person on Foothills could be used potentially. He volunteered if no one else 38
wanted to. Commissioner Freeman offered to take Foothills. There were no final 39
comments or changes made. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Mr. Anderson thought the list looked good, but offered for consideration that on Foothills, 1
some continuity from a previous ad hoc might be beneficial, but not essential. Chair 2
Greenfield said it might be good for him to continue on that. He asked Commissioner 3
Freeman if he minded moving off of Foothills, and Commissioner Freeman was fine with 4
that. Commissioner Kleinhaus said if someone else was interested in Urban Forest, she 5
was happy to give it to them. Chair Greenfield designated the list as a starting point which 6
could be adapted. 7
Commissioner Freeman moved to adopt the 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission Ad 8
Hoc Committees and with assignments, and the Liaison assignments. Seconded by 9
Commissioner Cribbs, the motion passed unanimously, by roll call vote. 10
4. Develop a Calendar Year 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission Workplan 11
Chair Greenfield requested that Mr. Do share the Work Plan template screen, which 12
consisted of two component. First, a report on the Work Plan from 2021 and second, the 13
items included in the 2022 Work Plan. He did not expect to move forward with an action 14
that day to complete the item, but the plan at this point would be for the Work Plan to be 15
completed at the March Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, on the 22nd, and would 16
be going to City Council in April for approval. 17
Chair Greenfield asked the Commission to focus on getting their reviews in place as best 18
they could for the 2021 Work Plan, listing the items to be included in the columns on the 19
Work Plan on Baylands Tide Gate from last year, the primary focus of the project of the 20
ad hoc, the community benefits and measures of success being the main things. He said 21
rather than getting bogged down on wordsmithing, he wanted to focus on concepts. He 22
said a task will be given to each of the associated ad hocs to return with a proposed work 23
plan with all fields completed. This would be submitted to staff and included in the packet 24
for the March meeting. The process will be that each ad hoc will develop what they believe 25
to be an appropriate work plan for the work they will be undertaking and leading, The full 26
Commission would then review it and approve it at the March meeting. The first time the 27
full Commission will see all of the details will be a week before the March 22nd meeting 28
when the packet is posted. 29
Chair Greenfield asked the group to work on input to guide the ad hocs as they create the 30
Work Plan for next year. He invited questions, suggestions, clarifications. Commissioner 31
Cribbs wondered if there was a new, revised, updated work plan, or if this was the form 32
from last year. Mr. Anderson said he was told by the Clerk’s Office that they were 33
developing one and would try to get it to them soon. He recommended that they move 34
forward with this one, given the time schedule, and if he gets a new one he will help move 35
things around, or work with the ad hocs to do so. Commissioner Cribbs said when she read 36
the Boards and Commissioners Handbook again it looked like it was new, but this didn’t 37
look new. Chair Greenfield said he has posed a question to Council Members regarding 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
the Work Plan. The process is new, and they’re all figuring out their way, with 1
considerable differences from commission to commission. Right now they are in a one-2
size-fits-all template, based on the work plans submitted last year from the various 3
commissions and boards. He asked what the Council liked, and if they could get examples 4
of work plans that Council considered well-developed and that they could use as models 5
moving forward. He said they may get more information before the March meeting, which 6
Mr. Anderson would circulate. 7
Chair Greenfield suggested they go through and review the status and see to what extent 8
they can decide on the success of each ad hoc. On the Tide Gate, the ad hoc has been 9
disbanded because the goal was completed, with a Park Improvement Ordinance 10
recommended to City Council. Unfortunately, the work on the project was delayed a year, 11
so it will be starting at the end of this year instead of at the end of last year. This was 12
outside of the Commission’s control and something they knew was a potential risk. They 13
will continue with the liaison, but the work is completed. 14
Commissioner Freeman asked if they are working on the Work Plan document in concert 15
with someone else, or providing their own best input. Chair Greenfield said it is a 16
document that each of the Boards and Commissions prepare their own and submit to City 17
Council for approval. It is a check and balance that the commissions and boards are 18
working in areas and projects that Council is authorizing and recognizing as consistent 19
with their priorities and with staff priorities. 20
Mr. Anderson added that the ad hocs are welcome to communicate with staff, both him 21
and Mr. Do, to assist and brainstorm together to get things in the position they want to be, 22
but they cannot consult with other Commissioners until the March meeting because of 23
Brown Act regulations. Chair Greenfield said if there are ad hocs that only have two 24
people, a third commissioner could be involved. 25
On the Dog Parks and Restrooms, Chair Greenfield said there are multiple line items 26
applying to particular that work plan. The Ramos Park restroom construction is not 27
complete. The Park Improvement Ordinance is complete and awaiting construction. On 28
Dog Park Improvements, the Boulware Park Improvement Ordinance is in place and 29
awaiting construction. The Off-leash Dog Park Pilot item is completed, although not 30
successful in moving forward, but it was decided that Ramos Park was not a suitable site 31
for an off-leash park. Public Education on dog park practices was not completed. It could 32
be continued with the 2022 Dog Park Liaison. 33
Regarding Fund Development, support for CSD events, Commissioner Cribbs said all the 34
community events that Mr. Howard wanted to do last year were supported. Some of the 35
events did not happen because of COVID. The relationship with support organizations 36
was very successful, with each coming in to speak with the Commission twice. The 37
guidelines published for public donation and sponsorship is a task that the Ad Hoc will 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
continue and wrap up, and will be a starting point for developing the 2022 Work Plan. 1
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked regarding Friends of the Parks if Friends of Foothills Park 2
was part of that. Chair Greenfield indicated that it was not. It has been a focus of funding 3
partners, which is not the role that Friends of Foothills Park have played. Mr. Anderson 4
said there has been a recent development where they are connected and working under 5
their 501(3)c. They are a distinct entity with a distinct focus, but for their fundraising and 6
non-profit status, they have to tie into Friends of Palo Alto Parks. Chair Greenfield asked 7
if they were working with Environmental Volunteers on some of the work at Foothills. 8
Mr. Anderson said their work is independent of that. Commissioner Cribbs said there are 9
some conversations going on with Grassroots and the EVs. They have good 10
communications, some coming from the stakeholder’s group at the City Manager’s Office. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there was a separate liaison to the stakeholder group. 12
Chair Greenfield explained that in the past year the Chair and Vice Chair served as liaisons 13
to that stakeholder group. They could potentially add a third person to be involved with 14
the stakeholder group. If Commissioner Kleinhaus was one of the Foothills Liaisons, it 15
would be appropriate for her to be in that role. Mr. Anderson described the stakeholder 16
group, saying it was originally put together to help address the influx of new visitors to 17
Foothills when it opened to the general public. It was intended to be a diverse group of 18
people from Stanford and adjacent cities, all looking at and weighing in and discussing 19
things during that process. It has tapered off some as visitation has become more 20
manageable. But it is still helpful in reviewing the latest and being aware of what is going 21
on. He felt it would be helpful to have another Commission join. The frequency of 22
meetings has diminished and will probably be around every other month. Commissioner 23
Cribbs added that one of the things she thought they should focus on is future plans, such 24
as a docent program and the relationship with the community college, and things they can 25
do for the Preserve or can suggest in the future. She said it has been very effective in 26
thinking and talking with different groups. Commissioner Heinrich thought it would be 27
hard to be the liaison for Foothills without being part of that group, or at least know about 28
it and what is going on with it. It was decided that Commissioner Heinrich would be added 29
to the stakeholder’s group. 30
Commissioner Cribbs asked to go back to the PRC Review of CIP Priorities. She wondered 31
if there was a way to get a more timely review from the CIP Committee about the gaps, 32
because one of the ideas was to be able to do some fundraising for things that fell out of 33
the CIP program, but sometimes they don’t know about it far enough in advance to do 34
anything about it. Chair Greenfield said that is part of his goal for the CIP Ad Hoc this 35
year. Commissioner Cribbs wondered how to do this in view of Brown Act considerations. 36
Mr. Anderson agreed it was a challenge, with the Brown Act, to have those two related 37
Ad Hocs communicate. He thought a route to try would be to have things in his Department 38
Report that could be shared for the community and the full Commission. Commissioner 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
Cribbs thought they should try that, because too many times in the past they have been at 1
a community meeting and there’s a hole that could be filled by neighbors willing to help 2
pay for something, and by the time they get it organized it’s already past. She said it’s 3
nobody’s fault but she wanted to figure out to get that to be more visible. 4
Chair Greenfield continued with review of the status on the PRC Review of CIP Priorities. 5
Mr. Anderson thought that the review was successful. 6
On New Recreation Opportunities, further discussion on a City Gym definitely happened. 7
On Baylands 10.5 Acres Assessments, Chair Greenfield was not sure they had further 8
discussions on that. The Skate Park goal of further community discussions did occur; abut 9
the recommendation to be forwarded to City Council has not happened yet. First Tee, 10
Vice Chair LaMere said they took action on a public-private partnership, shared facilities, 11
with the City and PAUSD and sports organizations. Vice Chair LaMere said nothing 12
happened with shared facilities. The survey regarding ethnic and gender opportunities did 13
not occur and is something to consider for next year. 14
Foothills Nature Preserve – the item was completed and the Ad Hoc disbanded. A 15
recommendation was forwarded to City Council for consideration on a future agenda. 16
For the CIP Review, List of Gaps, Identifying Supplemental Funding Opportunities – they 17
were not successful in that, but it was something to strive for in the coming year. Chair 18
Greenfield said they did review and discuss the plan. It is a matter of timing on when they 19
can get information to have an opportunity to influence what happens. This one is a burden 20
for staff to be able to carve out time to review this with the Commission within the limited 21
window in which they have access to the information. 22
The Racquet Court Policy is in process but not completed. Mr. Anderson added that 23
Pickleball Rules were completed. Chair Greenfield said he has heard some requests that 24
pickleball rules be posted more prominently. For example, the amount of time someone 25
can play on a court versus the pickleball convention of 75 minutes to 90 minutes. The 26
convention is 20 minutes on, and then the next group rotates. He wondered if this was 27
something that the Court Policy Ad Hoc that will be coming back to the Commission with. 28
Mr. Howard advised that it has already been passed forward. It is a part of the rules that 29
were approved, but they have not gone to the Consent for the City Council. He is trying to 30
get it through on March 7th. There has been delay, but as soon as it gets approved, the signs 31
are ready to go, and those rules will be posted and visible at the sites. 32
Chair Greenfield moved the discussion to the 2022 Work Plan. He suggested prioritizing 33
talking about the new Work Plan items as opposed to the carried-over items from the 34
previous work plan, because those Ad Hocs have a good basis on the direction to move in. 35
Chair Greenfield started with the Electric Conveyances Policy and said they need 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
understand what is realistic to try to accomplish this year. He thought they could be 1
researching policies of neighboring jurisdictions and reviewing how they apply to Palo 2
Alto. Commissioner Kleinhaus suggested researching some of the science, a lot of which 3
has been done by other jurisdictions. Commissioner Brown asked how detailed, because 4
it seems like it’s getting into the “how” of the policy creation and she wondered how 5
detailed they should be. She felt this seemed like one of the more narrow-focused ones. 6
They can carve out individual actions, but she didn’t want to pigeonhole any Ad Hoc to 7
doing things a certain way. Commissioner Freeman thought, on the research, to make it 8
more expansive, reaching out not only with neighboring communities, but also across the 9
country, because they are related. Commissioner Kleinhaus said she does think they need 10
to look at the science. Chair Greenfield thought looking at signage would be helpful as 11
well. The benefits would be safety, preservation of natural environment, increased access. 12
Commissioner Kleinhaus said that needs to be evaluated. Chair Greenfield said part of the 13
research would be balancing access and recreation with safety and environmental 14
protection. He thought it would need to be conservative in goals. He asked Mr. Anderson 15
if it was realistic to have a policy recommendation as a measure of success. He thought 16
they should send some kind of recommendation to Council, but was unsure whether it 17
should be scoping it out, or a policy. Mr. Anderson said he is normally conservative on 18
these because he hates to let anyone down, but he would aim for completing this and 19
sending a policy recommendation to Council. 20
The Commission discussed Park Dedication next. The following goals were suggested: 21
Reviewing and making a recommendation regarding potential rededication of Byxbee 22
Park 10 acres; consideration of other park dedication opportunities with research and 23
review. Commissioner Cribbs thought there had been discussion about pros and cons of 24
park dedication. Chair Greenfield said when they are reviewing the rededication of 25
Byxbee, for example, it should be a balanced discussion, which includes the benefits of 26
doing so and reasons to consider not doing it as well. Chair Greenfield suggested increased 27
dedicated park space to meet Master Plan goals. He wondered if there were mandates for 28
the park space, or just a goal. Commissioner Kleinhaus said there can’t be mandates in the 29
plan, but it did have goals. Chair Greenfield wondered if there were any mandates 30
anywhere else. Mr. Anderson said only with Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan goals. 31
Commissioner Kleinhaus said there was the Quimby Act but she didn’t know if it applied. 32
Mr. Anderson did not think it was a mandate to achieve those acres per resident goals. 33
Chair Greenfield suggested the measure of success on the first item be recommendation 34
to Council on the Measure E site. He thought they should make a recommendation, 35
whether it be to rededicate it or not. The measure of success on the second item would be 36
reviewing other potential sites, discussing them in the Commission, and forwarding a 37
recommendation to Council if appropriate. 38
Chair Greenfield invited questions on the work plans for the other Ad Hocs – CIP Review, 39
Funding Opportunities, Racquet Court Policy, Rec Projects. He said there will be six work 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 30
plans coming out of the Parks and Recreation Commission and said this was an opportunity 1
for the full Commission to speak openly on any of these subjects. Commissioner Heinrich 2
asked that on the Recreation Projects there be some kind of integration of biodiversity 3
where possible. 4
V. COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 5
ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 6
Chair Greenfield advised that it was 2:30, their targeted end time. He thanked the 7
participants for their attendance for the four hours. Commissioner Cribbs said it will be 8
great when they can all get together in person and have lunch and conversation. Chair 9
Greenfield thanked everyone for their different levels of work in preparing for this, a lot 10
of work done very recently, including Mr. Anderson, Mr. Do and Mr. Howard, for making 11
it an informative event. He looked forward to working with everyone in the coming year 12
and getting a new member added to the Commission as well. He thanked staff for their 13
assistance and support through the year. 14
Mr. Anderson echoed Chair Greenfield’s sentiments and appreciated staff being there and 15
spending time helping them out. He looked forward to working with the Commission. He 16
said staff is excited about working with them and making the City as good as they can 17
make it, offering great programs and projects, parks and open space. He complimented the 18
Chair for his leadership and the prep work put into this process, and the Vice Chair as well. 19
Vice Chair LaMere thanked everyone for their participation and input. He was excited to 20
see what the Commission could do in the next 15 months. 21
Chair Greenfield thought they had articulated a reasonable set of goals that they get move 22
forward on. He looked forward to their next meeting on February 22nd. 23
VI. ADJOURNMENT 24
25
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. 26
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 1
1
2
3
4
MINUTES 5
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6
SPECIAL MEETING 7
February 22, 2022 8
Virtual Conference 9
Palo Alto, California 10
11
Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Commissioners Nellis Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, 12
Anne Cribbs and Amanda Brown 13
Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair LaMere 14
Others Present: Council Member Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Lam Do, Kristen O’Kane, and Adam Howard 16
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17
PUBLIC COMMENT 18
Lisa Steinback wished to hear the plan for resurfacing of the Cubberley tennis courts, 19
which she said is long overdue, and she feels Palo Alto may have a potential liability issue 20
due to safety problems on the courts. She said that recently she noted gouges out of the 21
courts, missing surface, with deep divots. She mentioned that the courts are being rented 22
to USTA teams, and it is very dangerous to be on the courts, with the chances for tripping 23
and falling, so it should be at the very top of the court resurfacing schedule. Secondly, Ms. 24
Steinback commented on lighting on all of the courts. She noted that the lights are up on 25
pedestals. There are a number of burned out lights at Rinconada – Courts 2, 3 and 4. As 26
the courts are rented after dark, she said it seems that burned out bulbs should be replaced. 27
She was told that staff waits until a certain number of bulbs are burned before replacing 28
bulbs, but for the people trying to play, it is dim. She expressed that if people are paying 29
money to rent the courts, there should be a higher frequency of replacing burned out bulbs. 30
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 31
BUSINESS 32
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 33
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
Motion by Commissioner Heinrich to approve the Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner 1
Freeman, the motion passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the January 25, 2022 Parks and Recreation 4
Commission Meeting 5
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2022, Parks 6
and Recreation Commission meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Cribbs, the motion 7
passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 8
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 9
3. Department Report 10
Mr. Anderson announced that, starting in March, all board, commission and committee 11
meetings will be held both in person and hybrid. The Commission will be in person and 12
members of the public and select staff making presentations can participate remotely via 13
Zoom. Commission should be receiving an email from the Clerk’s Office with details on 14
the process for that. 15
Regarding Cubberley Gym A and B, rentals have been cancelled until further notice due 16
to flooding issues. Facility staff discovered major flooding under the gyms when 17
investigating the hardwood floors, which were showing signs of discoloration. They found 18
three inches of standing water, and they are working on repair of a few leaks. They have 19
brought in a contractor to help work on that. It will be closed for several weeks while 20
repairs are made and they hire a remediation company to help dehumidify and make 21
repairs. 22
The Town Council on February 14th passed a motion to direct staff to pause preparation of 23
the Cubberley Concept Plan and request a joint meeting with the PAUSD School Board 24
and City Council prior to the June break, and to ask staff to return to Council with a work 25
plan to include exploring a land swap at Fletcher or a financial framework for acquiring 26
available land; and secondly, to scope and design process for Cubberley Community 27
Center that is a City-owned once the acreage is determined. 28
On March 7th, the City Council will discuss the PRC recommendation on a new community 29
gymnasium project and also the Foothills Fire Mitigation and Safety Improvement 30
Strategies. On March 14th, the Roth Building lease will be discussed. On April 11th, the 31
First Tee proposal for improvements to the youth practice area and driving range area is 32
listed as an action item. Mr. Anderson said the Cubberley tennis courts are scheduled to 33
be resurfaced in mid-April. The Cubberley Field renovation project is nearly complete and 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
the fields will be re-opened on February 25th. The Baylands Athletic Center baseball field 1
was also under renovation, and it will be opening March 4th. The Eleanor Pardee Field, 2
also renovated, will open March 14th. 3
Mr. Anderson announced that there is a “Walk With a Naturalist” program at the Baylands. 4
The class meets in front of the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, and the program 5
includes time out on the trails and time in the Interpretive Center. The participant capacity 6
is 25 people, and everyone must register for the program, which can be done on the Enjoy 7
Online. The dates for that are Saturday, February 26; Saturday, March 12th; and Saturday 8
March 26th, all from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. 9
Mr. Anderson gave an update on summer camp registration, which has gone well. 10
Registrations are higher compared to the last three summers, with 185 of the 244 camps 11
already meeting the minimum number of enrolled campers to move forward. Another 108 12
camps are totally full and have wait lists, and there are about 1,250 open spots remaining 13
for campers to register, which will remain open through the spring. Also, CSD will host a 14
table at the Summer Camp Fair on March 6th at Palo Alto High School, advertising camps 15
and recruiting counselors for Summer, 2022. 16
Chair Greenfield invited questions from the Commissioners on the Department Report. 17
Commissioner Cribbs asked about the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) 18
Conference coming up in March and whether Community Services was planning to send 19
any staff people to the conference. Mr. Anderson responded that that is yet to be identified. 20
There may be staff working on it, but they have not discussed it as a team yet. 21
Councilmember DuBois asked about the gym flooding and how it is impacting the 22
basketball season. He asked if they are trying to find any alternative space. Mr. Howard 23
said this news just came out recently. Staff was scrambling to get all of the notifications 24
out and get an understanding of who is being impacted. They still have the Pavilion so if 25
they can do some rearranging and put more groups there, they will. He thought they would 26
have a more clear picture of the impacts by the next day. 27
Commissioner Freeman asked if there was a schedule for the resurfacing of the tennis 28
courts. He assumed it required taking the courts offline and wondered notification would 29
go out to the public with the information. Mr. Anderson said mid-April is the approximate 30
start date, and it is a 30- to 45-day window. He said there would be signage posted at the 31
courts well in advance and information for the Cubberley staff as well. He will announce 32
it to the Parks and Recreation Commission and try to get it on the website as well. 33
Chair Greenfield inquired on the Cubberley gym issue. He assumed funding for the repair 34
would come out of the annual Cubberley budget. Mr. Anderson said it was yet to be 35
determined, but he thought it would be from funds designated for Cubberley maintenance. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
Chair Greenfield mentioned the direction from City Council for staff to explore the land 1
swap at Fletcher and wondered if that was referring to Terman Park. Mr. Anderson said 2
that was correct. Mr. Anderson said the swap being explored was land on Terman Park for 3
land at Cubberley. Mr. Anderson said Parks and Recreation Commission would certainly 4
be involved, and he would bring it as a discussion item, but they have not yet begun 5
working on it. As he has more information they will learn more about the process and what 6
it looks like. 7
BUSINESS 8
4. Ad Hoc Reports 9
Vice Chair Greenfield invited any reports on the recently-created Ad Hoc and Liaison 10
roles. Hearing none, he clarified for the new Commissioners how the Ad Hoc and Liaison 11
roles work. He said, in general, the Ad Hoc should be checking with their staff liaison and 12
each other at least monthly, to see if there’s something to be pursuing or following up on. 13
The staff liaison will help in leading them in the process to the extent necessary, or the 14
Ad Hocs are able to take over the lead on their own. Regarding liaison roles, he suggested 15
that everyone check in with their staff liaison, particularly for those in a new liaison role. 16
Mr. Anderson can help with contact information. 17
Vice Chair Greenfield said some of the liaison roles are more like a basket, available to 18
catch things that happen to fall that way, so there may be many months when there may 19
not be much activity. If taking over a liaison role that someone else served in last year, it 20
would be a good idea to check in with the Commissioner, whether a current Commissioner 21
or a previous Commissioner, to get up to speed and help with continuity. He said at next 22
month’s meeting, the Ad Hocs will give more detailed updates. He also said that next 23
month’s agenda will include their work plans that he hoped to complete to present to City 24
Council for approval afterwards. Each Ad Hoc should focus this coming month on nailing 25
down their work plan, working with the staff liaison, or looking at the work plan from last 26
year if there is one available that is related to ongoing work. Each of the Ad Hocs will 27
submit their work plan to staff, and it will be included in the agenda item that will be 28
shared a week before the next meeting. At that point, all of the Commissioners will be able 29
to see the work plans being proposed by all of the Ad Hocs. In working on that agenda 30
item, the Commission will complete the Work Plan as a body, led by the Ad Hocs 31
associated with each item, but also with any input from the other Commission members. 32
Chair Greenfield said they have been looking for sample work plans or guidance from the 33
City Clerk’s Office in terms of how they should move forward with their work plans this 34
year. Mr. Anderson said to reach out to him if there is anything he can do to help each Ad 35
Hoc develop its individual work plan element, and he would be glad to help facilitate that. 36
He said they were informed that there would be a revised template or form coming from 37
the Clerk’s Office, but it has yet to arrive. He has an inquiry in to the Clerk’s Office to ask 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
when they might expect that. He thought, given the timeframe, the appropriate course of 1
action would be to continue with the templet they’ve got, and if they receive something in 2
the near term with time to alter and change before their March meeting, they can do so. 3
Mr. Anderson said he would share any further feedback from the Clerk’s Office or other 4
staff members. He thought they could put this on the website, or email it out to the 5
Commission, without any Brown Act problems, and he would look into whether it needed 6
to become part of the record at the next meeting. 7
Commissioner Cribbs mentioned that on the Ad Hoc committees there are three without 8
any staff liaisons yet. She wondered if those could be filled yet. Mr. Anderson shared the 9
list and discussed the liaisons that needed to be filled. He said he would help with the Park 10
Dedication, Electric Conveyance Policy, Dog Parks and Park Amenities. Mr. Do would 11
be the liaison for the Website Refresh. Chair Greenfield pointed out this one was less 12
critical because there would not be a work plan item for it. 13
5. Supplement to Development Impact Fee Justification Study 14
Sarah Duffy, Community Services, introduced the update and recommendations regarding 15
the development impact fees for parks, community centers and libraries. She introduced 16
David Taussig, from DTA, who would be sharing the analysis and research he and his 17
colleagues have worked on, with some recommendations. DTA had presented the initial 18
fee impact nexus study to Parks and Recreation Commission and Finance Committee 19
during the last fiscal year. There were some follow-up questions which DTA has 20
researched and developed recommendations on. Ms. Duffy said after they get feedback 21
from the Commission, they will move on to Finance Committee and Council with the goal 22
of making any modifications, getting to the fees this fiscal year and getting Council 23
approval this fiscal year. 24
Mr. Taussig said previously Nathan Perez was responsible for this project and has taken a 25
position elsewhere, so he would be presenting the item. He has been working with Kyle 26
Martinez, who has done much of the work on this study. He said basically, there was a fee 27
program adopted by the City Council last year on April 12th and implemented on August 28
23rd. The Council had questions regarding certain assumptions made and wanted some 29
updates based upon what they found, looking deeper into those assumptions. The current 30
fees were studied in light of issues that City Council wanted them to look at, and some 31
changes were made to the recommendations for fees based on some of the Council’s 32
suggestions, as well as some outstanding issues having to do with the price of land in Palo 33
Alto that may require further changes to the fees. He wished to get some feedback from 34
the Commission as to what direction they would like to be taken. 35
Mr. Taussig described the current programs, explaining that they are divided into Park 36
Fee, Community Center Fee and Library Fee, with the Park fee being the one under 37
discussion. At the current levels the Park fee is $57,420 for a single-family home; $42,468 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
for a multi-family home; and adding the Community Center and the Library, the total fee 1
comes to about $64,500 for a single-family home and $47,700 for a multi-family. 2
Normally, when a developer pulls a building permit that is when they are asked to pay that 3
fee. In addition, there are two non-residential categories – commercial/industrial and 4
hotel/motel. For the non-residential fee relating to parks, the situation becomes fluid 5
because there is a certain usage of parks that comes with a resident versus an employee. 6
An employee who doesn’t live in the community comes, works for five days, and then 7
goes home. Mr. Taussig described the way they allocate fees between residential and non-8
residential. Theoretically, there can be a person residing in the community with access to 9
the park 12 hours a day. With an employee, they might run for a hour, or picnic at lunch 10
for an hour, and maybe stay after work for an hour to participate in some type of activity. 11
They would have access to a park for perhaps an average of three hours a day– not that 12
they would use it, but they would have potential access three hours a day, five days a week, 13
so 15 hours a week. The comparison is normally that an employee using a park based on 14
the hours available is about 18 percent as much as a resident. So, one resident has a little 15
more than five times the usage of a park as a non-residential user who is an employee. 16
consequently, in allocating the fees, there is residential carrying a large portion of the 17
weight, since residents have slightly more than five times the likelihood of using park 18
space as an employee working in a non-residential facility. Mr. Taussig advised that for 19
commercial/industrial, the number was $18.91 per square foot; for hotel/motel it was $3.22 20
per square foot. 21
Mr. Taussig said the City had concerns and questions, one thing they wanted DTA to look 22
into was the value of the land. Mr. Taussig said they have access to certain databases 23
through a subscription so they obtained information for the last ten years, and the last five 24
years, regarding the cost of land. The number they came up with was $5.7 million per acre. 25
There was a lot of discussion regarding that, because if the City had to go out and buy 26
parkland, particularly in an expensive single-family home area, probably a vacant piece 27
land – of which there is not a lot in Palo Alto – they would be paying a lot of money for 28
that land. He said most cities have a lot of vacant land and sales, providing a good cost of 29
land. In Palo Alto, it is more difficult. The number used is really a matter of what kind of 30
assumptions are made. He said they had looked at more recent data, and $5.7 million was 31
the number they came up with, so they have increased to that number, which affects the 32
fee. 33
The second item the City brought up was that they want to look closer at non-residential 34
categories. Commercial/industrial together includes retail and office. They wanted to 35
differentiate between those, because the number of persons working per square foot in 36
each type of facility is different. Mr. Taussig said they were using 250 square feet per 37
office worker, which has been the industry standard forever, but the feeling was that 38
actually offices here have more employees per square foot than what has been the standard 39
average used in most cities, so they refigured their numbers based on that and did the 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
same for retail, for hotel and for industrial. 1
Mr. Taussig said the third item was updating the office density. They thought there was 2
not enough office workers per square foot. They had 250 square feet per office worker and 3
the feeling was it should be 190 square feet per worker. They worked with City folks and 4
came up with some real numbers based on census data and on the amount of square footage 5
in the City right now that’s office, and found that they really could have used 190 square 6
feet per employee, which means you’re generating more use of parks, because you’ve got 7
more employees per 1,000 square feet, so that adjustment was made. 8
The next Council direction, Item D, was for a recommendation for frequency of fee study 9
updates. Mr. Taussig said they work with many cities that update their fee studies every 10
five years, and many have an escalator that allows the fees to go up every year, so once 11
the City adopts the fees, there is an escalator that allows it to go up every year a certain 12
amount. In terms of going back and revisiting this to determine if there’s been an increase 13
in the cost of land that is greater than the amount of escalation every year, whether there 14
is a different number of acres of park necessary, and whether the quality of the park should 15
be different, all of that could be reconsidered in a new fee study. However, he said doing 16
a fee study involves public hearings, a lot of calculations, going through a resolution 17
process which is adopted by a city council. There is a lot to it, so the question is how often 18
does the City want to redo their fee studies? Mr. Taussig said their recommendation is 19
once between every five years and eight years, depending upon how long the City is 20
satisfied with the fee they have. Mr. Taussig thought it would be important to update and 21
take a look at new circumstances, especially if the annual escalator being applied is not 22
keeping up with the actual cost of providing whatever capital facilities they’re providing 23
– in this case, parks. 24
Items E involved evaluating the single-family/multi-family fee structure. Mr. Taussig 25
explained that there is a new law which will take effect July 1st, and if the fees are approved 26
before then they can have one fee for single-family homes no matter what the size of the 27
home, and another fee for a multi-family home, which would remain in effect until a new 28
fee is adopted. After July 1st, for any new fees adopted, a per-square-foot fee will be 29
mandatory. For example, a 3,000-square-foot home will pay twice the fees of a 1,500-30
square-foot home. The logic is that the larger the home the more people living there, the 31
more benefit there is, so they should pay higher fees. Also, larger homes generally tend to 32
be more expensive than smaller homes, so the assumption is that they can handle the higher 33
fee. Mr. Taussig said the Building Industry Association was very crucial in the State 34
Legislature changing this law. He said adopting new fees before July 1st – whether a 35
single fee regardless of size, or a per-square-foot fee – is something to consider doing or 36
not doing, but the next fee adopted after July 1st, which he said may be five years from 37
now, or eight years from now, would have to be based on square footage, since the law is 38
changing as of July 1, 2022. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
Finally, on Item F, evaluating fee credit options, Mr. Taussig commented that the City is 1
trying to build some affordable housing homes below market price. A very large fee for 2
parks or anything else makes it more difficult to build affordable housing, so the question 3
is, should there be some kind of fee credit or partial waiver? He said one thing about fees 4
that people don’t seem to recognize but is very important is that when they do these studies 5
they are to justify the maximum fee that can be charged. It does not mean the City Council 6
has to charge that amount. Charging less is fine, but they can’t charge more, because they 7
would have to go through a new fee justification study, a new set of hearings, a new 8
resolution to charge more than that. Mr. Tausig said that the fees discussed are the 9
maximum that can be charged based upon their analysis. They could charge less if they 10
decided to, and that may be a factor if there is a park fee that is very high and, because of 11
different goals for the City, they may not want to charge the maximum level. It is a 12
political choice, whatever is right for that particular community. 13
Mr. Taussig shared their findings after they concentrated on land cost in the last five years 14
and updating it from to a $6.5 million per acre valuation from $5.7 million per acre. This 15
resulted in an increase in the fee level of 9.37 percent. Looking at the same four categories 16
from 2021, when the fees were first adopted, the single-family residential fee for parks 17
goes from $57,420 to $62,802, a little bit over $5,000 increase. Multi-family goes from 18
$42,500 to $46,000. Commercial/industrial per square foot goes from $16.83 to $18.41. 19
Hotel/motel goes from $2.86 to $3.13, so going up based upon what they see as the up-to-20
dated land cost at $6.5 million per acre resulted in fees ranging from $46,500 for multi-21
family and $62,800 for single-family. 22
In looking at the various categories and looking at the different numbers of employees per 23
square foot, they differentiated between retail and office, so that there is now a retail, 24
office, industrial, hotel and an Other commercial category. Anything that does not qualify 25
under any of the other four categories and yet is non-residential would fall into the 26
commercial category, and average, catch-all category for outlier types of use. They update 27
the numbers based upon carrying those four categories instead of one category. The retail 28
fee decreased by 41 percent because the number of employees per square foot for retail 29
was lower than what the average was with a combined commercial category. Office 30
increased by 30 percent, since it went from 250 square feet per employee going to 190 31
square feet per employee, so 30 percent more employees-per-1,000-square-foot of the 32
building. Industrial decreased 12 percent and the Other Commercial is the average of all 33
the other non-residential categories. Mr. Taussig said there was not an Other Commercial 34
last time, but they added this just to have a category to catch people in if a builder says 35
they’re not retail or office or industrial. 36
Regarding frequency of updates, Mr. Taussig said the fee is going up by construction cost 37
index or consumer price index. During good years, when there is a lot of development 38
going on it goes up more, generally somewhere between two and four percent per year, as 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
an increase every year, without having to go back and do a new fee study. However, that 1
doesn’t keep up with all of the needs of the City, particularly if land costs go up more than 2
that. He said many clients do a new study every five years, but five to eight years is the 3
norm around the state. Regarding evaluation of single versus multi-family, he reminded 4
them that July 1st is the cutoff date, after which it will be on a per-square-foot basis. The 5
fee could stay at one number for all single-family and one number for all multi-family, 6
which is simpler for the City to implement; however, he noted that smaller homes are 7
perhaps paying a little more than they can afford and the larger homes maybe less than 8
they could afford. Breaking the fee down by square footage would make it possible to 9
charge more appropriate amounts based on the size and the price, as well as the demand 10
for more park facilities created by a home. 11
On options for below market rate units, Mr. Taussig said they didn’t answer because they 12
weren’t sure how much to go into to that. He said they can show what it takes to build an 13
affordable home and how much easier it is to build an affordable home if there is no park 14
fee, or a lower park fee, but remarked that it is an issue that is not black and white, but a 15
gray area, and they will look for more direction from the Council on this, as it can be a 16
complicated issue. 17
Mr. Taussig shared the Summary of the proposed Development Impact Fees, based on the 18
updated land acquisition valuation of $6.5 million per acre. The totals go up for single-19
family, detached, from $62,800 per unit to $69,886. Multi-family increases from $46,500 20
to $51,687. In the five new categories for Non-Residential, the totals for Parks, 21
Community Center and Library comes to $11.20 per square foot for retail; $24.53 for 22
Office; $16.61 for industrial per square foot; $3.49 per square foot for hotel, which remains 23
the same; and $13.96 per square foot for Other Commercial. These are the numbers they 24
are recommending to the Council based on the higher sales price of a home, the new 25
categories of non-residential, and each one reflecting the updated number of employees 26
per 1,000 square foot in a non-residential building. 27
Mr. Taussig concluded by summarizing their recommendations: 28
• Update the land valuation from $5.7 million to $6.5 million 29
• Separate the commercial/industrial into retail, office, industrial, and other 30
commercial 31
• (Already done) Update office density to lower it to 190 square feet per employee 32
• Fee study updates every five to eight years; 33
• Update the fee schedule with above recommendations this fiscal year, but convert 34
to square foot recommendation in the next fee study update 35
• Seek further direction from the City on how to deal with affordable housing, and 36
how much of a priority it is, versus parks. 37
38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Mr. Taussig noted that if parks are that important, then you do one thing. If affordable 1
housing is more important, then you do another, or you come up with a compromise in the 2
middle somewhere. There are many options, and much of it ends up being local policy and 3
what the City Council feels is appropriate at this time for the city. 4
Chair Greenfield invited comments and questions from the Commissioners. 5
Commissioner Cribbs asked if the presentation could be shared with the Commissioners, 6
because it was easier to understand than wading through all of the paper in the packet. Mr. 7
Taussig was very agreeable to this. Chair Greenfield commented that the Commissioners 8
who were there when it was first presented would have an advantage over the new 9
commissioners, who were trying to absorb it for the first time. 10
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked about SB 9 and ADUs, how single-family residential is 11
defined and what to do in light of SB 9 if someone has four units, plus an ADU. Mr. 12
Taussig responded that each city is different. Cities trying to encourage affordable housing 13
tell them to waive the fee on an ADU, reasoning that the single-family home that was 14
there to begin with paid the fee and that the ADU doesn’t have to. Other communities say 15
it’s a detached, separate home and therefore treated as a single-family detached home, 16
obviously with very small square footage, which wouldn’t be paying as much. In this case, 17
since the fees are pretty high for single-family home, the Council may decide to waive it, 18
or to charge a much lower amount based on the fact that the typical ADU is maybe one-19
sixth the size of a typical single-family home. He said there’s no law one way or the other. 20
It’s a matter of what the Council decides to do. Mr. Taussig said they did not deal with it 21
in this study, but could call it out if they wanted, and make it something separate. Since 22
SB 9 is new, it’s the first time they’ve had to deal with ADUs in quantity. 23
Chair Greenfield invited comments from members of the public. 24
Keith Reckdahl, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, said parks and recreation are 25
important parts of Palo Alto’s quality of life, and RHNA is going to require the City to 26
add over 6,000 new housing units over the next eight years. This study is crucial to ensure 27
that the new neighbors have the same access to parks and recreation that the rest of the 28
city enjoys. He agreed that it was a good presentation and very informative. He said his 29
biggest complaint is that the study only looks at vacant parcels, and that is not 30
representative of the land that they would need to purchase for park acquisition. It is clear 31
that the study examines the wrong property. Although a valuation of $6.5 million per acre 32
sounds like a lot of money, in Palo Alto real estate it is not. It is much more expensive than 33
that, so the $6.5 million per acre is insufficient to buy parkland. He pointed out that five 34
years ago, in his neighborhood in South Palo Alto, a tear-down near the railroad tracks 35
sold for $13 million per acre – double what the nexus study is assuming. He said North 36
Palo Alto is even more expensive, so $6.5 million per acres is definitely insufficient. He 37
said considering the housing shortage in the area, is it more likely that parkland acquisition 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
would be commercial property, which is even more expensive than residential property. 1
He gave an example, that three years ago the old Pizza Chicago site in El Camino, which 2
was sold as a tear-down, was $21 million per acre. The County now assesses this empty 3
lot at over $22 million per acre, which is three-and-a-half times what the nexus study is 4
assuming. 5
Mr. Reckdahl continued and stated that in addition to city parklands, they also have open 6
space. The nexus study values their open space, like Foothills Nature Preserve, at about 7
$65,000 per acre. He pointed out that the last open space acquisition was 20 years ago, 8
with the Bressler addition to Arastradero Preserve, which cost $274,000 per acre. Even 9
ignoring inflation, that is 4.2 times the value assumed by the nexus study. He said it is 10
important to correctly value the assets, adding that North Ventura went to Council last 11
month, and City staff concluded that the park impact fees were insufficient to fund the 12
needed parks in the area. So, the new residents in North Ventura will not be receiving their 13
fair share of parks unless the impact fees are accurately updated. With the City being 14
stretched due to pandemic issues and the huge unfunded mandate for affordable housing, 15
the City’s General Fund does not have the cash flow to subsidize new parks, so the impact 16
fees must be updated to realistically reflect the true cost of park acquisition. 17
Chair Greenfield clarified the role of the Commission in considering this action. He 18
appreciated the background information provided. He said when the item came to the Parks 19
and Recreation Commission last February it was recommended to be approved by a vote 20
of 5-2. Commissioner Reckdahl and he vote against it. The City followed up on some of 21
their reasons for voting against it and ended up asking for more information on some of 22
the items currently being discussed. He said it is a different type of item than the 23
Commission normally is involved in, but is very important, because it impacts funding 24
for everything they do, particularly down the road as the community increases in 25
population. 26
Chair Greenfield highlighted the fact that public fees are collected and are available for 27
targeted uses, so the Park Fees that are contributed are targeted for the Parks and don’t go 28
into the General Fund. Also, the studies justify the maximum fee that they are allowed to 29
collect. He said that one way of looking at it is they want to make sure they are not 30
improperly limiting their fee structure. They are not specifying what the fee will be, but 31
setting what the ceiling will be. 32
Chair Greenfield wondered if the PRC were to forego making a recommendation to accept 33
the study in its current form and instead make a different suggestion, if there was potential 34
for the study to be revised and come back to them before going to the Finance Committee. 35
He wondered if Council Member DuBois had any insight on that, being the Chair of the 36
Finance Committee. 37
Council Member DuBois was not sure what the process would be if the Commission did 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
not accept the recommendation. He thought Mr. Reckdahl’s comments were interesting 1
and thinks there is a lot of concern about the land value. He appreciated the update and 2
said there is a seeming disconnect, so he was interested in the discussion. He noted that if 3
he could buy an acre of land for $6.5 million, he would do it. He thought if the Commission 4
could save Council time, that would be the most useful, because the Council has the same 5
question and will be kind of stuck on the issue as well. 6
Chair Greenfield asked Director Kristen O’Kane, Community Services, to comment. Ms. 7
O’Kane thought they could hear the Commissioners’ comments and they could take 8
whatever action seemed appropriate and present it to the Finance Committee, which may 9
mean some additional work before the Finance Committee met in order to present them 10
with some additional information on which to make their recommendation. She didn’t 11
think they would need to come back to the PRC necessarily, but whatever the PRC’s input 12
and recommendation were, they could apply that to their Finance Committee presentation. 13
Chair Greenfield noted that Council’s motion last April was requesting them to return to 14
Council in the following fiscal year, which ends on June 30th. 15
Chair Greenfield invited further clarifications or questions. Hearing none, he invited 16
comments from the Commissioners. 17
Commissioner Freeman appreciated the presentation, being a new member and hearing 18
this for the first time. He noted how COVID has changed things across all industries and 19
the fact that a lot of companies are going with a hybrid model which probably will last for 20
some time, so the way things were will be different going forward, so they should take that 21
into consideration when thinking about how often to revisit fees. Companies might not be 22
increasing their real estate footprint as a result of downsizing their in-house employees 23
and giving people an option to work remotely. He asked if that was taken into 24
consideration. Mr. Taussig said other people ask about this, and they do not have a solid 25
answer. They are using data that was basically pre-pandemic. He talked about some of the 26
latest numbers they’ve seen on industrial as Amazon and other firms are putting in more 27
high-tech material. He said the new number used by Amazon now is 1,200 square feet per 28
employee because they have so much mechanization going on. He knew this because they 29
just did a study for the City of San Bernadino. So obviously, the 300 square feet per 30
employee isn’t going to apply anymore, but they used 300 for Palo Alto’s study. Those 31
adjustments will have to be made at some point in the future. They did not consider that 32
in their study to date because they don’t know what the new model is going to be . 33
Commissioner Freeman agreed it is hard to predict the future and many companies don’t 34
necessarily know what the future will be. He said there is already starting to be a reduction 35
by organizations acquiring new space and probably looking at giving up space at some 36
point. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Commissioner Cribbs said as she listened to the presentation she wondered how it reflects 1
the effect that COVID has had over the last two years and the projections for the future. 2
She understood that the data they were using to make these decisions is data from pre-3
COVID. Mr. Taussig confirmed this is the case. They used 2018 census data, which is the 4
commercial census that shows how many employees there are in each industry as of 2018, 5
number of employed persons in each of the industries, industrial versus retail, versus 6
office. They have the square footage existing in the City, which is up-to-date. They did the 7
division and came up with the number of square feet per employee, which is why they 8
lowered the number for office from 250 feet to 190. Thinking about what it might be from 9
now on, he said if his company ever goes back to the office, they would be in a hybrid 10
situation where people would come in on some days but not other days. He suspected there 11
would be a lot of empty space a lot of the time. They could say they have 55 employees 12
and so many square feet, but how many of them come in every day and therefore would 13
be using the local parks, or the roads, or the water or sewer? He reiterated that it will all 14
be changing, and it is very difficult to predict exactly where they will be going. He said if 15
the building industry sues they will have the numbers to show. 16
Commissioner Cribbs agreed that it will be hard to predict the future and was interested to 17
know whether their company would be looking at this more closely, because coming out 18
of COVID is such a new thing. Mr. Taussig said they will definitely have to, and he was 19
sure someone would sue over that issue at some point. They’ve been very fortunate not to 20
have been sued, but the world is changing and is more litigious in this area. 21
Commissioner Cribbs added that she continues to think that the land valuation is too low, 22
given the cost of land in Palo Alto and because the Commission’s responsibility is to look 23
for ways to get more parks, especially in the underserved part of Palo Alto, which is the 24
Ventura area. From a personal perspective, she was concerned that they are low. Mr. 25
Taussig acknowledged Mr. Reckdahl’s points were well-taken. He said what they could 26
do is go out and get every single sale of every parcel over the last 12 months and come out 27
with a per-acre cost, irrespective of whether it has a building on it or not. Most have 28
buildings on them, and whether old industrial or a brand new single-family home, they 29
could have a number which would be supportable in court. As Mr. Reckdahl had said, the 30
City may have to build a park by knocking down a couple single-family homes because 31
there is no vacant land and they have no choice. They would have to pay for the land as 32
well as the building on top of the land. They can do that, and then it becomes a political 33
football for the City Council, because they have to consider that they needs parks. Yet, 34
what other priorities does the City have? Affordable housing. Their fee was $64,504 per 35
unit as of 2022, for a single-family. If they doubled the valuation from $6.5 million to $13 36
million they would have a $130,000-per-unit park fee in addition to all of the other fees. 37
Mr. Taussig asked, how does that affect other city policies? The City Council has to make 38
up their mind. They could decide that right now they want more housing so they won’t 39
charge the maximum $130,000, but will move to that in two years. They have a lot of 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
flexibility, but the bottom line is it’s expensive to buy land in Palo Alto, and if they are 1
going to buy land they will have to pay a high price and be cognizant of that when coming 2
up with the fee program. 3
Mr. Taussig went on to say that he has been with a lot of other cities doing these studies. 4
They finished one with Costa Mesa a couple years ago, and that City decided to take the 5
money they are collecting for land and for improvements and look at certain of their parks 6
that are very undeveloped, with no ballfields, et cetera. The intent would be to take the 7
money and put it into existing land to make it more useable, because they thought that was 8
the most effective use of the fee money, to make parks available to people today, based on 9
the fact that they have park space that’s not used very efficiently. On the other hand, Mr. 10
Taussig pointed out that if you do that instead of buying land, the land is not going to get 11
cheaper. It will get more expensive, so you’re limiting yourself as to how many parks you 12
have. He said it is not a crazy idea, because they are using the land and the money more 13
efficiently, building facilities that people could use right away. He said Irvine did a soccer 14
field with 12 fields in one place on what was bare land, because they decided it would be 15
more useful for the soccer leagues. This could be an option for Council, although not one 16
they may want to use, but something that should be out there among the smorgasbord of 17
things they can do with this money. The City Council has to come up with a number that 18
works for their entire program, entire development, entire land use controls program, 19
including building enough parks. 20
Commissioner Cribbs commented that she feels their recommendation is easy because the 21
Council has to make the decision, which could get them voted in or out. Mr. Taussig agreed 22
and said he could come up with a very high number by using every sale for the last 12 23
months, because to build a park, the City would likely have to buy a piece of developed 24
property. He thought Mr. Reckdahl was correct in that. 25
Commissioner Brown noted the administrative costs of five percent to account for staff 26
time and asked if that is an industry standard or if they took a look at the staff time required 27
in the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Taussig said it is an industry standard used to administer the 28
fee program, and they use five percent for every city they work with. Commissioner Brown 29
asked if they knew of any cities that have gone through the developed land route and if 30
they have been challenged by the building industry. Mr. Taussig said they have not. He 31
explained that the AB 602 law, referred to earlier, also has a rule saying that the quality of 32
whatever structure you’re building with the fee program cannot be higher than the existing 33
level. He said no courts have looked at this yet. The fear would be that developers would 34
come back, looking for something to sue over, and will say that The City has increased the 35
quality of parks, the location of parks, the amount put into parks, compared to what the 36
existing folks paid. The fee is so much higher because parks cost more than they did before. 37
Some cities will go to an area where there is low income housing or industrial buildings 38
that are going to be torn down, but nobody has gone to beautiful single-family residence 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
neighborhoods and taken down two houses to build new parks. Mr. Taussig said he does 1
not think this happens often; however, they will see what happens this time around. 2
Commissioner Kleinhaus thanked him for the explanation on AB 602 which helped her 3
understand the urgency. She felt it makes sense to charge per square foot, because they are 4
seeing larger and larger building on small lots. She would generally want to see smaller 5
homes, which are more sustainable and leave some land free for trees and vegetation and 6
for kids to play. She thought there was ambiguity about not being able to provide better 7
parks than what there already are, and she would love to know more about that and 8
understand it more. Also, she agreed with Former Chair Reckdahl and other 9
Commissioners who say the valuation of land is not realistic. In terms of land availability 10
in Palo Alto, she noted that there was a church that sold some of its land to put three or 11
four gigantic homes on, and it was available for sale from the church for a while, so there 12
are still occasional opportunities in built environments. She thought when such 13
opportunities occasionally arise they should have the funds to take advantage of it. She 14
felt the current valuation provided would not afford them that. 15
Mr. Taussig said he agreed with her on the per-square-foot and that small homes should 16
pay less and larger homes pay more. They have done that with school fees since 1990, but 17
this is the first time it’s been enforced on other types of fees. However, it’s not the law 18
until July 1st. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked for an explanation of why they don’t just 19
wait. Mr. Taussig said it could be done by square foot now, and the PRC could express 20
their opinion that it should be per square foot. He said it comes out to about $35 per square 21
foot of building, so a 2,000-square-foot – if mixing single-family and multi-family 22
together – would be $70,000. If they went up to $13 million per acre valuation, then it 23
would be in the range of double that, or $70 per square foot, so a 2,000-square-foot home 24
then would require a $140,000 park fee. 25
Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Taussig for leading the discussion. Regarding land 26
acquisition costs, he felt it doesn’t pass the sniff test. If an acre of land came up for $6.5 27
million, it would not even make it to market before getting snapped up. He asked roughly 28
how many data points they used to reach the $6.5 million number, in terms of open lots 29
sold in Palo Alto, which doesn’t seem like a large number. Mr. Taussig said over ten years 30
there were quite a number of them, but when they used five years there weren’t as many. 31
Going back two years, there were three, although the last two years have been different 32
than the three before. But since there aren’t many vacant, there may be outliers – a 33
particularly bad piece of land on the list, et cetera – and it’s a matter of what you take a 34
look at. The building industry could argue that numbers are too high and it’s not fair to use 35
land that was sold for a $40 million house as part of the analysis. Chair Greenfield thought 36
it was safe to say that their data set is not necessarily representative. He suggested that 37
perhaps a halfway point between using all sales, whether including structures or not, would 38
be to try to get data on teardowns. There are a number of sales in the city where a developer 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
will purchase the land, tear down the house or existing improvement and build a new one 1
from scratch, which seems like a realistic equivalent of a vacant lot sample as well. In 2
some cases, the property may be worth even more than the sale price, because they have 3
to pay for tear-down cost. Mr. Taussig said they would have to work with the City to figure 4
out which lots those are. They have information on the sales prices and location, but he 5
wasn’t sure whether they knew whether it was a tear-down or not, but they could possibly 6
find out from the City where people pulled building permits to demolish units and use 7
those. Chair Greenfield thought this was a good direction to look. He thought as a 8
Commission they should focus on determining the maximum fee limit and let City Council 9
decide what fee is appropriate in balancing the needs of the community. 10
Regarding the below market rate discussion, Chair Greenfield said certainly the 11
community wants to encourage more true below market housing and if the ceiling for 12
impact fees is set high enough, then Council can balance the priorities between housing 13
and parks, which are both important priorities for the community. However, he felt their 14
role as a commission was not to artificially lower the ceiling that they can work with. 15
Chair Greenfield said he liked the differentiated fees, separating nonresidential out into 16
different areas, which made sense. He asked if the projected net total remains the same 17
across the various types. Mr. Taussig said overall it would be the same amount, because 18
an employee was still worth the same number of residents. Some went up and some went 19
down and he assumed that they probably ended up with approximately the same amounts. 20
The total went up 9.7 percent because of increasing the valuation of the land from $5.7 21
million to $6.5 million, so in general there would be a 9.5 percent increase. Otherwise, the 22
nonresidential, if averaged out, should be the same as it was before. He said they would 23
have to do some calculations on this. Chair Greenfield suspected the Finance Committee 24
and City Council would be interested in understanding what the net change would be in 25
collected fees based on the differentiated structure. 26
Chair Greenfield wondered if there were some examples of “Other Commercial.” Mr. 27
Martinez gave a daycare center as an example. Mr. Taussig thought also senior living 28
would fall into that category. 29
Chair Greenfield invited comment from Council Member DuBois. 30
Council Member DuBois responded that it was an interesting conversation. The questions 31
regarding methodology used to calculate the land value are important and hearing that 32
there were very few data points, he thought that looking at a larger data set, such as 33
possibly including tear-downs, would make sense. He thought the Council would get a lot 34
of the same questions, and it would save time if they had more information on a different 35
approach. Mr. Taussig said they understand and was happy to have some direction on 36
doing something different. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Chair Greenfield invited further follow-up questions. 1
Commissioner Freeman asked, regarding tear-downs, if they were talking about just 2
residential or possibly commercial as well, because he has seen a number of commercial 3
tear-downs. Mr. Taussig said he would like to do both, although he has heard the argument 4
that a park would not be built in an industrial area. He felt that it depends on whether 5
you’re talking tennis courts, soccer fields, somewhere that everyone goes. There are 6
industrial areas and then there are industrial areas next to residential. He would like to 7
include both, because he can’t be sure that going to the expense of single-family areas to 8
build a park was the only option. There are reasons to build in other areas as well. He said 9
they would differentiate industrial from residential so they would have two separate 10
numbers and then also a blended number. He thought the Commission gave a good cover 11
for not going to the $20 million per acre number, which would create a fee so high it would 12
be unreasonable. Using the criteria with tear-downs would be helpful if they can find 13
enough over the last five years. Over the last 60 days would be even better, but not realistic. 14
Commissioner Freeman commented on the use of the parks, whether residential has more 15
usage than commercial. He thought with the hybrid model that organizations are going to, 16
people may have more free time, being able to do the work balance between home and 17
office, getting out and taking kids to the park on what used to be a workday, where now 18
there’s more time to do that. It could be that that equation will change over time. Mr. 19
Taussig agreed that it is another thing that will change. He said their office used to be right 20
next to the Bay and there were many runners. He said they actually stayed with the 21
company longer because they would go running every lunch along the beautiful Bay with 22
wildlife and birds, et cetera. It was a plus, so to say nonresidential doesn’t benefit from 23
parks is really not true. But whether it benefits as much as a subdivision, single-family 24
residential area may not be quite accurate. Chair Greenfield thought that was heading in 25
the right direction, given the distance between commercial/industrial and residential land 26
in Palo Alto is not very far and blends pretty quickly. 27
Chair Greenfield invited any further follow-up questions. 28
Commissioner Heinrich moved to accept the recommended fees for non-residential 29
categories in items B and C, but to recommend further review of land valuation costs based 30
on realistic considerations for acquiring land in Palo Alto for residential fees, including 31
industrial, residential, blended and tear-down properties, if available. Secondly, to have 32
the fee calculation based on two different things for residential properties – one, per square 33
foot, and two, per unit as currently. 34
Chair Greenfield asked for clarification and said he understood that Commissioner 35
Heinrich was recommending everything except the updated land acquisition costs. He 36
wondered if she was accepting commercial but not residential. He suggested 37
recommendation of points B, C, E and F in the presentation but they did not need to 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
comment on D. With respect to updated land acquisition, he thought the Commission 1
would recommend further review of the land valuation costs based on realistic 2
considerations for acquiring land in Palo Alto. 3
Mr. Taussig said their plan would be to use industrial with tear-downs, residential with 4
tear-downs and then blend the two together to give an average cost of an acre. He thought 5
it would probably be less than the $12 million, but more than the $6.5 million, because 6
they wouldn’t be looking at bare land. They would need help from the City to determine 7
which lots had tear-downs. He hoped they could get at least 20 data points to come back 8
with from the Building Department, who would have a record of that for the last few years. 9
He stated again that it is a matter of balance. Balancing the goal of more parks with 10
everything else the City Council wants to achieve, and how to do that all at once, is the 11
gray area. 12
Chair Greenfield suggested working on the wording to have something to look at before 13
asking for a second on Commissioner Heinrich’s motion. The Commission worked 14
together on to developing a motion based on their general areas of agreement, resulting in 15
the following: 16
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends: 17
1. The Finance Committee approve the methodology for points 2, 3 and 5 (no comment 18
on 4) of the nexus study as found in the Supplement to Park, Community Center and 19
Library Development Impact Fee Justification Study (the “Study”). 20
2. Further study on land valuation costs based on pragmatic consideration for acquiring 21
land, including residential and commercial tear-down acquisition data. 22
3. Provide alternative fee calculation data based on a) existing per-unit methodology, and 23
b) residential square footage. 24
Chair Greenfield invited discussion before voting on the motion. 25
Ms. O’Kane wanted to make sure that the staff who would be implementing the motion 26
were clear on the direction. She asked Ms. Duffy if she had any questions. Ms. Duffy 27
thought they needed to make sure they were able to access the tear-down acquisition data 28
and would need to work with the Planning and Building Department to find that. She also 29
noted that there may be an additional cost with it, so they need to make sure that they have 30
the fees to cover the additional work for the consultant. 31
Commissioner Cribbs wondered how they could make a recommendation without 32
knowing they have the money to actually do the work involved. Chair Greenfield thought 33
they were simply highlighting that further study is needed regarding land valuation cost 34
and making a recommendation, not a mandate. 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
Commissioner Heinrich moved to approve the recommendation as stated above, seconded 1
by Chair Greenfield. 2
Chair Greenfield asked Commissioner Heinrich if she wished to speak any further to the 3
motion. Commissioner Kleinhaus wanted to explain why she felt it was important to have 4
the fee calculation based on square footage for residential. She said as newer homes get 5
larger and larger and multi-family units have smaller units, and since they will eventually 6
be required to do it anyway, if they adopt the per-square-foot method now, then they 7
wouldn’t have to abide by the second part of the AB 602 that prohibits providing new 8
parks that are better than the old parks. She thought that would be something to be ahead 9
of the curve on. Also, she thought they should encourage smaller units, because they are 10
much more sustainable and provide what people need without the extravagance. She said 11
if people want extravagance, they should pay for it, and the per-square-foot fee is one way 12
to do that. 13
Chair Greenfield invited any further comments. 14
Ms. Duffy asked for clarification of what “pragmatic consideration” meant. She felt she 15
had a good sense of the analysis in getting the additional data, but was not quite sure what 16
“pragmatic consideration” meant. Chair Greenfield said he what he meant by it was what 17
land actually sells for, although he was open to using a different word. Ms. Duffy said that 18
helped clarify. She wanted to make sure it was in reference to the cost of land versus the 19
actual analysis being pragmatic. Commissioner Heinrich suggested “realistic 20
consideration” might be better. “Realistic consideration” was suggested as well, and there 21
were no objections to this. 22
Chair Greenfield called for the vote. The motion passed, 5-0, by roll call vote. 23
6. Discussion Regarding Court Usage and Joint Use Courts 24
Chair Greenfield advised members of the public who would like to speak to raise their 25
hand before the staff report. 26
Adam Howard, Senior Community Services Manager, Community Services, discussed 27
court usage, specifically nighttime use and the multi-use courts at Mitchell. He gave a brief 28
history, explaining that around 2017 to 2019 staff started receiving requests to have a space 29
for people to play pickleball. At that time there was nothing in the policy that would allow 30
it, as it was very specific to tennis courts. However, pickleball users started using Mitchell 31
courts 5, 6 and 7 as available on a first come, first served basis. There were no complaints, 32
but it was unofficial. On August 29th, 2018, staff made recommended changes to the court 33
use policy allowing pickleball. At that time temporary lines were added and temporary 34
priority hours were established for tennis on Tuesdays and Thursday, 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. 35
and 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Pickleball was 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
Mondays and Wednesdays and 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. In 2019, with 1
continued growth in pickleball, staff and the PRC wanted to find a way to have designated 2
space for pickleball. An idea was put in place to designate one court in Mitchell Park to 3
be pickleball space, and to make two more courts that would be multi-use. Priority times 4
were reserved again, for each, with pickleball 8am - 2:30pm, seven days a week and tennis 5
3pm – 10pm, seven days a week. This went into effect in early 2020, and is the current 6
schedule. There are eight designated pickleball courts in Mitchell Park, with six that are 7
lit, and a plan in place to light the other two. There is a total of 51 public tennis courts in 8
Palo Alto, 17 of which are lit, spread over three locations. The two multi-use courts in 9
Mitchell Park can either be two tennis courts or seven pickleball courts, all of which are 10
lit. 11
Mr. Howard described the Mitchell Park complex. The first area has two pickleball courts 12
off by themselves. These were converted racquetball courts that weren’t heavily used. The 13
re-striping and changing of nets made them more accessible for pickleball. Those courts 14
are not currently lit, but there is a plan in place to light them. The light poles at the tennis 15
courts can hold more lights since being converted to LED lights, so the Utility Department 16
said they could get those lights. The Palo Alto Pickleball Club has agreed to buy those 17
lights so that those two courts can be lit 18
In the area of the pickleball courts and the two multi-use courts, Mr. Howard pointed out 19
the new space that was created during the last project, adding two designated pickleball 20
courts. The area that was previously Court 5 was turned into four designated pickleball 21
courts, all lit. The priority times were to address the peak times for both sports at that time. 22
It also created stability, streamlined across seven days a week, making it more accessible 23
to the community. Mr. Howard showed a rough distribution of courts throughout Palo 24
Alto, highlighting the 17 lit courts that are at Rinconada, Paly and Mitchell Park. The rest 25
of the courts are in smaller groupings through Palo Alto. 26
Mr. Howard said this policy has been in place for two years. There have been no formal 27
meetings of stakeholders. He shared feedback received by staff over the last two years. 28
The feedback indicates that evenings have become compacted for pickleball. They would 29
like to see additional either designated space or evening priority times on the courts. 30
Grouping of courts also continues to be an important aspect for their community. 31
Regarding feedback on tennis, Mr. Howard said they hear about the high demand for the 32
lit tennis courts. Also, they hear about longer wait times. If courts are filled, there is a wait 33
time of about an hour and 10 minutes. Because the wait time is increasing, there are less 34
people willing to wait for the court to turn over. Grouping of tennis courts is also important. 35
Mr. Howard said they also continue to hear about private lessons, especially on weekend 36
days that are causing some issues. He said they have seen many more people being outside, 37
playing tennis and pickleball, both seeming to have grown during COVID, which they see 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
as good, although it creates some issues on the courts. As staff started to hear from all 1
groups that lit courts were an issue for them, they decided to take a look at what that might 2
look like. They also wanted to see how things were going since the policy implementation. 3
Mr. Howard did court counts for seven nights between January 11th and February 8th. He 4
went to Mitchell Park courts; the lit courts at Rinconada; and Palo Alto High School. He 5
shared a chart of the data he collected. On three of the days, every court was full during 6
each time slot. On February 8th, he noted that it was 70 degrees when he did the counts, 7
and that was also the busiest day. He said it was noticeably different at the courts that day. 8
He said he felt the counts need to continue as the weather gets warmer, because it seems 9
that it will have an impact moving forward, although there is a lot of court usage even 10
during colder weather. 11
Mr. Howard invited any clarifying questions regarding the data. 12
Commissioner Freeman noted that the times are all in the evening. He wondered if the 13
mornings and afternoons were not impacted as much. Mr. Howard said he started with the 14
evenings, mostly because much of the feedback he heard was around lit courts. He said it 15
doesn’t mean they don’t need to look at other times. Though evenings have the most 16
compaction, he thought weekday mornings could be similar moving forward. 17
Chair Greenfield asked what time the multi-use courts shift from pickleball to tennis. Mr. 18
Howard replied at 3:00. Chair Greenfield thought that was part of the reason as well, since 19
there are more pickleball courts available for most of the day until 3:00. 20
Mr. Howard said he wanted to explore some of the questions that staff will face with the 21
Ad Hoc and the Commission. He hoped to discuss the pros and cons of the current court 22
use policy and how it’s working; whether demand for lit courts justify a change in priority 23
hours; whether it makes sense to continue having multi-use courts or if they should be 24
changed to single use courts to help with demand. He said an important question for the 25
discussion was whether they want to see additional data to help see the whole picture and 26
determine what changes might be needed, keeping in mind he is the only one collecting 27
data, so his time is somewhat limited. He said he would like to continue collecting data, 28
but be specific as to what he is collecting, to help drive the conversations. 29
Mr. Howard summarized that they need to continue collecting data, especially as it starts 30
to get warmer. He would like to meet with the new Ad Hoc members and start getting their 31
input, possibly including specific stakeholders. He thought they had a good idea of what 32
each stakeholder group is looking for, but if they want get particular feedback a meeting 33
with stakeholders might be beneficial. In spring or early summer, possible 34
recommendations for policy changes could be made, or not made if the current policy 35
seems to be working. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
Chair Greenfield thanked Mr. Howard for the overview and invited clarifying questions 1
from the Commission. 2
Regarding the multi-use courts, Commissioner Freeman asked why there is not a 3
consideration to have more multi-use courts or if there was a certain amount of labor 4
involved in doing so. Mr. Howard said currently those multi-use courts are set up by a 5
non-profit, the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. The courts are set up as two tennis courts. The 6
Pickleball Club members take their own nets and set them up to play pickleball. He said it 7
is difficult to have those spaces and takes people willing to do that. They are not truly 8
multi-purpose unless somebody sets them up. Commissioner Freeman asked if there is 9
additional painting of lines that has to be done. Mr. Howard said that is correct, but the 10
lines by themselves aren’t very effective without the additional support. Commissioner 11
Kleinhaus asked if staff time is involved in changing the courts from pickleball to tennis. 12
Mr. Howard confirmed this is the case. 13
Chair Greenfield invited comments from the public, allowing two minutes per speaker. 14
Monica Williams, President, Palo Alto Pickleball Club, said a few of them would speak 15
on behalf of all of the members. They are very excited with all the publicity about the 16
incredible growth of pickleball featured on NPR and in the New York Times. They are 17
extremely proud that Mitchell Park has the reputation of being the best pickleball facility 18
in the Bay Area and thankful to the Parks and Recreation Commission for making that the 19
case. She said many families have discovered the sport, and parents are bringing their 20
children to play together after school and on weekends. They have had many requests to 21
offer classes to kids after school. The classes bring in revenue to the City, but unfortunately 22
the City policy does not allow pickleball play on the temporary courts from 3 - 10 p.m. 23
each day. She asked the Commission to please consider changing the policy to allow 24
pickleball play at Mitchell Park all day, every day, and every evening. She said the lines 25
on the temporary courts are hard to see, so they request that the lines on those courts be 26
repainted bright yellow or orange. She said the U.S. Tennis Association approves painted 27
lines for pickleball and junior tennis on all tennis courts, so they request that they also 28
consider painting pickleball lines on the Cubberley courts to make them multi-use once 29
they are resurfaced. This will enable people with portable nets to play pickleball there 30
when the tennis courts are empty. 31
Ms. Williams said their Club is honored that they have been accepted by Roger Smith and 32
Ed Selden to be partners with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks. She said Friends of Palo Alto 33
Pickleball will have an avenue to donate funds and receive 100 percent tax donation to 34
help improve the courts at Mitchell Park. Their club membership is growing and they 35
finished last year with 772 members, with 50 percent being Palo Alto residents. They are 36
aiming to raise that percentage to at least 60 percent. They plan to have a youth tournament 37
in Mitchell Park in August for ages 10 to 18, which will be sanctioned by the U.S. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
Pickleball Association and the kids will need courts to practice after school. She reiterated 1
the request to update the policy to allow pickleball play all day, every day, and every 2
evening and said it is a sport that brings joy. She said they have extra paddles for visitors, 3
so if anyone hasn’t been there to check out the courts, please go over and they will be 4
happy to give them a lesson. 5
Jimmy Young[phonetic] thanked the Parks and Recreation Commission for helping create 6
a vibrant pickleball environment in Palo Alto. He said pickleball at Mitchell is as much a 7
game as it is a community. People show up for any number of reasons. For many, it’s a 8
social game with family and friends playing regularly. There are pickleball birthday parties 9
and if you are moving away, someone will throw you a going away party. He said for some 10
its about getting exercise, and there is also open play for fun, competitive games. He said 11
the pickleball community is growing, and with it, growth opportunities for volunteers for 12
give back to pickleball have emerged. Players can volunteer as little or as much as they 13
want. Unrecognized volunteers do things like sweeping the courts in the morning, moving 14
on-court trash to the trash receptacles, moving items to lost-and-found. Volunteers set up 15
the nets every day on the shared courts. Some volunteers are more visible, such as 16
introducing new pickleballers to the sport. During off times the volunteers wear florescent 17
vests and forego playing to give back to the community by hosting new player sessions. 18
Some players run ad hoc skills and drill sessions. Others organize practice times with the 19
club-provided ball machine. He said if you have a pickleball passion, the club will try to 20
find a way for you to contribute to the community. Mr. Young said the City can help the 21
pickleball community by prioritizing more evening play, giving players a chance to have 22
a great pickleball experience by more than doubling the available evening lit courts. 23
Chair Greenfield requested that the speakers indicate if they are Palo Alto residents. 24
Ed Anderson, Palo Alto resident, said he has been playing pickleball at Mitchell Park for 25
the last four years and has seen how quickly the game has grown. He thought because of 26
work schedules and school, most families would like to play after 5:00, which is why the 27
courts are always full in the evening. Yet this is when the mixed use court policy in 28
Mitchell Park gives tennis players priority. He said two years ago he enjoyed playing in 29
the evenings, but as the courts got busier, the wait times became unreasonable, so he 30
stopped playing in the evenings. He had no doubt that if there were more pickleball courts 31
available in the evening, more working parents and families would be able to join the 32
game. He thought a switch from tennis priority to pickleball priority in the evenings would 33
benefit many families, while only inconveniencing a few tennis players. He felt this was 34
borne out by the two surveys presented earlier. He said they are very grateful to the 35
Commission for the courts they have and he hoped they will continue to support the 36
growing community. 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
Susan McConnell, 49-year Palo Alto resident, said pickleball is not just for seniors, but 1
besides the explosive interest in pickleball for adults it is also happening with younger 2
players. Palo Alto High School now has an official pickleball club. It is taught in freshman 3
P.E. in Palo Alto High Schools. She said she has taught her three grandsons to play 4
pickleball and when they visit, they love going to Mitchell Park and playing pickleball 5
with her. She said Palo Alto has always supported sports for youth, and the Commission 6
now has an opportunity to further youth pickleball. This can be done at the Mitchell Park 7
Pickleball Courts. Palo Alto Pickleball Club parents are begging them to run clinics for 8
their children, and they would be happy to do youth clinics, but the Mitchell Park priority 9
hours make it impossible. She advised that the clinics need to be held after school, but 10
pickleball loses priority at 3 p.m. Ms. McConnell thought it would be unfair to their 11
members to use the few dedicated courts that they have for youth clinics. She said they 12
need to have the multi-use courts available and that it is time for the back courts at Mitchell 13
Park to be for pickleball only, because tennis players have many other options, but 14
pickleball players in Palo Alto have only these courts. She requested they support this 15
change. 16
Lisa Steinback, Palo Alto resident, said she is mostly a tennis player, but appreciates that 17
pickleball is very popular now. She said she would like to have Palo Alto look at setting 18
up more pickleball courts across the whole city, not just at Mitchell Park or South Palo 19
Alto. She suggested that someone check out Rengstorff Park in Mountain View, where 20
they had an existing cement slab for some aging handball courts that were not used much. 21
They converted the slab into pickleball courts. She advocated for finding more cement 22
slabs that exist already that could be converted into pickleball courts. She suggested that 23
one such slab that is not being used is at Hoover Park. There are some ancient handball 24
courts there that could be easily repurposed into pickleball courts. This would help 25
particularly in the summer up until 8 p.m. having courts spread out across the city, so that 26
families in all those neighborhoods could walk down to their local parks to play, instead 27
of having the contention at Mitchell Park. It would be easy since there are already cement 28
slabs there. 29
Amy Louderback, 40-year Palo Alto resident, said she is the Membership Coordinator for 30
the Palo Alto Pickleball Club. She commented that their club is very proud to partner with 31
the City to create and nurture a gathering place for all members of the community. They 32
welcome all ages, abilities, languages, cultures and levels of income. Their club members 33
enthusiastically welcome neighbors who are new to pickleball and they often wave people 34
in who are walking past the park on the way to the Library. The encourage the 35
Commissioners to visit the courts to see what a joyful and enthusiastic community of 36
players crowd the courts every single day. She thanked the Commission for ongoing 37
support of their efforts to create their welcoming and inclusive space where they meet and 38
play with their neighbors. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
Rich Pearson, Palo Alto Resident since 2007, said he used to play casual tennis at 1
Rinconada but was introduced to pickleball after his wife, Jamie, took a class through the 2
City of Palo Alto. Like many others, he has not played a set of tennis since starting to play 3
pickleball. In 2019, he said the Commission invested in six permanent courts, and the city 4
immediately became a leader in the Bay Area pickleball community. Since then, Palo Alto 5
has hosted the Bay Area Senior Games and will soon run one of the first youth pickleball 6
tournaments ever held in Northern California. The pickleball community is thriving in 7
Palo Alto because of the wise decision the Commission made in 2019. He said they are 8
now asking for help to keep them thriving. They are not requesting money or upgrades to 9
the courts, but are instead asking them to propose a court policy change that shifts merely 10
ten percent of Palo Alto’s night tennis court capacity to pickleball in order to serve more 11
residents. During the court usage shared earlier and the fact that prioritizing pickleball at 12
night on courts 6 and 7, trading four tennis player spots for 28 pickleball player spots 13
seems like a wise decision. He thanked the Commission for service to the City and for 14
supporting a community that benefits Palo Alto residents of all ages, abilities, languages, 15
cultures and levels of income. 16
Joseph Afong, 36-year Palo Alto resident, said in June of last year, for two weeks, a team 17
of eight people surveyed two time slots for usage on the lighted tennis and pickleball 18
courts in Palo Alto. He submitted a copy of the survey report. He shared three charts with 19
the Commission. First, he said pickleball courts in Palo Alto in the evenings are very well-20
used. The charts showed that the courts are used 88 and 95 percent of the two surveyed 21
times, with the key takeaway being that pickleball court usage is much higher than tennis 22
courts. The survey also showed that there are many more pickleball players than tennis 23
players per court, both in terms of those playing and those waiting to play. The number of 24
players playing pickleball is much higher than the number of people playing tennis; and 25
also, the number of people waiting to play pickleball is very high, compared to a low 26
number of people waiting to play tennis. Mr. Afong said the pickleball courts were fully 27
utilized much more than tennis courts. His data showed that pickleball courts were full 28
about three quarters of the time. Rinconada tennis courts, the most popular courts, were 29
full about half the time. At Mitchell Park, the tennis courts were full about one-fifth of the 30
time, and the Paly courts were never full. He said the conclusion of the data is that there is 31
always an open court in the evening for tennis players, but for the pickleball players, there 32
is no option to play elsewhere. He asked the Commission to use the data and findings of 33
his survey to inform their decisions on the court policy. 34
Jenny Chan, Palo Alto resident, said she has been playing tennis at Mitchell Park since she 35
was in high school. Last year she said she could not get a court at night at Mitchell Park 36
many times. She got so frustrated that she joined a private club so that she could play 37
tennis at night. She said this indicates that there is a demand from tennis players to play at 38
night at Mitchell Park, and not everyone can join a private club to have access to tennis 39
courts. She acknowledged that pickleball is getting very popular, very social and fun, but 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 26
there are a lot of new tennis players as well, so there is definitely demand from both sides. 1
She said tennis players at night in South Palo Alto don’t have many choices, only Mitchell 2
Park. She said she does not play at Paly because the lighting is horrible. The middle courts 3
at Paly have almost no light on them. The only choices as a South Palo Alto resident for 4
her was Mitchell Park. Since she couldn’t get any courts at night, she had to join a private 5
club. She said actually she does not play tennis anymore at Mitchell Park, because she 6
could not get courts at night. She thought the earlier suggestion was good – to find other 7
places to build more pickleball courts to accommodate this demand. However, she felt 8
taking tennis courts away from Mitchell Park at night is not the solution because there are 9
more young kids playing tennis now after school and at night, also. She said they need to 10
find a solution to meet both demands. She asked if lights could be installed at Cubberley 11
or at Gunn. 12
Hearing no further public comments, Chair Greenfield turned to the Commissioners for 13
comments and discussion in terms of questions posed by Mr. Howard and the potential 14
timeline for the Ad Hoc to consider a policy change or not and to return sometime in the 15
next few months. 16
Commissioner Freeman appreciated Mr. Howard’s presentation as well as the public 17
stakeholders who presented their case. He said pickleball is a sport that is growing by leaps 18
and bounds and has been for a long time. He thought the problem as seen today will 19
probably be a lot worse in the next six months, and it is not a sport that is going to go away. 20
He thought the City has done a good job being on the forefront in the early stages, and 21
there is an opportunity to take it a step further. The comments noting that the sport crosses 22
all boundaries, across age groups, gives people an opportunity to get out and for families 23
to be together. In some ways it also gives people an opportunity to exercise and stay 24
healthy. He said he would like to work with Mr. Howard to find a way to meet the 25
challenge on both sides – the tennis community as well as the growing pickleball 26
community. 27
Commissioner Cribbs noted that Commissioner Freeman and she are new members of the 28
Ad Hoc Committee, and with Commissioner Brown as a returning member to provide 29
continuity, and they are all excited to hear this report and the report forwarded by Mr. 30
Anderson earlier. She thought it would be an exciting challenge to solve. She is delighted 31
that both the tennis and pickleball communities are talking, and she hoped they can all talk 32
to each other and explore the options for lighting courts and readjusting some of the times, 33
looking at the best way to make sure that in this time of emerging from COVID that people 34
have a place to play tennis and pickleball. She thought it was great that the community 35
wants to be outside, so she was excited about the next six months and Mr. Howard’s 36
timeline. She thanked the members of the public who took the time to come and speak. 37
She asked Mr. Howard if he could get some specific costs for lighting per court, and 38
information on which courts are candidates for lighting for future discussion. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 27
Commissioner Brown suggested there would be a lot of give and take and compromise for 1
this issue. She appreciated the thoughtful options that were suggested and have been 2
suggested in the past. She loved the charts and the effort that both staff and community 3
members went to to provide information. She felt it would be interesting to come up with 4
some priorities and innovative solutions. Fortunately, Palo Alto is not the only place 5
pickleball is popular, so she looked forward to seeing how other communities have found 6
innovative solutions. She though the sense of community and the in-person interaction in 7
both in tennis and pickleball is more important than ever given the virtual world they live 8
in. 9
Commissioner Kleinhaus said others had expressed her thoughts well. There is a lot of 10
demand. She liked the idea of innovative and thought there were a lot of areas now, such 11
as Cubberley parking lots, as there almost never cars there. She wondered about looking 12
at some of the parking lots even if on a temporary basis if feasible. She thought they could 13
add some areas that are not used at all. With Cubberley she said it was going to take a long 14
time before there is a solution there, with negotiations and decisions of what to do with it, 15
so it might be a place where they could add some courts. 16
Chair Greenfield thanked staff for their work in the presentation and working with both 17
the pickleball and tennis community, as well as members of public who commented, 18
providing bits of color. He thought the pressure point was the limitation of lighted courts 19
and finding new courts, as well as finding funding for additional lighting. He said 20
Cubberley might be an option. It has been in a difficult position in terms of hesitance to 21
pour investment dollars into. Even if things don’t change, at some point they need to 22
consider what makes sense in a nearer term time horizon. He said location is key as well. 23
He heard both the pickleball and tennis communities want clusters of courts available. 24
Also related to location is noise. He said pickleball is considerably noisier than tennis, 25
given the number of players, the number of balls, the action itself. He said he had heard 26
from staff previously that a location like Hoover Park would not be appropriate for 27
pickleball given its proximity to residences. He said Mitchell Park is in a sweet spot, but 28
if there was a way to get lights added to Cubberley – and they are already getting the tennis 29
courts resurfaced – it becomes a reasonable tennis destination for evening play, then it 30
would make it easier for them to fully dedicate all of the courts near the Magical Bridge 31
area permanently to pickleball. 32
Chair Greenfield said as far as data they are looking for, he said Mr. Howard gave some 33
good data from December. He agreed it was a more seasonal cross section and as it applies 34
to warmer months is important. The data presented by the member of the public looks very 35
useful on the surface, and he thought it would be helpful to get staff’s assessment of the 36
data and make a recommendation if it’s something the Commission should be considering 37
as well as data points to help make decisions. He was curious about tennis play at Paly and 38
whether there was an awareness with the tennis community that those courts are available, 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 28
although the quality of the courts at Paly at night is an issue, so it could help explain why 1
some of the usage numbers are lower at Paly and it would be good to get staff feedback 2
and comment on that as well, moving forward. 3
Chair Greenfield invited further comment from staff. Mr. Howard appreciated the 4
comments and said he was open to trying to be creative and finding solutions. He said he 5
would ultimately like to find a way to help both communities. He struggled with any 6
proposal that would decrease the ability of one to play one sport. At first glance he said it 7
feels like that is the only option, but he is committed to doing his best to find a solution 8
that works for everyone, or perhaps multiple solutions that increase the ability to use their 9
courts better and making it easier, maybe knowing what courts are open, and other options. 10
Chair Greenfield appreciated the words like creative or innovative. He echoed sentiments 11
about solutions. In addition to lighting there is the funding that is a challenge. 12
Commissioner Freeman thought it seemed like there was public that was anxious to get 13
started and were more than willing to participate in the process, which would take off some 14
of the pressure from staff. Also, there are things that they can do on their own, such as 15
prepping the courts to be able at some point to be used as multi-purpose courts including 16
painting so that there could potentially be four pickleball courts on one tennis court, among 17
other things they could do to support the public and the growth of the sport. 18
Mr. Howard added regarding the point about what other neighboring cities are doing, Palo 19
Alto was and still is on the forefront, so ultimately he has a lot of conversations with other 20
cities about what Palo Alto is doing and how they can help them. He loves doing that, but 21
unfortunately in some regards when he asks for help he finds that they were going to call 22
him, which is a good problem and fortunately in Recreation, they all help each other in 23
their cities and are all in contact and address problems together. He will continue to use 24
that model of how to do this to generally help the Peninsula or beyond, depending on how 25
big of a picture they want to have. They will continue to look for resources in other cities 26
to find out what is the best model. 27
Chair Greenfield closed the comments, looking forward to creative and innovative 28
solutions from the Ad Hoc. 29
COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, 30
ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 31
Chair Greenfield said they have already talked about the work ahead of them and Ad Hoc 32
work for Work Plans. He said the Tree Ordinance review will be coming to the 33
Commission. Mr. Anderson added the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plans. He 34
said it would have to be moved along before the contracts expire for the two consultants 35
who are helping with the process. Commissioner Cribbs wanted to make sure the Youth 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 29
Council scheduled to come and make a presentation. They had invited them, so perhaps in 1
March or April. Mr. Anderson said he had talked to Mr. Howard about that, and he 2
explained that there might be some challenges for the Youth Council themselves. They 3
will be presenting to Council as well and were a little challenged for time. Mr. Howard 4
said it is a difficult date for the Youth Council but they are committed to wanting to 5
participate. March would be the last meeting they are available, as they disband for the 6
summer after that. He said they understand and are not heartbroken if they can’t come, and 7
it is difficult. He said they don’t want it to be too impactful for either side, so unless there’s 8
a perfect fit, they can pass. 9
Commissioner Cribbs thought maybe they could pass this year and make sure they know 10
that at the towards the end of the year they have a standing invitation to come. She said 11
it’s great for the Commission to hear from them and hear their perspective, and then when 12
they go to Council, Mr. Howard could let them know, and they could listen to their report 13
at Council. She said they are busy and they do a lot of great stuff but she wanted to make 14
sure the Commission didn’t forget about it. 15
Mr. Howard appreciated that and they do as well. He thought maybe it was just on his side, 16
schedule a little earlier, get it worked out a little more clearly for the next school year. 17
Commissioner Cribbs said that was perfect, and she would let them know that the next 18
time she attended one of their meetings. 19
Chair Greenfield wondered if September/October would be a reasonable time to come 20
present something. Mr. Howard liked the idea of at the beginning of the school year, tohelp 21
them shape what the school year could look like, what their interests are, what the 22
Commission’s interests are, some middle ground where they could work together or focus 23
on a certain subject together. Chair Greenfield said also if they’re presenting to City 24
Council in the spring, it might reduce the load if there was some presentation to the 25
Commission in the fall. Mr. Howard said they are open to both models. 26
Chair Greenfield invited further comments from the Commissioners or Council Member 27
DuBois. Hearing none, he adjourned the meeting. 28
ADJOURNMENT 29
30
Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. 31
3/22/2022
Parks and Recreation Commission
Staff Liaison: Daren Anderson
Lead Department: Community Services
About the Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission. Timeframe covered by Work Plan: April 1, 2022 -- March 31, 2023. The Commission is composed of seven
members, however, as of April 1, 2022, there is one vacancy. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.25 Sections 2.25.010, 2.25.030, 2.25.040,
2.25.050, and 2.25.060. Residency is required. Further requirements are that members shall not be Council Members, officers or employees of the
City of Palo Alto. Each member of the Commission shall have a demonstrated interest in parks, open space and recreation matters. . For more
information about the Parks and Recreation Commission please visit our webpage, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-
Services/Other-Services/Commissions/Parks-and-Recreation-Commission.
2022-2023 Workplan Overview
Mission Statement The purpose of Parks and Recreation Commission is to advise the City Council on policy matters pertaining to the activities of the Open Space,
Parks and Golf Division, and the Recreation Division of the Community Services Department.
Current Commissioners
• Jeff Greenfield (Chair)
• Jeff LaMere (Vice Chair)
• Anne Warner Cribbs
• Amanda Brown
• Nellis Freeman
• Shani Kleinhaus
• Vacant
Date approved by PRC:
DRAFT
Prior Year
Accomplishments
• Baylands Tide Gate Project - Reviewed, provided input, and recommended a PIO approval to Council
○ Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation on July 27, 2021
○ City Council approved on February 7, 2022
• Sidewalk vendor Ad Hoc Committee conducted a thorough review of state legislation, comparative jurisdiction policies, and an assessment of
vending opportunities within Palo Alto to update the Open Space and Park Regulations to add new Regulation R1-41 (“Sidewalk Vendors”) which
will be approved by the City Manager upon the City Council’s adoption of a sidewalk vendor ordinance.
• Foothills Nature Preserve Policies: ○
Recommendation from Commission on March 23, 2021
○ Recommendation from Commission for Foothills Preserve Policy Updates on December 14, 2021
○ Date for Council March, 2022
○ Recommendation for Open Space and Parks Photography and Film Policy on December 14, 2021
• Completed review of CIP plan for FY 2023-27 budget Fund
Development - Palo Alto Recreation Foundation (PARF) and Friends of Parks (FOP) Fundraising and Relationships
○ Public Donations and Sponsorship Guidelines (Started by Ad Hoc. Work in progress)
○ Presentation from PARF and FOP on July 27, 2021
○ Update from PARF and FOP on Potential Fundraising Opportunities on November 17, 2021
○ Discussion of Potential Fundraising Opportunities for Parks and Recreation Commission on November 17, 2021 •
Racquet Court Policy
○ Development of New Pickleball Court Rules. Commission recommendation on October 26, 2021 • New
Recreation Opportunities
○ Youth Leadership Update discussion on April 27, 2021
○ Approval of Skatepark Ad Hoc on April 27, 2021
○ Recommendation of First Tee of Silicon Valley Public/Private Partnership Approval on September 28, 2021
○ Recommendation for a Vision for a new Palo Alto Gym on November 17, 2021
DRAFT
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
- FY Q2 (before staff submittal of
proposed CIP funding and priorities)Incremental staff time
CIP Capital Plan for Parks, Open
Space, and Golf projects discussed,
reviewed, and prioritized in November
prior to completion of annual CSD draft
CIP budget.
N/A
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
PROJECT/GOAL 1:CIP Review by PRC for Fiscal Year 2024-2028 Capital Plan for Parks, Open Space, and Golf projects.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
- Provide PRC feedback to Staff and City
Council on the priority and focus of proposed
CIP projects
- Identify funding gaps (potential fundraising
opportunities)
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
Parks and Recreation Commission
Staff Liaison: Daren Anderson, Assistant Director
Lead Department: Community Services Department
PURPOSE STATEMENT:
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Commission is to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the activities of the Open Space & Parks, Golf, and Recreation
divisions of the Community Services Department, excluding daily administrative operations. The Commission's responsibilities include:
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the goals of and the services provided by the Open Space & Parks, Golf, and Recreations Divisions.
• Advising on planning and policy matters relating to the construction and renovation of capital facilities.
• Reviewing state legislative proposals that may affect the operation of the divisions.
• Receiving community input concerning open space and parks/recreation activities.
2022-2023 Workplan Overview
DRAFT
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Calendar Year 2022
Staff resources (policy development,
community outreach, review, etc.). Funding
for updated signage.
Recommendation to City Council in
CY22 N/A
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Immediate and on going
Utilize professional expertise existing in our
community on a pro bono basis.
Stakeholders, limited staff time, grant
writer, access to city resources (printing
office)
Increased contributions, increased
interest, implementation of suggestions
from 2021 Fund Development Ad Hoc
and report, funding for Grant Writer
N/A
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Identify need for funding not provided by CPA, publicize easy ways for community to support Community Services Department. Increase communication about funding
opportunities to support Recreation and Park programs and facilities, realizing there is no budget and very few staff resources. Make it easy for community to give to city
programs via Friends groups like Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Friends of Palo Alto Parks.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
PROJECT/GOAL 3:
Engagement with staff early in the process to allow for review of CIP priorities, funding
requirements, and resource gaps Identify CIP resource gaps and consider their potential as fundraising opportunities
PROJECT/GOAL 2:
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
Review and recommend usage policy for electric powered bicycles and other mobility devices in parks and open space areas.
Community Engagement, Financial Support
and new or enhanced programs, parks and
venues.
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
Clarify parks and open space usage policy
for electric powered devices including: e-
bikes, scooters, skateboards, personal
transporter, and other mobility devices.
Ensure safe use of trails and protection of
habitat and wildlife.
Recommend a usage policy to address the increasing use of electric powered bicycles
and other powered mobility devices in parks and open space areas.
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
Review and recommend an update to Parks and Open Space Regulation R1-37.
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES and other related Regulations.
DRAFT
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Calendar Year 2022 Staff time (CSD, CAO, Planning, PWE)
Commission review and
recommendation regarding 10 acre
Measure E site at Byxbee Park and
assessment of other sites within the
community.
Consistent with Parks Master Plan Goals and
Policies (1.B, 1.C, 4,D, 5.C) and
Comprehensive Plan (Policy L-8.1).
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Spring/Early Summer 2022 (policy update)
Fall 2022+ (expanded court use analysis)
Staff time (survey of courts, rewriting the
policy)
Staff support to provide cost analysis and
work with ad hoc on fundraising campaign
to fund new court attributes (temporary
lights, new court lights, etc.)
Approval of updated policy, if
necessary.
More hours of court use available for all
racquet sports.
Improved user satisfaction (feedback to
Commission, staff, Council).
N/A
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
PROJECT/GOAL 4:Identify, review, and recommend potential sites within our community to dedicate as parkland.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
PROJECT/GOAL 5:Review and recommend tennis and pickleball court use rules and policies.
More balanced and efficient utilization of the
courts across users
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
YES, without process and opportunities for community funding, opportunities for
improvements, new venues and programs may disappear. Current examples: Cubberley
Track, Pickleball lighting, improved starting blocks at Rinconada Pool, Community
Stakeholders who wish to contribute to Parks
Increase parkland to provide recreational
opportunities, health and well-being of the
community, and support biodiversity.
Advance goals of 4 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents, and within 1/2 mile of
homes.
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
Review and make recommendation regarding potential rededication of the 10 acre
Measure E site at Byxbee Park.
Assessment of other potential sites within the community regarding suitability for
parkland dedication.
DRAFT
N/A
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Immediate and ongoing
Utilize professional expertise existing in our
community. Stakeholder engagement.
Staff and consultant time.
Progress and completion of 4 projects N/A
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
Yes - skatepark and city gym
TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS
STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-
APPROVED
Calendar Year 2022 Staff time (CSD and PW)
Receive annual State of the Urban
Forestry Report. Provide a forum for
public comment on urban forest issues.
Yes (Council-approved)
COUNCIL-DIRECTED
POLICY UPDATE
PROJECT/GOAL 6:
Updated court usage policy Evaluation and feasibility of expanded court use (lights, striping)
PROJECT/GOAL 7: Provide a community forum and recommendations for urban forestry matters.
Sustainable Recreation and Park facilities
for current and future generations.
Community engagement.
HIGH PRIORITY
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
Focus on 4 capital projects: City Gym, 10.5 acres, First Tee partnership at Baylands Golf Links, and Skatepark. Work with city staff to ensure capital projects continue to more
forward with community resource commitment, engagement and presentations, including the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation and Friends of Palo Alto Parks.
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
LOWER PRIORITY
Yes, without the immediate process and support for opportunities for community funding,
opportunities for improvements, new venues and programs may disappear.
Foster community communication and
collaboration on the urban forest. Preserve
and expand tree canopy. Implement
programs of the Urban Forest Master Plan
(UFMP).
HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY
DRAFT
N/A
Provide feedback, recommendations, and interpretations to Urban Forestry (UF) on
goals, policies, and implementation strategies that reflect the vision of the UFMP.
Provide a community forum and serve as conduit for community UF concerns.
General urban forestry status updates provided during monthly Ad Hoc Committee
and Liaison reports
DRAFT