HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-28 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketParks and Recreation Commission
Regular Meeting
July 28, 2022
7:00 PM
Council Chambers and Virtual
https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 999 3789 9745 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833
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 – Attachment
-(5 min)
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 June 28, 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission
Meeting - Action - Attachment - (5 min)
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS
3.Department Report
BUSINESS
4.Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison: Reports and Assignments – Discussion – (15 min)
5.Skate Park Project – Daren Anderson – Discussion – Attachment - (45 min)
6.Dog Park PIO Park Improvement Ordinance – Peter Jensen – Action – Attachment A –
(30 min)
7.Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project – Samantha Engelage – Discussion – Attachment
- (45 min)
8.Fund Raising Ad Hoc Update – Vice Chair LaMere, Commissioner Cribbs, and
Commissioner Oche – Discussion – Attachment - (30 min)
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.
At-Places Memo
Skate Park
Presentation
PA Horizontal
Levee Pilot Project
Presentation
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:
FROM:
DEPARTMENT:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
DAREN ANDERSON
COMMUNITY SERVICES
JULY 28, 2022
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, andstate or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote socialdistancing.
(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 hasdetermined, 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 themembers 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 MINUTES 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 5 SPECIAL MEETING 6 June 28, 2022 7 Council Chamber & Virtual Conference 8 Palo Alto, California 9 10 Commissioners Present: Chair Greenfield; Vice Chair LaMere, Commissioners Nellis 11 Freeman, Shani Kleinhaus, Anne Cribbs, Amanda Brown and Joy 12 Oche 13
Commissioners Absent: 14
Others Present: Councilmember Tom DuBois 15
Staff Present: Lam Do 16
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL 17
BUSINESS 18
1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Parks and 19
Recreation Commission Meeting During COVID-19 State of Emergency 20
Commissioner Brown moved to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Cribbs, 21
the motion passed, 7-0, by roll call vote. 22
PUBLIC COMMENT 23
Susan Kemp, Palo Alto resident, said she is a long-time, regular lap swimmer at Rinconada 24
Pool and a member of Friends of Rinconada Pool. She referred to concerns back in January 25
about inequitable near elimination of discounts for seniors and Palo Alto residents, 26 compared to Master Program non-resident and non-senior membership fees at the pool. 27 They were told the pricing structure would be reexamined when the summer changes were 28 made in June. At the end of June, they have seen no changes and not heard whether the 29 issue has been considered. A survey circulated to swimmers in early June showed that 30 while seven in ten feel that the price they pay is acceptable, six in ten felt the disparate 31 increase in prices is unfair and should be remedied. To their knowledge, no other Parks 32 and Recreation program has reduced senior and resident discounts this dramatically, so it 33 cannot simply be a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Kemp said it feels 34
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 2
discriminatory and is harming the health of seniors and residents in Palo Alto. 1
Yudy Deng, Palo Alto resident, said she regularly runs at the Cubberley Community track 2
and field. She saw that the Friends of Palo Alto Parks are raising funds to refurbish the 3
field and track. Several years ago, she was a Parks Boardmember at City of Bellville in 4
Washington State. She was in full support of the program and started fundraising within 5
her two Asian American groups. First, in the Burn [phonetic] Running group raised about 6
$6,000. The other, the Asian American Youth Soccer Academy, raised about $2,000. They 7
would like to do a celebration ceremony at the community track and want to invite a few 8
Commissioners to attend their celebration, if possible. 9
Chair Greenfield expressed appreciation for the public comments, positive comments and 10 information regarding celebrations. 11
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS 12
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 13
2. Approval of Draft Minutes from the May 24, 2022, Parks and Recreation 14 Commission Meeting 15
Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2022, Parks and 16
Recreation Commission meeting with amendments noted by Vice Chair LaMere and Chair 17
Greenfield. Seconded by Commissioner Kleinhaus, the motion passed, 7-0 by roll call 18
vote. 19
Chair Greenfield noted that Councilmember DuBois joined the meeting. 20
CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 21
3. Department Report 22
Mr. Do acknowledged and thanked Nadia Chupryna [phonetic] helping to facilitate the 23
meeting while some staff members needed to attend remotely. 24
Mr. Do reported that on June 1st the City Council reviewed and approved the 2022 – 2023 25
work plan for the Parks and Recreation Commission. On June 6 the Council adopted the 26 Tree Ordinance, including an update to the Municipal Code 2.25.050, which is the 27 purposes and duties of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The update is in response 28 to City Council’s direction to have staff formalize the Commission’s role and input into 29 Urban Forestry issues. The Commission will serve as a community forum for the 30 Department of Public Works, Urban Forestry Section, matters and also provide feedback, 31 recommendations and interpretations to the City Council on the Urban Forest Master Plan 32 and other associated policies. 33
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 3
On June 15th, there was a community meeting to discuss adding a skate park adjacent to 1
the existing skate bowl at Greer Park. There were 21 participants at the meeting, and the 2
feedback was generally positive and supportive of the proposed location and the process 3
so far. The Skateboard Ad Hoc Committee will be meeting and preparing to bring the topic 4
back to the full Commission potentially in July. 5
The Cubberley tennis courts should be completed within the next couple days and will 6
open in July. The tennis courts at Peers are being renovated as well, with completion 7
expected by early July as well. 8
Mr. Do gave an update on recruitments in the Department. Within the Division of Open 9 Space, Parks and Golf there were two recruitments for the Parks team. They are currently 10 recruiting for a Parks Maintenance position and a Parks Irrigation position. Also, they are 11 recruiting for an hourly Assistant Park Ranger. Within the Department of Community 12 Services, they are recruiting for a Senior Management Analyst. 13
Family movie nights at Mitchell Park are back. Movies start at 7:00 p.m. and attendance 14 is free. The next movie night is scheduled for July 22nd, when the movie, Luka, will be 15 shown. Space is limited, and pre-registration per family is required. Registration may be 16
completed at the “City Events” page on the City calendar at cityofpaloalto.org/calendar. 17
On June 18, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the City of Palo Alto hosted an open house at 18
the Municipal Service Center to showcase activities behind the scenes at the Center and 19
services offered to the community by staff. This event was on hiatus during the COVID 20
period, but the City has brought it back. 21
At the May Commission meeting, staff had mentioned that pickleball lines on the shared 22
use tennis courts at Mitchell were painted on May 23rd. The intent was to provide a color 23
that made it easier to see the lines. A Commissioner suggested checking in to see how they 24
are working, and they have since received numerous emails from the pickleball community 25
expressing their thanks and pleasure with the painted lines. The responses came in 26
immediately, so the lines seem to be working out at this point. 27
Cubberley Gym A and Gym B remain closed due to flooding issues in the gym crawlspace 28 and walls. Public Works is working with contractors on the issue. Use of the Pavilion for 29 all gym activities is limited. Staff has located other spaces to refer displaced renters to, 30 including the Cubberley Pavilion and referrals to other gyms, such as the YMCA. 31
The Fourth of July Summer Festival is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Mitchell 32 Park. There will be live music provided by Radio City Allstars and DJ Verz. There will be 33 food trucks and a kids area including games, activities and inflatables. 34
At Rinconada Pool, hiring is underway for group lessons, and they anticipate offering 35
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 4
lessons throughout July. The Open Swim program has been a little slow, but participation 1
is expected to pick up with the arrival of warmer weather. Current swim lessons and 2
summer camps are doing well and reaching capacities. In response to a question at the last 3
Commission meeting regarding how many scholarships have been requested and awarded 4
for swim lessons, camps and other recreation programs, for the pool and Tim Sheeper, 5
they offer a scholarship program which is directly administered by them. Mr. Do provided 6
some statistics. For calendar year 2021, there were 36 scholarship participants who took 7
part in 169 lessons, which averaged out to about 4.7 per participants through the program. 8
Scholarship activity for 2022 should increase, as it will include camps as well. 9
Programs offered through the City’s Community Services Department in recreation 10 include scholarships at different levels. Nine scholarships have been awarded at a 25-11 percent reduction; 157 at the 50-percent level. Three annual passes for low-income 12 families have been issued at Foothills. The number of applicants declined was not available 13 as it is not tracked; however, people placing applications are aware of the income level 14 standards and where they fall in line, so most application received are approved. 15
Mr. Do reported at the last meeting there was a question about the middle school athletics 16
program. They are currently running their full complement of programs, including girls 17
and boys volleyball, flag football, cross country, boys and girls basketball, tennis, track 18
and field and wrestling. All programs remain quite popular and fill up quickly. Hiring has 19
been the biggest challenge with the programs in the past and remains so. Unfortunately, it 20
is now a bigger hurdle. Typically, they hire as many qualified coaches as possible, which 21
allows for adding capacity. They also take in volunteer coaches to support the demand. 22
They are looking at a change to the registration process. Currently, programs fill within 23
minutes of the registration window opening, so they are looking at moving away from the 24
current process and looking for a process that may be more equitable. 25
For the current year, the challenge in finding and hiring coaches has been much more 26 difficult. In prior years the challenge has been finding people available between the hours 27 of 3:00 to 6:00 p.m., for after-school sports. These hours have limited the pool of available 28 coaches. This year it has been much more difficult to find people willing to coach at all. 29 They are unsure whether this is COVID-related. The hiring process has also been impacted 30 by a slower onboarding and hiring process due to the Citywide backlog of hiring for 31 programs throughout City departments. It has also been impacted by a backlog of hiring 32 due to staff turnover throughout the city. 33
Mr. Do reported on a proposal to add a water play feature at one of the parks. Staff has 34 discussed this and feels it is better to revisit such a proposal after the drought is over. There 35 is also a challenge with staff time, both in Community Services and in Public Works 36 Engineering, having enough bandwidth to manage existing projects and ones identified in 37
the near future, such as the CIP plan. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 5
Lastly, Mr. Do reported that staff has coordinated with the Chair to establish a frequency 1
in providing Commission Public Comments outside of Commission meetings. 2
Vice Chair LaMere asked Mr. Do if there was a way to find the number of youth served 3
in the middle school athletic programs in an academic year. Mr. Do will coordinate with 4
the Recreation Division that runs the program and will provide it in a future Commission 5
meeting. 6
BUSINESS 7
4. Ad Hoc Committees and Liaison: Reports and Assignments and Consideration of 8 Establishing an Urban Forest Ad Hoc Committee 9
Chair Greenfield explained there is currently a two-person Liaison role for Urban Forestry. 10 There was no Ad Hoc previously created because there was no specific project for an Ad 11 Hoc to take on. With City Council recently adopting the update to the Tree Ordinance, 12 Title 8, they have requested that within the next year both the Planning and Transportation 13 Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission review the updates regarding the tree 14 ordinance and recommend any potential changes, so there is now a formal task regarding 15 Urban Forestry to take on. This is an action they would vote on. Chair Greenfield invited 16
any discussion in regard to this proposal. He said currently, he and Commissioner 17
Kleinhaus are the Liaisons to Urban Forestry. The update regarding the Parks and 18
Recreation Commission Municipal Code formalizing their role with Urban Forestry does 19
not change anything they do, because there was a provision in the Municipal Code 20
allowing them to take on additional responsibilities as directed by City Council, but it 21
seemed appropriate to formalize that change so that it will be called out in the Municipal 22
Code in Chapter 2, and the responsibilities for the Parks and Recreation Commission are 23
defined. 24
Commissioner Cribbs asked which staff member from Community Services is working 25
with the Ad Hoc Committee. Chair Greenfield replied it is Peter Gollinger, of the Public 26
Works Department, who is the Urban Forester. 27
Commissioner Brown asked if there would need to be a revision to the workplan approved 28 by Council to establish the ad hoc. Chair Greenfield said in this case they have been 29 directed by City Council to take on the action, so he didn’t think there was any question 30 or problem with them creating an ad hoc, but here is a question about adding the item to 31 the work plan to address this. Councilmember DuBois thought there would be updates to 32 workplans every six months or so. Chair Greenfield suggested in addition to creating the 33 ad hoc, that the new ad hoc can create a workplan item to bring to the Commission for 34 approval as an action item, and then send it on to City Council for approval at Council’s 35 discretion. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 6
Commissioner Freeman asked if there are any already items in the workplan that could be 1
incorporated into that. Chair Greenfield said there is currently a workplan item regarding 2
Urban Forestry to address Urban Forestry matters as appropriate. Hearing no further 3
discussion, Chair Greenfield invited a motion to create the Ad Hoc. 4
Commissioner Kleinhaus moved to create an Urban Forestry Ad Hoc Committee. 5
Seconded by Commissioner Oche, the motion passed (7-0), by roll call vote. 6
Chair Greenfield said currently Commissioner Kleinhaus and he are the Liaisons to Urban 7
Forestry, so he assumed they would stay on the Ad Hoc but there would be an opportunity 8 for a third person to join the Ad Hoc. With no other Commissioners desiring to be on the 9 Ad Hoc, Chair Greenfield directed that he and Commissioner Kleinhaus be moved from 10 Liaisons to the Urban Forestry Ad Hoc Committee. 11
Chair Greenfield invited reports from the remaining Ad Hoc Committees. 12
Commissioner Cribbs requested that the Commission look at the list of committees to 13 make sure they all have an up-to-date list with the appropriate staff people, since some 14 changes have been made. Chair Greenfield agreed that they will update the Ad Hoc and 15 Liaison sheet, and there will be a link to it on the Parks and Recreation Commission 16
landing page. 17
Commissioner Cribbs gave a report on the Recreational Opportunities Ad Hoc. Regarding 18
the Community Wellness/Recreation Gym/Center, they are thinking about the most 19
appropriate name for the facility, wanting to get away from simply “gym,” because it is 20
meant to be more than a basketball court solely, but to serve the entire community and 21
provide a sense of a gathering place for all ages. Commissioner Freeman thought they had 22
settled on “Recreation Center of Palo Alto,” at this point. Commissioner Cribbs said they 23
are also working on corporate documents. They have a list of locations that were shared 24
last year when reporting on this, and they are creating details on each location. They are 25
talking quietly in the community with both community members who support the concept 26 and also Councilmembers, since they will need everyone to get involved in the project. 27 She thought it was time for the full Commission to have a discussion at a future meeting, 28 perhaps in August or September. 29
Commissioner Cribbs commented that the community meeting referenced by Mr. Do 30 regarding the skate park was excellent, and the skaters were very excited about moving 31 ahead and the upcoming discussion with the PRC. The Friends of the Parks indicated they 32 would be honored to receive the funding for the skatepark as a place for the community 33 and the stakeholders to put their money as they move to raise money for it. She encouraged 34 the Commissioners to go to the Friends of Palo Alto Parks website to look at the things 35 they are funding, such as the track referred earlier. 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 7
Commissioner Freeman added that the Ad Hoc meets on a weekly basis, and every time 1
they meet they come up with other ideas and other people they should be reaching out to. 2
He felt they still have momentum moving in the right direction and are looking at some 3
other cities and how they are approaching this. Getting a name that people can be become 4
familiar with is one of their current challenges, as well as looking at different locations 5
and the pros and cons of each. 6
Vice Chair LaMere followed up on Mr. Do’s comments regarding Cubberley and said they 7
have heard it could be at least a year that the gyms will be out of commission. It is great 8 that they have been able to accommodate people, but for other events looking to use the 9 gyms in the future with the shape Cubberley is in and thinking of recreational opportunities 10 as a whole as well and adding capacity or building a new recreation center is important. 11 Chair Greenfield asked for clarification that the gyms that were damaged may be 12 offline for a year or more. Vice Chair LaMere confirmed this. 13
Commissioner Kleinhaus thanked the Ad Hoc for their exciting work. She suggested that 14 in their outreach to the public regarding locations, they add the Sierra Club and other 15 environmental organizations to the community that is being consulted regarding location. 16
Councilmember DuBois said he thought the Council was told about the Cubberley issue, 17
but not the extent of it. He suggested a letter to them from Parks and Recreation 18
Commission would be useful to inform them about how long Cubberley will be out of 19
commission. Chair Greenfield asked if it should be from the Commission or from staff. 20
Councilmember DuBois thought it could be either, but it just should be highlighted, even 21
if by just one Commissioner would call it to Council’s attention. He said he would also 22
talk to people about it, because he didn’t think people realize the extent of the problem. 23
Commissioner Cribbs added, except the people who were using the facility and are 24
currently unable to. She volunteered to send a letter or email to the Council, or work with 25
the Chair to do so. She mentioned the money for the roof has already been approved, and 26 that the school kids will be there for two years. They are concerned about the fact that the 27 gyms won’t be available for that period of time. Chair Greenfield noted that they will make 28 sure a communication is shared with Council when they return from their break. 29
Commissioner Brown commented that the City of Tracy is building a multi-generational 30 recreation center. They had an RFP issue around 2021 and also have information on how 31 they funded the center. She said it might be a good case study to look at and contact some 32 of their staff or Commission members. Commissioner Cribbs said she was aware of the 33 work they have done, which is great outreach and development, and good to keep track of. 34
Commissioner Freeman reported they have been looking at some of the documentation on 35 activity on the soccer fields. He thought they are moving in the right direction. There were 36 some lights on, and they got feedback on the project there going forward. He said he met 37
last week with Mr. Do and got an update on the golf. He inquired about the comment that 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 8
there is a maintenance position open for the golf course. He wondered if this was the 1
position for the vendor who is providing the landscaping and maintenance. Mr. Do 2
responded that two positions mentioned – Park Maintenance and Park Irrigation positions 3
– are for maintaining City parks and some agreements for shared maintenance of some 4
school district sites. It is separate from the agreement with the contracted golf course 5
operator. Chair Greenfield added, regarding the fields, that Mayfield – Stanford’s playing 6
fields – will be closed from July 27th through August 9th, with possible extension through 7
August 16th, to replace the infield material. He said he has been there recently, and the 8
condition is not good. 9
Commissioner Cribbs said regarding the Funding Opportunities Ad Hoc, Commissioner 10 Oche, Vice Chair LaMere and she met last week and talked about the past reports that have 11 been done and going forward in the future they will be meeting with staff the first week in 12 July with hopes of putting together a funding suggestion report that will come to the 13 Commission in July to discuss and hopefully make some progress. Chair Greenfield added 14 that all of the ad hocs should be working to bring an update to the full Commission on an 15 upcoming agenda, so that decisions can be made as a body. He looks forward to having an 16
update on funding at either the July or August meeting, depending on their readiness. 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the Funding Ad Hoc is looking at State funding for 18
restoration projects for parks, such as the ITT property. She said there is quite a bit of 19
money and will be more with the 30 By 30 campaign. She wondered if Palo Alto has 20
thoughts about trying to get some of that money for their parks. Commissioner Cribbs 21
thought it was important for it to be on the list for discussion and also to see what is 22
available. Post-COVID, there may be funding, but she knows there are foundations very 23
interested in restoration and open space, as there is much needed. Commissioner Kleinhaus 24
said they could pitch the fact that Foothills is now open to everyone, so it needs additional 25
investment. Commissioner Oche added that when they present to the PRC meeting in July, 26
they will also talk about exploring opportunities to get grant writers. 27
Chair Greenfield reported on the Hawthorns site, part of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, 28 part of Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. It is a new site, triangle-shaped and 29 in proximity to Foothills Nature Preserve and Arastradero Preserve. It is currently closed 30 to the public, but Mid-Pen is working on an outreach project to allow public access. The 31 process includes outreach to the City of Palo Alto. He has met with a project manager from 32 Mid-Pen, as well as staff members, Daren, and some of the park rangers. One of the most 33 interesting takeaways is the timeline. It is drawn out quite far into the latter part of the 34 decade before there will be any kind of access. There will be a task force of stakeholders, 35 as discussed last summer, and they are looking to create this about a year from now. In the 36 meantime, there were some tours available of the site, open on the Mid-Pen website, which 37
filled up very quickly. Hopefully, there will be more available, and he will notify the 38
Commission if this occurs. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 9
Chair Greenfield reported on the Park Dedication Ad Hoc. They met with Daren for initial 1
discussions about a recommendation to re-dedicate the Measure E site as parkland. This is 2
the 10 acres at the Baylands. They look forward to coming back to the Commission with 3
a recommendation in the next month or two. 4
Chair Greenfield reported that the Electric Conveyances Ad Hoc met again to continue 5
work on a recommendation for a policy for the City of Palo Alto regarding ebikes and 6
other electric conveyances for parks and open spaces. Part of this includes a survey of what 7
other organizations are doing. Mid-Pen is having a meeting tomorrow to consider changes 8
to their rules. They currently have a couple trials in process regarding ebikes. 9
Chair Greenfield and Commissioner Kleinhaus attended the Foothills stakeholder group. 10 The group meets every month or two to review a range of subjects at Foothills Nature 11 Preserve. The new Supervising Ranger at Foothills, Mike Warner, gave a presentation. 12 Chair Greenfield thought they could ask him to come to the Commission so they can meet 13 him and get an update of what’s happening at Foothills. 14
Commissioner Cribbs shared her Aquatics Liaison report. She had a conversation with 15 Tim Sheeper recently about how swimming is going, particularly the scholarships and 16
swim lesson program and how much they can be doing to make sure kids in the community 17
are able to have lessons and learn to swim. He felt it is going much better now. Swim 18
lessons are incorporated as part of the camps right now. She felt things are looking up from 19
that perspective. She read an article that there is a national lifeguard shortage, not just in 20
Palo Alto, but everywhere across the country, about 30 percent less lifeguards are 21
available. There are about 110 new staff people working and training right now, so Mr. 22
Sheeper feels he is near normal, although he would like to have 30 to 40 more people 23
working for him. She felt the work that everyone has done with Mr. Sheeper and Team 24
Sheeper is bearing fruit. 25
There is still discussion about pricing for the lap swimming, especially the senior 26 discounts, because people are feeling that it is too expensive. She thought the Department 27 was going to continue to look into that through the summer. She felt they should keep 28 track of this, because swimming is so good for the senior population, and she felt the 29 Commission should help make it as inexpensive and cost effective as they can while 30 making sure the bills can be paid. 31
Commissioner Cribbs said the wading pool will closed on Saturday, because kids are 32 getting cut feet. This happens a lot when the concrete is not smooth. It is a maintenance 33 problem that they will work on, although she didn’t know how long it will take. The public 34 will be informed about this. Mr. Sheeper also mentioned that his relationship with Public 35 Works is great and that the maintenance issues that come up get resolved quickly. She also 36 found out that they did not get to do the family restroom yet that was in the works and in 37
the CIP plan. It went away during COVID, and she hoped it would come back again. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 10
Chair Greenfield asked that she keep them posted on the review of the fees, because it is 1
something they are interested in hearing. Commissioner Cribbs said it is tough because 2
swimming pools, lessons, lap swimming, all make their money during June, July and 3
August, and those funds support the rest of the year. She said it is something they should 4
all try to keep track of, and it is good to hear from the public about it. Chair Greenfield 5
added that, similarly, he wanted to make sure she or staff is in touch with Yudy Dang to 6
get information on their planned fundraising celebration at Cubberley. Commissioner 7
Cribbs noted that Friends of Cubberley Track is something that David Moss initiated and 8 has the piece on the website on the Friends of the Park website. She said she would be 9 happy to reach out to Ms. Dang, unless it’s more appropriate for staff to do it. Chair 10 Greenfield thought it would be great if she could reach out to Mr. Moss. He has seen the 11 poster at Cubberley and heard people comment about it, and he has explained to some 12 people what it is there for. Commissioner Cribbs thought that everyone is very happy about 13 the track, it is well-used. 14
Chair Greenfield invited any further questions or comments from Commissioners or staff. 15 Hearing none, he closed the agenda item. 16
5. Mitchell Park Dog Park Expansion 17
Chair Greenfield invited Peter Jensen, City of Palo Alto Landscape Architect, to present 18
this item. Mr. Jensen shared a presentation regarding expansion of the Mitchell Park Dog 19
Park. He explained that there are currently four dog parks in Palo Alto. Mitchell Park is 20
about a half-acre in size. It was, for a long time, the largest dog park in the city and is very 21
well-used. Not long ago, the Peers Park Dog Park was finished, which is now the largest 22
dog park in the city. There is also Greer Park and Hoover Park which are much smaller 23
scale parks in the system. The current policy for dogs in parks is that no off-leash dog 24
activity is currently permitted in any park in Palo Alto unless in a fenced, designated dog 25
park area. Citations and fines can be issued for dog owners currently if they are off leash 26
in parks. 27
The City is actively trying to expand the dog park system to provide areas for off-leash 28 dog activity for the underserved areas. When the City put together the Parks Master Plan 29 in 2016-2017, a site analysis was done of different amenities in the city. He showed the 30 geographic analysis for off-leash dog parks in the city at the time. Peers Park did not exist 31 at that time. He shared a diagram pointing out areas that are within a quarter mile or half-32 mile of a dog park. They have tracked the distance that it would take to walk to those parks. 33 For Hoover, the location within the half-mile is out of the area when physically walking 34 there, depending upon street access, creeks, et cetera, which can limit access. Mitchell dog 35 park is in the south of town; Hoover in the middle of town; Greer Park to the east, and the 36 north Palo Alto does not have any dog park activity at all, which is something that came 37
up as part of the Parks Master Plan and that they want to focus on. Peers Park was added, 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 11
and in the future, they will be adding Bowden Park which is fairly close, so the central 1
area of Palo Alto provides dog park areas, but they are still lacking in North Palo Alto. 2
The City Council prioritized the expansion of dog parks as a goal in 2017 as part of the 3
Parks Master Plan. An ongoing capital improvement was set up as a response to that, the 4
goal of which is a bi-annual CIP so every other year there is $150,000 basically set aside 5
in a CIP fund to build new dog parks or expand existing ones, trying to prioritize a dog 6
park in the north Palo Alto area. In 2018, the City opened the first dog park in 20 years in 7
Palo Alto, at Peers Park, which is almost an acre in size. With construction at Boulware 8
Park coming up, they will also have a new dog park there. 9
Future projects include the current project at Mitchell Park and future exploration of off-10 leash dog use areas in parks. Instead of having a devoted single-use space just for dog 11 parks, they are looking at parks in general and providing areas at specific times during the 12 day that dogs can be off leash in the park. This is something that they will be exploring 13 more in the future. 14
Regarding the Mitchell Park Dog Park expansion, Mr. Jensen shared the layout, which is 15 a little over a half-acre. When trying to expand the system, one acre in size is preferred for 16
the overall space itself and heavy use. An acre is a little more manageable especially if 17
trying to maintain turf in the area. Half of the Mitchell Park area is turf and half is 18
decomposed granite. This is because at some points during the year for a few months the 19
grass area is closed off in order to renovate and repair it. When the dog park is smaller it 20
is more difficult to keep turf in the area. 21
Current amenities include two hose bibs, which provide water for the dogs and allow them 22
to be washed off. It has seven benches, two picnic tables and one waste receptacle, and is 23
surrounded by a chain link fence. The scope of the project is basically to expand the area, 24
make it larger than the half-acre. They would also like to look at creating a small dog park 25
area. They see success when the smaller dogs have their own space, since they can get 26 overwhelmed in a space with larger dogs. They would like to replace the existing fencing 27 with new fencing that is a little higher, add additional seating, maintain the hose bibs, but 28 relocate them to be more optimally located; reconfigure the irrigation to optimize 29 maintenance and irrigation of the grass and try to keep the grass in shape. 30
One thing the dog park doesn’t do now is allow for the 10-foot setback, the easement from 31 the creek. Currently the park goes all the way to the creek, so they want to re-establish the 32 easement there. The plan also keeps the picnic area and hilltop separate from the dog park 33 area. The hilltop has some bench seating. The majority of the benches are donated 34 community benches, and they felt it was better to provide full community access to the 35 benches at the top of the hill instead of having them accessed within the dog park. The 36 plan replaces the hilltop slope grass with a different type of grass, a no-mow variety, to 37
reduce the maintenance and watering for those areas on the outside of the dog park itself. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 12
that are not used as much. 1
There was a community meeting held on May 4th regarding the dog park project. There 2
were six attendees. The proposed expansion of the existing dog park as well as the addition 3
of a small dog park were supported by those in attendance. Participants commented on 4
trying to make the area as large as possible. Some definitely would like to see the hilltop 5
and slope added to the overall design. In the iteration of a newer design, they did expand 6
into the hillside area to get more space for a larger dog park. There are some drainage 7
issues in the decomposed granite space where the area fills up with water after rain. They 8 would like to rectify this so there is not a big lake out there after a rain. They would like 9 to provide more seating. Everyone in attendance was in favor of trying to maintain the 10 grass as best as possible. Mr. Jensen noted that it is very difficult to maintain grass in a 11 dog park. The only effective way is to shut it down now and then. They hope to shut the 12 turf down in phases so that areas of turf will be maintained open and there will be 13 accessible grass throughout the year. 14
The large dog park area proposed was shared. The fence will be moved ten feet away from 15 the creek. The area for the small dog park was shared. In between the spaces is the hilltop 16
where the bench seats are located that they would like to maintain outside of the fenced 17
area. Overall, the new dog park would be 35,000 square feet, or 0.82 acres, which is close 18
to the ideal one-acre. The smaller dog park would be 4,000 square feet, about 0.1 acre, 19
which seems small, but for smaller dogs it is a good size. The overall increase is 0.36 acre, 20
almost a full acre if adding the small and large parks together. Small dogs are still invited 21
to use the larger area based on owner preference but will have the opportunity for the 22
smaller area to be available as well. 23
Mr. Jensen reiterated the scope of the project, including expanding the current dog park; 24
creating a separate small dog park; replacing existing fencing around the perimeter from 25
the current four-foot chain link fence to a five-foot height to help maintain balls, toys or 26 dogs that may jump out. They would like to replace the gates and maintain the double 27 entry gates, which is a safety feature. The project will add additional seating, consisting of 28 two benches to the big dog park and three to the small; relocate the two hose bibs to more 29 optimal locations and add one to the small dog park area; reconfigure the irrigation, which 30 is a large part of the project. To make the turf area successful it relies on irrigation, which 31 is tough in a drought, but the better coverage and newer types of irrigation products help 32 both reduce water and disperse more evenly through the space. The project will re-33 establish what should have been there from the beginning. The picnic area and hilltop area 34 will be outside so they can still be used by the full community. The area outside the dog 35 park currently is in grass that is mowed, and they propose to maintain the grass to keep the 36 aesthetic feel of the space, but will be changed to a no-mow variety to reduce maintenance 37
as well as pollution from lawn mowers. It will also use a little less water. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 13
Another slide showed the proposed servicing of the different areas. They will maintain the 1
decomposed granite in the larger dog park. They will maintain the existing grass area that 2
is currently there and add onto the area with new seeded grass. The small dog park will 3
also have grass. There is a frontage along the walkway of decomposed granite, which is to 4
help in trimming the grass underneath the fence when it has an edge between the sidewalk 5
and actual grass area. Most of the grass is on a sloped space and is not used for any 6
programmed activity, so for environmental purposes and maintenance, they have changed 7
that to a no-mow grass. 8
The project schedule is to return to the Parks and Recreation Commission either next 9 month or the month after with a Park Improvement Ordinance which would go to Council 10 to be adopted. They are currently working on actual construction and bid package to be 11 able to send it out to bid, once the PIO is approved by Council at its second reading. The 12 project hopefully will be built in the fall and open sometime either at the end of this year 13 or the first of next year. 14
Chair Greenfield invited Commissioner Brown, Liaison for the dog park, to add any 15 appropriate comments. Commissioner Brown applauded the extensive outreach that Mr. 16
Jensen has done with dog park stakeholders, community stakeholders as well as city 17
stakeholders in planning for the maintenance and function of the area. 18
Chair Greenfield invited clarifying questions from the Commission. 19
Commissioner Kleinhaus thanked Mr. Jensen for keeping the hill with benches outside of 20
the expansion. She said there are many people on the hill, almost all day, people with 21
babies, people using the benches, and it is nice to see. She wondered if they might need to 22
build a retention wall with all of the activity on the slope, to support the hill. Mr. Jensen 23
said the overall slope is not overly steep and they do not anticipate any degradation of the 24
it. The grass will assist with that, as well as some existing trees that will remain. Their 25
initial plan that was previously shown to the community had the fence coming down 26
further and not capturing as much of the slope as they now show. 27
Mr. Jensen said there was a request by the community to try to make the dog parks larger 28 and incorporate some of the slope into the dog park itself. In their design considerations 29 for doing that, they are trying to keep the slope that is within the dog park either on the top 30 of the mound or coming downslope. There is one section that is downslope, so it you threw 31 a ball, it will basically come back down the slope and will always be in view of your dog. 32 If they had expanded it lower down, a ball could be thrown over the mound creating the 33 possibility of losing track of the dog and the ball at the same time, so their plans were 34 based upon the anticipated uses. Also, there is a redwood tree that was dedicated by a 35 community member a long time ago, that they would maintain outside of the fenced area. 36
Chair Greenfield asked about the no-mow grass, if it would only be added in areas outside 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 14
the dog park. Mr. Jensen said this was correct. The no-mow grass is more fragile doesn’t 1
have the durability of regular turf grass. Turf grass has been engineered by humans for a 2
long time, so it’s what they will be using in that area will be built for heavy foot traffic, et 3
cetera. The grass fields in Palo Alto have actually become a mix of seven weeds, and that 4
is what they imagine will happen to the dog park area. It is actually the toughest of all the 5
grasses once it is mowed. Chair Greenfield observed that they are taking advantage of the 6
maintenance opportunity and funding to change the grass out for easier maintenance 7
overall. Mr. Jensen agreed and said the sloped areas are not usually used for play activity 8 but mostly made for sitting on, leisure-type activities, which denotes the use of the no-9 mow grass as well. 10
Commissioner Freeman asked regarding the grasses whether the intent is to keep the 11 existing grass and if so, whether the no-mow grass will it impact things like drainage. Mr. 12 Jensen said the no-mow grass is basically all located on the sloped area, so it won’t have 13 an impact on drainage. Commissioner Freeman asked if the intent is to keep the existing 14 grass as well. Mr. Jensen said during the construction process they will overseed or reseed 15 the existing area with the new grass seed, so pretty much the entire area will be re-seeded. 16
Once irrigated, the existing root system of the grass the existing grass will also germinate 17
and come back quickly. So, with the seeding and the existing root system and more optimal 18
irrigation system, he felt that they can grow a fairly tough grass. The area is a lot larger 19
than what they had at Peers Park, which had about 0.25 acre of grass, with the rest mulch. 20
That area was not big enough to sustain the grass. He said they will hope that the grass 21
will be able to survive the use. Again, because it is a bigger area, they do have the option 22
of closing down segment of it certain times of the year to re-grow it, which will also help. 23
Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if the picture was to scale that they were looking at. Mr. 24
Jensen said yes. She inquired about the 10 feet is the mulched area and how wide the 25
stretch is along the apartment housing where there are some trees. Mr. Jensen replied it is 26 about 15 feet wide. The area, including the trees, belongs to the City. Commissioner 27 Kleinhaus asked about the name of the no-mow grass. Mr. Jensen said no-mow is a generic 28 term for grass that is not mowed. They will be specifying a California native meadow mix, 29 mostly consisting of Festuca californica, the native fescue of California. It also has a 30 couple other types of grasses mixed into it. He explained that it is always the hardest to 31 keep a monoculture alive. It has been proven best to have a mix of grasses. They all look 32 the same, but some do a little bit better in shade, some do a little better on a slope, so 33 depending upon it’s growing environment a specific variety will establish itself more. 34 Commissioner Kleinhaus thought that was great. She asked what happens if the area gets 35 mowed by mistake. Mr. Jensen said it depends mostly on the time of year. If they mowed 36 it right now it would be the worst, because no-mow grass is about 10 to 12 inches long and 37
lays over on itself and basically shades itself and maintains water. When the top is cut off 38
it reduces the amount of shade it’s giving itself and impacts the grass. If mowed in the fall, 39
it actually has some benefit because it allows it to strengthen itself and grow a bit thicker 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 15
in the cooler time of year when they hopefully get some rain. 1
Commissioner Oche thanked Mr. Jensen for the presentation and the work that has gone 2
into the project. She asked if they will be adding a small signpost to differentiate the parks 3
for the community, where large dogs go and where small ones go. Mr. Jensen said if people 4
are okay with their smaller dog and the dog is okay playing with larger dogs, they can use 5
the larger area. Dogs in the five- to ten-pound range have the option of the smaller area if 6
bigger dogs intimidate them. They do have signage that will be posted to explain that the 7
small dog park area is actually restricted to small dogs, the same as at Greer Park. 8
Chair Greenfield clarified what the Commission’s role and goal was in regard to this 9 preliminary review of the dog park plan, which will return to them in the next month or 10 two for a recommendation of the Park Improvement Ordinance. It is an opportunity to 11 voice input or suggestions on how to potentially change the proposal for something they 12 would like to adopt. Mr. Jensen agreed with this. 13
Chair Greenfield invited comments from the public. Hearing none, he invited 14 Commissioner Brown, as Liaison, to provide her comments. 15
Commissioner Brown thought the plan accomplishes its goals in terms of expanding the 16
dog park access, restoring the easement, reducing maintenance costs and water use. She 17
appreciated the efficient use of the space. She thought having the separate small dog area 18
is a positive. She said she goes to Peers Park often (and personally apologized for any 19
damage her dog did to any of the turf). Having the small dog next to the large dog area is 20
great for most dogs, but there can also be a lot of yapping going on between the chain link 21
fences, so she thinks this is a great plus for the community where the dogs can feel safe 22
and play. The hill lends itself as a visual barrier as well. She felt it will be very positive 23
for the community. She did inquire about the no-mow grass, because of the state order of 24
not being able to water non-functional turf, which would be the no-mow grass, if the order 25
is still in effect when the construction is going on and wondered if it would impact the 26 installation, or if it would just be phased in over time. Mr. Jensen acknowledged it is 27 something they would definitely take a look at. He couldn’t say how it would be handled 28 at this point. It is something they could bring back with the PIO. If they decided not to 29 seed the area with the no-mow grass, that they would probably mulch it for the short term, 30 to protect the soil and trees growing there, and then come back at a later date when the 31 opportunity arose to seed the area. Commissioner Brown thanked Mr. Jensen for the hard 32 work. 33
Commissioner Cribbs asked Mr. Jensen if there was anything he or the other stakeholders 34 really wanted to see in the dog park that they couldn’t afford that had fallen out of the plan. 35 She said this because they are thinking about the dog park funding at Friends of the Park. 36 There is funding there that the dog owners started to put money in, so this might be the 37
opportunity to utilize that if there was something they didn’t have the opportunity to do. 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 16
Mr. Jensen was sure there were more site amenities that they could put there. The area 1
could definitely have more seating, more benches. They did try to reduce some of those 2
things because their budget is $150,000, and they are pushing that right now. He said there 3
is also a Chapter of the Girls Scouts locally that actually want to do some fundraising for 4
the dog park to add some amenities, more like play equipment. They are working with 5
them to assist in that endeavor. Overall, the size of the fenced-in areas are maximizing 6
what is out there, so mostly it would be on the inside of the dog park, adding other things. 7
Commissioner Cribbs thanked him for all his work. 8
Commissioner Freeman thought they had done a gone job with the plan. He stated that 9 many people in the community are pleased that they are expanding the park and also taking 10 care of the little dogs. He echoed Commissioner Cribbs’ comments about if there is 11 anything that was left out, he encouraged them to take advantage of this time to add those 12 things that are needed. He thought, from a community perspective, people are onboard. 13 Now it is just tracking once everything is approved how much time it’s going to take and 14 keeping everyone aware of the timeline on it, as this is one of the things people have been 15 wondering about. Mr. Jensen said their goal was to make this happen fairly quickly, within 16
the next six months or so. 17
Commissioner Oche said she was trying to figure out if the expansion might qualify for 18
ISI verification. She will find out and see if it’s something that’s possible for it to be a 19
great stamp for a City project. Chair Greenfield asked her to expand upon what ISI is. 20
Commissioner Oche replied this is the Institute of Sustainability Infrastructure that she is 21
a member of. It is a compatibility verification for infrastructure projects, in which cities 22
explore the opportunity to get a stamp, such as a platinum, gold, et cetera, a stamp based 23
on following a checklist that the project ticks off compared to the baseline of what it was 24
when the project started. Chair Greenfield asked if this is something Mr. Jensen was 25
familiar with. He responded he was not, but asked Commissioner Oche to send him the 26 requirements for the different levels, because they have many projects that they work on 27 across the city. They could look at those things and see if they can check some boxes off. 28
Commissioner Kleinhaus spoke about the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and 29 Recreation Master Plan. Under Principles, the first item in the Park Plan says, “playful, 30 healthy, sustainable, inclusive, accessible, flexible, balanced,” and “nature.” She noted that 31 nature could not really fit into something that ends in “ble” such as sustainable, playful, et 32 cetera. The reason it didn’t fit in very well is because it really needs to permeate 33 everywhere. Looking at goal number four, she said it includes “protect natural habitats and 34 integrate nature, natural ecosystem, ecological principles throughout Palo Alto.” It is 35 looking at how to integrate and permeate the entire city. It looks at connecting natural 36 areas, open space, creeks and vegetated areas, in parks, on public land, to create wildlife, 37
bird, pollinator and habitat corridors, plant native oaks, promote, expand and protect 38
habitat and natural areas, et cetera. 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 17
Commissioner Kleinhaus stated that there are many other policies in the Parks Master Plan 1
that cannot really be reached unless they are looking system-wide, and it is the same for 2
the Urban Forest Master Plan, and this is the way she looks at the issue of how to put 3
nature into a city park. It really is the connective tissue. It is what makes people love their 4
parks – seeing the birds, seeing greenery. When there are a lot of fences cutting the park 5
into interest areas, they have to compensate for that. When they increase the pie, everybody 6
wants a piece – dog park, skate park, pickleball courts, tennis, et cetera – and land is 7
limited. So, if they are to share the pie, it is always going to be smaller and smaller slices. 8 She said the way to expand the pie in a limited area is to enrich it in a way that when you 9 establish one place you also create inside it the enrichment that compensates for the fact 10 that now it’s only one group that can use that area. 11
Commissioner Kleinhaus commented about the area near the creek, stating that creek 12 corridors are vital to sustain ecosystems, even when made out of concrete like this little 13 creek. But even when made of concrete, they still have water in them and are still used as 14 corridors, and the area around them is a wildlife corridor. When looking at it from an 15 ecological perspective one would usually look at about 100 feet to 300 feet to enhance the 16
habitat. She asked how they would do it here. She suggested they have an opportunity 17
along the creek to take another 15 feet and not put grass on it, but instead plant trees. There 18
is 10 feet of mulch because it’s demand it from the water district. She suggested to add 19
another 10 or 15 feet of no grass. It wouldn’t mean the dogs can’t go there. It would provide 20
shading in the long term. Trees planted there today it will provide for the people who sit 21
there much later, and maybe the few bald sections on the other easement where there are 22
some trees can have a few more added. 23
Commissioner Kleinhaus said she sees people in the park with their dogs sitting in the 24
shade. A dog park is a huge amenity to a community. People connect, talk about their dogs, 25
their children, become friends. She has friends from the dog park and thinks it’s a very 26 important amenity but providing shade near a creek in a natural area, or restoring a little 27 bit of the nature, is critical. She stated that, in looking at the Urban Forest Master plan, it 28 talks about how South Palo Alto is hemorrhaging canopy, and this is an opportunity to put 29 a little bit of it back, and they should do that where they can. She said she knows they do 30 this routinely, and she would like to see it done in this one. She acknowledged the amazing 31 amount of work that has been done in transitioning to native plants. She would think the 32 area along the creek could have maybe something like elderberry or some plant that 33 belongs there. They could use some of the water in the grassy area, or choose other trees, 34 but Commissioner Kleinhaus said she is looking to see trees in the plan. She said adding 35 trees would improve the dog park, would improve the connection to the dog park, will 36 make it loved. She wasn’t sure that it is loved now, but she didn’t know how to express it 37
any better. Commissioner Cribbs for clarification on the area Commissioner Kleinhaus 38
was referring to on the map. Mr. Jensen pointed out the area. Chair Greenfield clarified it 39
is the area bordering the creek. 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 18
Vice Chair LaMere thanked Mr. Jensen for his work and creative designs. He appreciated 1
the separation of the dog parks. In terms of users displaced, having walked around there, 2
he didn’t think the areas it is expanding into are heavily used, but he asked Mr. Jensen to 3
address that and any impact of the dog park as it encroaches on the benches at the top of 4
the hill. Mr. Jensen didn’t have much data about the users in the expanded area but felt it 5
is limited because it is mostly slope and hillside, so it would be difficult to throw a ball 6
around there. It is mostly used for passive activities, picnicking, et cetera. They are still 7
maintaining a good amount of that around the edges, however, so it will still be available 8 for those activities. Currently, the area of the expansion has some irrigation issues so it is 9 mostly dead grass and dirt right now. He doubted if it was really be utilized in any way 10 currently. The upper hillside area that terminates at the hilltop would remain open. People 11 definitely sit up there a lot. It gives a good vantage point of the park and the dog park as 12 well. They would like to maintain that and keep that open to the community without having 13 to go through a gate to get to that point. Also, the benches there are dedicated community 14 benches, and they felt that it was better for the community to keep that space open and not 15 within the fence line of the dog park itself. Vice Chair LaMere thanked him for the 16
excellent work. 17
Chair Greenfield echoed thanks for the presentation and thoughtfulness in the design and 18
working on outreach with the community. He liked the “yap buffer” as suggested by 19
Commissioner Brown. He liked the idea that the small dog park is in view of the Magical 20
Bridge area, as it is of interest to the kids playing in the area. He assumed they were not 21
looking to add a new dog park but, rather, upgrading an existing one because there is no 22
immediately obvious viable alternative or location to add a new park. Mr. Jensen said as 23
far as expanding the current dog park system, this is the low-hanging fruit that’s there. 24
This is a large facility already that has the opportunity to be expanded for more dog users, 25
so they felt it was a good direction to go just to help expand the system. They would 26 definitely still be working to find places to have either more dog parks or maybe some off-27 leash pilot programs in other parks in the future. But this is the current obvious place where 28 they can make an impact and make more space for dog users. It’s also a bonus that Mitchell 29 Park is one of the regional parks, so it has some other amenities that some of the smaller 30 neighborhood parks don’t have, such as parking and restrooms and things of that nature. 31
Commissioner Brown added that Daren was looking into a potential new dog park area in 32 the downtown north area. It is preliminary and involves other community partners, so it is 33 being talked about. Chair Greenfield said his point is this is the $150,000 to spend every 34 other year, so they would be a couple years away from doing something else. He asked, 35 since small dog park is all grass, if it would be closed periodically. Mr. Jensen said it would 36 depend on the use. This dog park is about three times the size of the Peers Park dog park. 37
They are hoping the grass can be maintained in there, but since it is bigger it provides an 38
opportunity that if they have to close half of it at some point to save the grass, they could 39
segment it off and still leave some of it open and useable. Chair Greenfield asked if they 40
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 19
would consider a lower fence for the smaller dog park. He appreciated Commissioner 1
Kleinhaus’ comments that more fences are not a plus, and it is a pretty visible corner, and 2
perhaps a four-foot fence would suffice for small dogs. Mr. Jensen said they would 3
definitely take a look at that. 4
Chair Greenfield appreciated Commissioner Kleinhaus’ comments about shade and 5
acknowledged that people do gravitate to shade. Adding a buffer along a creek makes 6
sense, or if not trees then some sort of natural planting and potentially increasing it into 7
the dog park area. There have been concerns about oaks and dogs in the past. He wondered 8 what the thoughts were regarding what trees would be best to plant in an area where there 9 are dogs, but it seems that adding trees would be a benefit over time. With respect to trees, 10 he said it would be helpful to get better clarification in the diagrams where the existing 11 trees are and where any new trees would be, and which would be within the dog park. Mr. 12 Jensen said, for the PIO, he will bring an exhibit showing the existing trees. The majority 13 of them are redwood trees, most 15 or 20 years old, not overly large yet. There is one large-14 scale native oak tree, a quercous lobata, that is at the location. Regarding planting of trees, 15 he said along the edge and in the no-mow area would be fine. Trees are harder in grass 16
areas, because the weed whipping and mowing usually take a toll over time. Also, the 17
trees create shade, and shade usually is not optimal for growing grass, so there is a trade-18
off. Shade will impact the turf-growing capacity so they would have to be mindful of where 19
they locate the trees. The problem is in providing shade for the users, but not reducing the 20
amount of turf that the users want as well. Chair Greenfield understood it’s a balancing 21
act. 22
Chair Greenfield inquired about the quercus frainetto on the corner, on the path leading 23
towards the Magical Bridge, and wondered if it was in the dog park. Mr. Jensen said it is. 24
It sits in the corner. Chair Greenfield noted the redwoods on the hill are not doing well and 25
he wondered if that is a consideration in including them in the dog park area. There is an 26 older redwood tree on the border of the current dog park, close to the playing fields. Mr. 27 Jensen said the redwood trees enjoy water, so if they can get the irrigation out there to 28 maintain the grass it will give them a better environment to thrive in. They are definitely 29 struggling right now because in that area the irrigation may be turned off or just not 30 working in that space, and redwoods require a continuous feed of water to maintain them. 31 He said having them out in the grass area there is perfectly fine and will benefit them in 32 the long run. 33
Chair Greenfield also wondered about the layout in the bottom left corner of the dog park 34 area, going over the flat area, as opposed to keeping the border on the downslopes. He 35 asked what the tradeoff is for including that, or not. He was also concerned about the buffer 36 between the bench areas and the dog park. There won’t be much of a buffer, and it seems 37
like the bench area is losing a bit of its solace. Mr. Jensen said the dog park will definitely 38
encroach and be closer than it is now. The dictating factor for not pushing the dog park to 39
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 20
another area was there is a redwood tree there that is dedicated, and they didn’t want to 1
put the fence around it. Also, they are trying to optimize a play area that makes sense with 2
the hill. Chair Greenfield said his question was related to making the dog park a little 3
smaller and cutting it off before it got over the hill, or at the hilltop. He was not clear what 4
the benefit is of having the hill area for the dogs in general. He asked how much of this it 5
usable area, and to the extent it is not whether it is beneficial to include a little bit wider 6
buffer between the bench area and the dog park. Mr. Jensen thought the majority of the 7
space would be fine. He pointed to an area where they could bring the fence around the 8 topography and keep it outside of the fence to help buffer the picnic area. He said he 9 knows the lounging areas are appreciated and has noted when there are activities, soccer 10 tournaments, et cetera, people look for places to hide out. Those areas are used and 11 appreciated, though not as heavily as other areas, but it is nice to have escapes within a 12 park. This is why they wanted to keep some of the aera outside of the fenced area. 13
Chair Greenfield invited further comments from the Commissioners. 14
Commissioner Kleinhaus repeated her suggestion for 15 feet less grass along the buffer 15 from the creek and planting trees there. She like the idea of the lower fence that Chair 16
Greenfield had proposed. She felt it is a gateway by the bridge and was not sure of the 17
visual impact of that section. She acknowledged that the dog park users will, of course, 18
welcome more area, but was not sure how other park users would feel about it. She said 19
there is a level of serenity on the top of the hill that will be lost. 20
Chair Greenfield asked if it would be possible to put some signage up in the area where 21
the small dog park is being considered and also in the bench area on the top of the hill that 22
would be coming close to the new dog park, to give people information how on to get on 23
an email list for updates, and to understand when this will be coming back to the 24
Commission. Mr. Jensen said he definitely will do this. 25
Chair Greenfield was interested to hear from other Commissioners regarding increasing 26 the buffer along the creek. He felt it is an interesting idea worth considering and weighing 27 the pros and cons. 28
Commissioner Brown thought that the easement size was probably done for a reason and 29 saw no reason to shrink the dog park. She felt that something that came across very clearly 30 from the community was that they wanted it as large as possible. She thought having the 31 picnic area somewhat close to the dog park was great because at Peers right now there are 32 some families that go, and kids don’t necessarily want to be run over by the dogs the whole 33 time, and there’s nowhere for them to go where the parents can keep an eye on them 34 because the playground is around the corner without a good sight line. She felt this would 35 be a very compatible use and she liked the footprint proposed. She thought using some of 36 the funds from either the Girls Scouts of the Friends of the Park for trees would be a 37
possible way to incorporate more of the trees. She agreed with the comment by 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 21
Commissioner Kleinhaus that trees always add to the scenery, and they would be very 1
beneficial to this project. If they don’t necessarily want to fund trees, maybe the trees could 2
come from a City budget, and the Friends could fund the benches in a partnership so that 3
everyone feels they’re contributing the way they want to. 4
Commissioner Freeman said he liked the footprint but wanted to add to what 5
Commissioner Kleinhaus said about the trees. He thought they need to be careful about 6
the size and the amount of shade, even though shade is important, but taking away from 7
some of the real estate and some of the grassy area. There are different heights of trees that 8 could be investigated but he thought adding a good row of trees providing shade over time 9 and being aware of the height of those trees would be something to keep in mind. 10
Chair Greenfield responded to Commissioner Brown’s comment about adding 15 feet to 11 the buffer, clarifying that it would not be taking away area from the dog park. 12 Commissioner Brown prefer to defer the idea to Mr. Jensen and staff. Mr. Jensen said they 13 would be exploring this. Commissioner Cribbs added that she thought it is a great 14 opportunity to plant as many trees as possible as long as Mr. Jensen tells them that they 15 are compatible with what he is planning there already. She felt the dog park should be kept 16
as big as possible because that is what they heard loud and clear from the community. She 17
looked forward to Mr. Jensen coming back with some options for trees and information 18
on what problems they might bring with them at the next discussion. 19
Commissioner Oche supported Commissioner Kleinhaus and Commissioner Freeman’s 20
recommendations. She noted that planting trees would also be a big plus towards attaining 21
the Sustainability Award she noted earlier. 22
Chair Greenfield invited any questions from Mr. Jensen, who did not have questions but 23
did announce that staff has put together a dog parks webpage which went online that day. 24
It is basically informational about the current dog parks system and also has information 25
on projects, so information for the Mitchell Park expansion will be located there. It uses 26 the map the Commission had been looking at to show where the dog parks are currently 27 in Palo Alto. It is an official dog park page that calls out and describes the dog parks, their 28 size and amenities and then talks about current and future projects to expand the system. 29
Commissioner Cribbs expressed this is great and nice to see. She wondered if they could 30 put a sentence in that if anyone would like to contribute to the dog park they could be 31 directed to Friends of the Park. Mr. Jensen said he would talk to Daren about that, although 32 he didn’t see why not. They would probably have to have an agreement with the Friends 33 of the Park to have a spot for the money to go. Commissioner Cribbs said they already 34 have it. It would just be putting it on this website. 35
Chair Greenfield asked him to add some information about the Mitchell Park Dog Park 36 update in progress on the website. Mr. Jensen said this is the second aspect of the webpage 37
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 22
– information about the current system, and then a part about current and future projects. 1
Another aspect is adding the current dog park policy, so people can refer to it and have 2
that information available. 3
Chair Greenfield closed the item, thinking Mr. Jensen for all of his efforts. 4
6. Parks and Recreation Commission Webpage Update 5
Chair Greenfield introduced the item, stating Javod Ghods has been working with the 6
Website Ad Hoc, Commissioner Brown, and himself. The item is a discussion item, not 7
an action item, regarding updates that would make sense for the Parks and Recreation 8 Commission landing page. The goal of the website update is to make it more user-friendly 9 with an improved layout, to increase transparency and public access to the Commission 10 documents and the work the Commission is doing and take a step backward to be more 11 consistent and in conformance with formatting that the other Commission webpages are 12 using. They have met with Mr. Do and Mr. Ghods a couple times. Mr. Ghods has done 13 great work putting up a mock-up of what the new website will look like. The goal of the 14 discussion would be to get feedback and a report on what they are doing. 15
Mr. Javod Ghods, Coordinator, Open Space, Parks and Golf, shared the old PRC landing 16
page next to the sandbox page with the updates. He pointed out the distinct differences 17
between the current live page and the sandbox page. First, language was added for the 18
Commission’s contributions to Urban Forestry, listed in the first paragraph, and also at the 19
final bullet. Side panels on the righthand side have been updated to show assignments and 20
workplans, and is where the Ad Hoc, Liaison lists and work plans can be found. Year-21
round recruitment and survey side panels have been removed and are featured in other 22
parts of the website. Another added side panel contains the current PRC priorities and 23
subscribing to minutes, agendas and meetings. 24
Chair Greenfield interjected that there are a number of items on the existing webpages, 25
such as the surveys, that are out of date, up to six to ten years old, so a lot of what they are 26 doing is cleaning this up to make it current and to display information pertinent to the work 27 the Commission is currently involved with. Commissioner Brown added that it also 28 matches better some of the other Commissions so that people looking for information at 29 the various Commissions are not seeing completely different websites as they are combing 30 through. 31
Chair Greenfield said when items go away, it is because they don’t really belong. 32
Mr. Ghods continued to explain that recruitment for the Commission was moved down to 33 the featured area for Commissioners. This is more in line with the other Commission pages 34 in hopes of creating consistency. At the bottom of the page, there was a long-running list 35 of all documents. These have been placed into accordion items which make it more 36
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 23
accessible for screen readers. The two documents removed from “Resources” were the 1
work plans which are now featured on the side panel near the top of the screen. Also 2
removed were some of the documents. He noted in looking at the page that the Tide Gate 3
document still needs to be added to “Current Policy Topics” as well as the Mitchell Park 4
Dog Park expansion presentation. 5
Chair Greenfield pointed out that a lot of great work is in the sandbox, the new website, 6
but it is still a work in progress. The Ad Hoc will still be meeting to flesh out which bullets 7
to include under document area. 8
Mr. Ghods moved to the agendas and minutes page. It is the same format. The Urban 9 Forestry information is featured in the opening paragraph. Scrolling down, all video links 10 to past meetings have been updated. Minutes with amendments have been added. Staff 11 presentations will be added to agendas as attachments, as provided. Draft minutes will be 12 uploaded and renamed once the Commission amendments have been made. There will 13 also be a new column for public comment. There will be an area for uploading a single file 14 showing all public comments submitted via email from the four weeks between the 15 meetings, flushing out any spam. A statement was added at the bottom for consistency. 16
There were not many changes on the agenda and minutes page, just trying to make things 17
more accessible, more consistent across the different Commission pages. 18
Chair Greenfield commented that one of the big updates on the agenda and minutes page 19
is filling in all of the minutes and video links and updating them, which is appreciated. 20
Commissioner Cribbs asked why there is recruiting for the Human Relations Commission 21
on their page. Mr. Ghods replied that this is a feature that the City Clerk has placed on 22
each Commission page for active recruitment. Commissioner Cribbs said she saw one the 23
last time she looked at the old page, and it looked like it was meant for another 24
Commission, but she understood it came from the City Clerk. Mr. Ghods commented on 25
the agendas page, that he will be trying to capture the Commission’s actions and motions 26 passed to the summary minutes. Commissioner Cribbs asked about the public comments 27 and if they will contain any answers or just what individual have said. Mr. Ghods said it 28 will be only what individual members have submitted. Chair Greenfield thought it was a 29 little confusing on the public comments and clarified this is where the emails sent in by 30 the public will be posted. This is for increased transparency so that any emails that come 31 in either before of after Commission meeting will be posted. For example, emails on an 32 item they receive will be visible to the public and accessible before they discuss things. In 33 the same way Commissioners can see things, the public will be able to see them. Public 34 comment is kind of confusing in that it is letters received via email or perhaps something 35 sent in a physical letter. He asked if there is a better name for that column, while 36 conforming to what the rest of the City is doing, but it is a little confusing in that public 37
comments during meetings are transcribed under that heading. Commissioner Kleinhaus 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 24
suggested perhaps, “Letters from the Public,” or something like that. Thinking about other 1
cities, some people think they can go there and comment. 2
Mr. Ghods said he appreciates the feedback, and staff will work on creating appropriate 3
language. Commissioner Oche asked if they needed to collate the responses to the letters 4
received. Chair Greenfield said there is not specific response or obligation to respond, 5
although they can comment on things during meetings. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked to 6
show the page that this originates from. When someone goes to the City website, how do 7
they get there? Mr. Ghods responded this is accessed via the Parks and Recreation 8 Commission landing page. Mr. Ghods illustrated the links to view all of the parks in the 9 area. Commissioner Kleinhaus asked if there is a link to the Commission from that page. 10 Mr. Ghods said they can definitely add that. He pointed out there is also a search feature 11 for Open Space and Parks. He said they will add links to the map from the Commission 12 page. Chair Greenfield pointed out the easiest way to get to the Commission page is to 13 hover over City Hall, and then select Parks and Recreation Commission on the left. 14
Chair Greenfield invited other comments or suggestions. He asked Mr. Ghods to also 15 include an update on how the public comment and emails to the Commission will be 16
handled in terms of being passed along to the Commission. Mr. Ghods said every Monday 17
he will be sending out an email to the Commission with receipts from the prior week. The 18
week prior to a Commission meeting he will send it on the Monday and Friday. He will 19
be sending it Monday and Tuesday throughout the day, as emails come in, to make sure 20
the Commission stays up to date with public comments that are submitted. They will not 21
get an email if there were no emails from the public. 22
Mr. Ghods indicated that some other Commission pages have bios listed for each member, 23
and if the Commission wants to be even more transparent and accessible, other 24
Commission pages are doing that. When the City updated to the new format website all of 25
their previous bios were lost for those who had been on the Commission, so all of the 26 Commissioners should be submitting a bio to Mr. Ghods so that he can update it on the 27 website, and if anyone does not have a photo yet, they should submit a photo, or update 28 their photo if they wish. He strongly encouraged all Commissioners to have their photo 29 and bio information sent to staff so that it is updated before the next Commission meeting. 30
Chair Greenfield invited further comments. Hearing none, he thanked Mr. Ghods for his 31 great work which came together quickly. It is a project that has been on his to-do list for a 32 number of years, and it is great to see it getting done, and also talking about doing things 33 in a sustainable manner, updated over time. If any Commission members have suggestions 34 regarding the website, please send it to the Website Ad Hoc - Commissioner Brown and 35 him. They will parse it and pass it on to Mr. Ghods, who will be working with him on a 36 monthly basis to add pertinent documents to the accordions so that from their landing page 37
they can easily access things they are working on, and the public can see those things as 38
DRAFT
Draft Minutes 25
well. He felt it will be a big improvement for their individual usage and also for public 1
transparency. 2
Mr. Do acknowledged Mr. Ghods work and said since joining their team, he has been 3
immensely contributing to not just these webpage updates, but also has assisted in the 4
Division work outside of the Commission work, and he is excited to see this work come 5
through. He reiterated this is something they have struggled with for a while as they have 6
not had the bandwidth to work on it. Now they have Mr. Ghods onboard they not only 7
have more balance but also the knowledge and expertise that he brings pertinent to the Ad 8 Hoc as well and supporting the Commission. Mr. Ghods appreciated the kind words and 9 looked forward to participating with the Commission in many future meetings. 10
COMMISSIONER/BOARDMEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR 11 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 12
Chair Greenfield invited discussion about future agenda items. Mr. Do reported that for 13 the July meeting they are looking as possibly having discussion on the skatepark, 14 discussion on the horizontal levy, discussion on a Dog Park Improvement Ordinance. Also, 15 possibly for some future items, there is some discussion of when they may want to bring 16
Utilities Undergrounding in the Foothills to the Commission. This may be placed in July’s 17
meeting or the meeting after that. Chair Greenfield said there are also a number of potential 18
items, including Funding Opportunities, Park Dedication, and there was one other item. 19
Mr. Do said there are two more in a future agenda, to be determined when, bringing a Tree 20
Annual Report and also going back and revisiting the Advanced Water Purification system 21
at the water quality control plants. Chair Greenfield added there is also the BCCP when it 22
is ready – the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. He was also thinking about 23
utilities at Foothills and Arastradero. Mr. Do clarified that his earlier comment referred to 24
the foothills in general, not Foothills Preserve only. Chair Greenfield invited further items 25
for future agendas from the Commissioners. He said if an ad hoc has not been discussed 26 as coming forward or is not presented already, they should think about how to move 27 forward in the fall and getting it to the Commission to share with them. 28
Chair Greenfield thanked Nadia for attending and helping out. He thanked Javad and Lam 29 and staff for all their work for the Commission. 30
ADJOURNMENT 31
Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. 32
1
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE: JULY 28, 2022
SUBJECT: NEW SKATE PARK
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) discuss and provide feedback on the proposed location of a new skate park (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND The skate bowl at Greer Park was constructed in 1990 and opened to the public in January 1991. The skate facility is a three-bowl complex consisting of three concrete bowls interconnected by adjoining hips. The bowls are four, six and eight feet deep, with an island in the center bowl. The
existing skate bowl and the surrounding paved area is 6,032 sq. ft.
While the existing skate bowl remains popular and beloved by many in the skateboarding community, the sport of skateboarding has grown and evolved in ways that require new styles of skate parks. Almost 2,000 people have signed a petition asking for a new skate park with a good
mix of street and transition features that would support skaters at all levels.
DISCUSSION On April 12, 2021, City Council voted to refer a proposal (City Council Colleagues' memo) for a new skate park to the PRC to evaluate the need for a skate park, identify a suitable location, and
prioritize a skate park facility within the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation
Master Plan.
On April 27, 2021, the PRC formed a skate park Ad Hoc Committee. Staff, the Ad Hoc Committee, and a stakeholder group met numerous times over the last year to work on the three
tasks that City Council referred to the PRC.
Evaluate the Need for a Skate Park The Ad Hoc Committee, staff, and the skateboarding community agree that an additional, updated, and inclusive skate park would be valuable to the community of Palo Alto, for both
children and adults, by providing a local option for healthy and fun outdoor activities to the large
community of action sport participants within Palo Alto.
The only skate park in Palo Alto is the existing skate bowl at Greer Park. While it remains popular with many skaters, the sport of skateboarding has grown and evolved in ways that
require new styles of skate parks. A group of local skateboarders began advocating for a new
skate park in early 2021. Almost 2,000 people have signed a petition asking for a new skate park with a good mix of street and transition features that would support skaters at all levels. Many
2
other cities on the Peninsula, around the country, and elsewhere in the world, have already created new skate parks to provide safe and supportive environments for their community.
The lack of proper facilities for these activities leads to many people pursuing their activity in other cities, which requires non-environmentally friendly transportation. Alternatively, many people skate in the streets, sometimes trespassing onto private property, or in an unsafe environment that could harm the participant, property, or bystanders. Skateboarding made its
Olympic debut at the 2020 Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo and interest and participation is
likely to increase.
Identify a Suitable Location The Ad Hoc Committee, staff, and a stakeholder group of skaters analyzed Palo Alto’s parks and
City owned land to find a suitable location for a new skate park. Some of the key features that
were desired include:
•At least 12,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. of available space
•A location that minimizes impact to neighbors
•Available restroom access
•Adequate parking
•Safe biking access
•Avoid displacing other park uses and target under-utilized park areas
The area adjacent to the Greer Park skate bowl (Attachment A) was identified as the preferred location. Greer Park has many of the desired features. There is available space adjacent to the
existing skate bowl that doesn’t impact other park uses. The available space for a new skate park
area is 22,430 sq. ft. (this does not include the existing bowl). Greer Park has a restroom and a parking lot.
On June 15, 2022, staff held a virtual community meeting to collect feedback on the concept of
building a new skate park adjacent to the existing skate park at Greer Park. Twenty-one people
participated in the meeting. There was broad support for the proposed location. There were numerous comments commending the process so far and for working closely with the skateboarding community to find the right location. The participants also encouraged staff to continue to work closely with the skateboarding community.
There were several comments of appreciation for preserving the existing skate bowl. There was a question about the funding plan for the project and whether the City will contribute to the cost of the project. Staff explained that the current idea is that it would be community funded. There were comments from several skate park advocates who mentioned that skate parks don’t have a
standard size, and that the proposed space for a new skate park at Greer seems more than
adequate.
Prioritize a Skate Park Facility within the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan
The Ad Hoc Committee acknowledges that there are numerous important projects and programs
within the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master Plan), and they require staff resources and funding to achieve. Given the high level of community
3
interest in having a new skate park, the growth of skateboarding, and the benefits to the wellbeing of youth, the Ad Hoc Committee believes a new skate park is one of the highest
priorities of the projects identified in the Parks Master Plan.
The Ad Hoc Committee noted that the funding for the new skate park is proposed to come from community fundraising, which means that a new skate park would not compete with other City projects for City general funds. However, designing and constructing a new skate park will
require staff resources.
The Ad Hoc Committee coordinated with the Friends of Palo Alto Parks to discuss fundraising for a future skate park. The Friends of Palo Alto Parks (https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/have) have agreed to serve as the fundraising organization. The Friends of Palo Alto Parks have
experience with collecting donations for other large projects that were coordinated with the City
(Magical Bridge Playground, Lytton Plaza, Heritage Park Playground, https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/achievements). Fundraising can begin once City Council provides approval to move forward with the project.
NEXT STEPS AND TIMELINE
•August 2022 --Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation to Council on a NewSkate Park
•October 2022 –City Council Review
•October 2022 –Begin fundraising, if City Council approves of the project
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: JULY 26, 2022
SUBJECT: PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE: MITCHELL PARK DOG
PARK RENOVATION PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission provide a
recommendation to City Council to adopt the Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the
Mitchell Park Dog Park Renovation Project (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto’s Parks Master Plan includes a policy (2.D) recommending the
addition of dedicated, fenced dog parks distributed throughout the city. The City Council
prioritized expansion of dog parks as a city goal in 2017 with the adoption of Parks Master
Plan. There are currently four existing dog parks in the City – Mitchell Park (0.56 acres),
Peers Park (0.84 acres), Greer Park (0.06 acres), and Hoover Park (0.14 acres). An
ongoing Capital Improvement Project (PG-18001) was established for the expansion and
enhancement of dog parks in 2018 providing funding of $150,000 per project, funded by
park impact fees. Staff completed the Peers Park Dog Park in 2018 and is now pursuing
the Mitchell Park Dog Park improvements and expansion.
Staff reviewed the proposed improvements to the dog park in a community meeting held
online on May 4, 2022 to obtain input. There were 30 participants. The community
response to the proposed renovations was positive and supportive with suggestions to
include hills/slope areas in the dog park, enlarge the dog park area as much as possible,
add more seating/benches, and fix the drainage issues. These suggestions have been
incorporated into the proposed plan.
A project webpage has been created where the community can learn more about the
Mitchell Park Dog Park Renovation Project(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/dogparks).
DISCUSSION
On June 28, 2022 the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed plans
with revisions made per community comments. The Commission was supportive of the
expansion plans and provided the following comments that were addressed in the plan
presented for the Parks Improvement Ordinance. These revisions included: the reduction
of the small dog park fence height to 3’ and the addition of 15 new native trees, a mix of
Valley Oaks and California Sycamores to the area for shade and habitat.
The Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) (Attachment ‘A’) for the Mitchell Park Dog Park
Project includes the following items:
(1) Expand the size of the existing dog park area with new 5’ tall chain
link fence
(2) Install a new small dog park area with 3’ tall chain link fence
(3) Replace existing irrigation system
(4) Replace existing mowed turf with ‘no mow’ grass to reduce
maintenance
(5) Add new site amenities including: bench seating and waste
receptacles
(6) Establish 10’ set-back along Adobe Creek
(7) Install new area drains
(8) Plant new native trees
NEXT STEPS
• Parks and Recreation Commission Park Improvement Ordinance: Summer 2022
• City Council Park Improvement Ordinance: Summer 2022
• Bid Document Preparation & Project Bidding: Summer 2022
• Construction Begins: Fall 2022
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community
Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities
as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community
facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the
community. The proposed recommendations are consistent with the Parks Master Plan
Policy 2.D.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Park Improvement Ordinance
PREPARED BY
Chelsea Laxa
Project Engineer
Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect
City of Palo Alto
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
1
256_20220712_ts24
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan
for Facility Improvements at Mitchell Park
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Improvements. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and section 22.08.005 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantial building, construction,
reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land
held by the City for park purposes, the Council shall first cause to be prepared and by
ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefor.
(b) Mitchell Park (the “Park”) is dedicated to park purposes. (See Municipal
Code section 22.08.180)
(c) The City intends to authorize the renovation and expansion of the dog park area.
(d) The plan of improvements shall comprise as follows:
(1) Expand the size of the existing dog park area with new 5’ tall chain link
fence
(2) Install a new small dog park area with 3’ tall chain link fence
(3) Replace existing irrigation system
(4) Replace existing mowed turf with ‘no mow’ grass to reduce maintenance
(5) Add new site amenities including: bench seating and waste receptacles
(6) Establish 10’ set-back along Adobe Creek
(7) Install new area drains
(8) Plant new native trees
(e) Exhibit A depicts the expected implementation of the plan of improvements.
(f) The plan of improvements described above is consistent with park,
playground, recreation, and conservation purposes.
(g) The City Council desires to approve the plan of improvements described above.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the plan of improvements in the Park
described in this Ordinance.
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
2
256_20220712_ts24
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Facilities or
Structures).
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Community Services
*NOT YET ADOPTED*
3
256_20220712_ts24
Exhibit A
1 of 2
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: DAREN ANDERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 28, 2022
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6- TITLE: DOG PARK PIO PARK IMPROVEMENT
ORDINANCE
Staff would like to provide the Parks and Recreation Commission with an alternative to the Mitchell Dog Park fence alignment that is proposed in the Park Improvement Ordinance. The red line on the exhibit below shows an alternative fence alignment for the Commission’s consideration.
Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, Jeff Greenfield, suggested moving the boundary of the proposed Mitchell Dog Park fence slightly away from the adjacent group picnic area to provide better privacy for the picnic area and to maintain some shady tree respites for people. This change would decrease the size of the dog park, but would still include some sloped hill areas, including some shade trees.
This At Places Memo is intended to provide the Commissioners and the public an opportunity to review this alternative fence alignment option prior to the July 28 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.
6
2 of 2
Page 1 of 9
TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 28, 2022
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE PALO ALTO HORIZONTAL LEVEE PILOT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational report to provide an update on the progress of the Palo Alto Horizontal
Levee Pilot Project and to obtain input from the Parks and Recreation Commission on proposed
project design elements. There is no staff recommendation at this time.
BACKGROUND
Horizontal levees are a green infrastructure alternative to traditional greyscape solutions (i.e., rip
rap) for wave attenuation on the bayside of flood control levees (Figure 1). Horizontal levees utilize
treated wastewater to irrigate a gently sloping, vegetated ecotone slope that provides multiple
benefits beyond wave attenuation including refugia habitat, enhancement of transitional habitat
between tidal wetlands and terrestrial uplands, sea level rise adaptation, and polishing treatment
of treated wastewater.
Figure 1: Illustration of an example horizontal levee system.
Page 2 of 9
Unlike the majority of the shoreline along the San Francisco Bay, the Palo Alto shoreline, while
highly developed and altered, continues to sustain tidal marsh. The Palo Alto Baylands are backed
by low levees and a closed landfill. Directly behind these levees are significant City of Palo Alto
infrastructure, including the City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), airport, the Palo
Alto Flood Basin, roads and light commercial development. Potential flooding of City infrastructure,
buildings, and other development west of Highway 101 is limited by the existing levees. The
existing flood control levees are not engineered to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) accreditation standards, and in many locations do not provide 100-year flood protection.
To improve these levees, the City has partnered with nearby cities and county flood agencies as a
member of the project teams for the Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems, and
Recreation along San Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) and the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline
Projects. One of the goals for these flood control levee improvement projects is to incorporate
natural infrastructure, such as horizontal levees, to provide increased flood protection that can
evolve in the future, restore Bay habitats, and enhance public access. As expected, these large
flood control levee improvement projects will take years to plan, design, and construct. Because
engineered horizontal levees are still early in their development and anticipated to be more
expensive than traditional greyscape solutions to flood control and sea level rise adaptation, a
permanent pilot system was pursued to answer outstanding questions surrounding permitting
requirements, construction costs, and site specific design parameters (e.g., plant pallet).
Information from this pilot system, will be fed into the design for broader implementation of
horizontal levees as part of the larger flood control levee improvement projects.
As such, the City of Palo Alto in collaboration with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP) and
Environmental Science Associates has been evaluating the feasibility of constructing horizontal
levees within the Palo Alto Baylands since 2018. The 2018 Horizontal Levee Conceptual Designs for
the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant Memorandum identified several locations within
the Palo Alto Baylands that horizontal levees are feasible. Conceptual designs were presented to
the Parks and Recreation Commission at the November 27, 2018 meeting. Two locations, both
along the perimeter of Harbor Marsh, were then evaluated further to produce preliminary designs
for a pilot horizontal levee system (Figure 2). During preliminary design, it was determined that one
of the locations, shown in yellow in Figure 2, would have significant concerns from the Federal
Aviation Administration due to its proximity to the airport runway. As such, the southern reach,
shown in red in Figure 2, was then selected to move forward in the design process (Attachment B).
The preliminary design was discussed at the February 25, 2020 Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting. Since last meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the project team has
progressed the design to 60% completion, met several times with resource agencies to discuss
permitting, and has sought stakeholder feedback in numerous meetings and workshops. A link to
the 60% drawings is included as Attachment C and outcomes from the design process are
summarized in the Discussion section below.
Page 3 of 9
Figure 2: Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Locations Considered
DISCUSSION
Broken down to its core components, the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project is planning to:
• construct a 500 linear foot (LF) berm fronted by a 315 LF horizontal levee,
• trench and install along Embarcadero & Harbor Roads 1,650 LF of underground treated
wastewater pipeline for irrigation of the horizontal levee,
• replace Renzel Marsh pump,
• plant the horizontal levee to create an ecotone slope, and
• realign the public Marsh Front Trail to the new berm.
Refer to Figures 3 and 4 as well as to the 60% Design Drawings included as Attachment C for more
detailed plans.
Page 4 of 9
Figure 3: Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Components
Page 5 of 9
Figure 4: Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Plan
Page 6 of 9
Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project objectives and how the project currently plans to meet
them are summarized in the following subsections.
1. Improve habitat along the perimeter of Harbor Marsh for native species. The existing
habitat at the project site consists predominantly of upland, non-native vegetation that
provides poor high tide cover for salt marsh wildlife during extreme marsh submergence
events. The project proposes to restore the site to a diverse ecotone habitat that consists of
freshwater marsh, wet meadow, and riparian scrub (Figure 4). The project is also expected
to increase the overall marsh habitat within the site by 33% (0.66 acres). These changes are
expected to support increased utilization for species such as Ridgway’s Rail and the salt
marsh harvest mouse which are known to use the surrounding marshland. Refer to
Appendix A of Attachment B for more information on the ecological design basis for the
project.
2. Adapt to sea level rise by providing a vegetated transitional slope that will build organic
soils and support sediment accretion and accumulation to allow for future tidal marsh
migration. By increasing and diversifying the transitional marsh habitat (i.e., ecotone) the
project is anticipated to have enhanced the site’s ability to accrete and accumulate
sediment to better support future tidal marsh migration. Quantification of sediment
accretion and tidal marsh migration are topics for future studies to be conducted post-
construction.
3. Integrate a horizontal levee on the bayfront of a traditional flood control levee to provide
wave attenuation. The project is located along one of the possible alignments identified
under the larger flood control levee improvement projects (e.g., SAFER Bay). The project
has designed the stability berm to be offset from Harbor Road to provide space for the
larger flood control levee to be constructed in the future (Figure 5). The berm is designed to
be constructed with requirements similar to a flood control levee with the intent that the
berm and horizontal levee could be integrated into the future flood control levee. The
larger flood control levee improvement projects are currently in the planning stages with
final alignments not yet selected; construction of the larger project is currently estimated to
start no sooner than 2029 and take roughly 10 years to complete. The Palo Alto Horizontal
Levee Pilot Project will continue to coordinate closely with these larger projects to inform
decisions on broader implementation of horizontal levee elements and integration of the
pilot into the future levee system.
Figure 5: Typical section and components of the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project
Page 7 of 9
4. Maintain and provide opportunities for compatible low-impact recreation and social
infrastructure. The Palo Alto Baylands sees roughly 700,000 visitors annually that seek to
utilize the 15-mile trail network and other social infrastructure elements (e.g., Duck Pond).
The project site currently hosts a portion of the Marsh Front Trail. This trail segment is a
part of the regional Bay Trail and within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC). It currently parallels the salt marsh within the project’s
footprint and is between 2 and 10 LF from existing salt marsh habitat (Figure 4). Based on
early environmental stakeholder feedback, the project proposes to relocate this trail to the
top of the new berm where it would be farther from salt marsh habitat while providing
similar public access functions (Figures 4 and 5). This relocation reduces the trail length by
roughly 80 LF and locates the trail closer to the adjacent road; during initial consultation,
BCDC expressed concern that this location would degrade the overall public experience in
using the trail due to the increased noise and shorter trail length. However, this location
provides the most separation between the public and the existing salt marsh habitat to
support species utilization of the restored habitat, provides a buffer of about 20 LF between
the road and the trail, and maintains a visual connection to Harbor Marsh for trail users.
The proposed new trail would be roughly 1.5 – 2.5 feet higher than the current trail and
roughly 1.5 feet higher than the adjacent road. Buffer/screening vegetation is planned for
the habitat edge of the trail to minimize potential adverse impacts on wildlife from use of
the trail, as well as to discourage people and pets from crossing into the habitat. A low-
profile fence (less than 3 feet high) will be installed between the trail edge and habitat to
act as a physical deterrent until the screening vegetation matures and can serve this
function. Fence design will incorporate elements to avoid raptor/predator perching.
A 60 LF spur of the existing Marsh Front Trail, approaching the ITT salt marsh intake
structure, will be preserved for maintenance access and resurfaced as part of the project.
This spur could be managed as it currently is with unofficial public access or could be
officially made a part of the public-access trail network. BCDC recommend making this an
official part of the public access trail network with required closures during nesting season
(February 1 – August 31) and some additional work to ensure wheelchair accessibility. As
mentioned previously, BCDC is particularly concerned that the new trail is shorter in length
than the existing trail and notes that the intake structure would lengthen the proposed trail
and provide a close-to-water experience for the public.
In addition to the public access trail, several other project elements seek to support social
infrastructure. Signage is planned that will not only provide technical information on the
project but also provide information on the site within the context of traditional Native
American territory. The project team plans to contract with the Association of Ramaytush
Ohlone to conduct site stewardship and support outreach material development such as
the aforementioned signage. The project team also plans to contract with community
organizations such as Save the Bay, Environmental Volunteers, and Nuestra Casa to
coordinate community science programs to provide educational outreach opportunities,
support adaptive management, and provide data collection for assessment of project
progression. Social infrastructure project elements still under consideration include
Page 8 of 9
internships and a temporary art piece that would draw attention and spark conversations
on indigenous use of the Palo Alto Baylands.
5. Provide polishing treatment to treated wastewater. Highly treated wastewater would be
piped from the adjacent Regional Water Quality Control Plant and directed to a subsurface
distribution chamber connected to a gravel treatment layer where it would enter the
treatment zone. This zone has been designed based on results from the Oro Loma Sanitary
District horizontal levee research site. As such, the treatment zone is anticipated to remove
more than 97% of trace organic contaminants and more than 83% of phosphate via
vegetation uptake, soil adsorption, and microbial processes. The resulting polished
wastewater would seep onto the surface of the ecotone habitat slope at the terminus of
the treatment zone and migrate to the adjacent salt marsh via shallow surface/ subsurface
flow. Hydraulic controls would be located at both the Regional Water Quality Control Plant
and the project site.
6. Be on the leading edge of integrating habitat enhancement with sea level rise adaptation
and novel wastewater treatment approaches around the San Francisco Bay. The Palo Alto
Horizontal Levee Pilot Project is on track to be the first horizontal levee (vegetated ecotone
slope irrigated with treated wastewater) connected to tidal action in the San Francisco Bay
Area. As such, this project is collecting key information on design, permitting, and
construction that will be shared regionally in the hopes of supporting wider adoption of
nature-based sea level rise adaptation projects.
NEXT STEPS
The project team will continue to progress the design and are working towards design completion
by late 2022. Currently the project team is preparing applications to be submitted in August 2022
to resource agencies through the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT) process in
the hopes of receiving permits by summer of 2023. In parallel, environmental evaluations in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are underway. The project team
anticipates coming back to the Parks and Recreation Commission in late 2022 to provide details of
the project’s CEQA documentation and with a request for recommendation of a Parks
Improvement Ordinance.
City staff in collaboration with SFEP continues to seek grant funding to complete the construction
phases of the Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project. City staff and SFEP plan on submitting an
application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Improvement
Fund for additional funds needed to finalize the construction as well as implement adaptive
management and community science programs at the site.
Page 9 of 9
ATTACHMENTS
A. Factsheet – Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project
B. Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project Preliminary Design Report
C. Palo Alto Horizontal Levee Pilot Project 60% Design Drawings
PREPARED BY:
Samantha Engelage
Senior Engineer
Environmental Services Division, Public Works Department
City of Palo Alto
July 12, 2022
To: CSD Staff
From: Commissioners Anne Cribbs, Jeff LaMere, Joy Oche - Fund Development Ad Hoc
Committee
Subject: Report from Ad Hoc Fund Development for CSD staff to enable a discussion
with PRC Commission on our fund development recommendations. Our goal is to raise
awareness in our community about funding opportunities for specific targeted projects.
Four initiatives –
1. City of Palo Alto/Web Page and marketing/communication suggestions regarding
donations (included on draft web page)
2. Skate Park support
3. Family Recreation Center of Palo Alto
4. Grants and grant writer
Background: Over the past 4 years, various Park and Recreation Commissioners have
served on Fund Development Ad Hocs. The result has been lots of good suggestions,
good information and memos but due to Covid, not as much implementation as we would
have liked. Several weeks ago, Chair Greenfield requested that the current Ad Hoc work
with CSD staff on a report, in preparation for an update and discussion at a coming PRC
meeting (either July or August). The Ad Hoc picked the four topics listed below to discuss.
The Ad Hoc is aware that the current CSD staff is stretched very thin with existing
responsibilities plus a shortage of staff due to resignations and unfilled positions. The
discussion with CSD staff is to confirm that these possibilities are feasible.
1. FUNDRAISING COMMUNICATION:
1. Develop web page (s) on current City of Palo Alto website to invite the community
to participate and contribute.
2. Suggestions about cost effective resources to spread the word – both paid, pro
bono, available via the City
3. The page would include a paragraph about objectives.
4. CSD Fundraising foundations and descriptions or links including mission
statements
5. Clarify and publicize how community members may contribute donations towards
City-approved projects via specific partner organizations, including Friends of Palo
Alto Parks https://www.friendsofpaparks.org and Palo Alto Recreation Foundation
http://www.parecfoundation.org
6. Summary of donation and volunteer opportunities
7. Highlight unique and less well-known giving opportunities
8. Report recent success stories including PARF supported summer programs,
FOPA “buckets” including Cubberley track, pickleball and dog parks.
https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/donations2
A draft of a sample page is included.
2.SKATEPARK
Background: On April 12, 2021, the Palo Alto City Council unanimously voted to refer
a colleague’s memo, regarding a proposal to build a new skate park, to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
The Parks and Recreation Commission was given the responsibility “to evaluate the need
for a skatepark, identify a suitable location, and prioritize a skatepark facility within the
Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan,” according to the April
12 City Council action minutes.
The movement for the new skate park was started by Palo Alto High School sophomore
Sam Kaplinsky in August of 2020 and his petition for the goal has since gained more than
2,000 supporters.
CSD staff and PRC commissioners held several meetings (at least 6 - 8) with the
stakeholders to reach consensus about the location, features and updates for the
skatepark. One of the most discussed topics was to reach agreement among the skating
community regarding the existing bowl at Greer Park and its condition. At the last
meeting, the skaters confirmed that they wished to keep the existing bowl and add
additional skating features in the area around the bowl. Peter Jensen, the city architect,
presented plans which included the historic bowl and new features.
There will be a discussion at the July PRC meeting, with a report going to City Council,
confirming the need for the skatepark, the proposed location and PRC suggestion for
future steps. PRC discussion may include a recommendation for the city council to
allocate funds for initial design to assist the stakeholders.
The recommendation to proceed includes Council support for the project, and the Greer
Park location. Also, to be discussed will be the final design, timeline, and cost. Sam has
some initial costs from skatepark builders. Skaters indicate they look forward to working
with CSD staff to take advantage of the specialized knowledge regarding skateparks.
The skaters are anxious to begin the fundraising. The Ad Hoc has confirmed with the
Friends of the Palo Alto Parks (FOPAP) that as soon as the City Council agrees, the
skating community can begin to raise funds, which will be deposited in the Friends of Palo
Alto Parks accounts. This is the model FOPAP used for Heritage Park, Lytton Plaza, and
the Magical Bridge https://www.friendsofpaparks.org/donations2
With the community and CSD staff working together with the stakeholders, the ad hoc is
anxious to see this project move forward for the benefit of this important youth- initiated
project. The ad hoc is also interested in learning of any restrictions on the help of the
commissioners and the PRC. Jeff LaMere served as liaison to the skatepark.
3. FAMILY RECREATION WELLNESS CENTER - Public Private Partnerships
Several of the past ad hoc reports talk about the importance of Public/Private
Partnerships. One of the possible uses of these partnerships would be for the city owned
Family Recreation/wellness Center.
Background: The City of Palo Alto does not own a gymnasium (gym). There are two
small gyms and a recreational court pavilion at Cubberley Community Center, which is
owned by Palo Alto Unified School District. The City leases these gym spaces from the
School District and makes them available to community groups for recreation purposes.
As of this writing, the two small gyms have not been available since February 2022
and the expectation is that they will not be available for use until 2023 or 2024.
There are no locker rooms, weight rooms, or meeting space available in these gyms. The
demand for gym space is high; these gyms are almost always reserved in the afternoon
and evenings every day of the week.
The 2017 Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks Master
Plan), discusses the importance of gym space and notes that planning, designing, and
constructing a new public gym as a major project that needs further study and strategic
funding. The Parks Master Plan also notes that the limited number of gyms available to
the public and the lack of a City-owned gym complicate the expansion of most sports
programs. During the community outreach process for the Parks Master Plan, gym
facilities were identified as highly desired by the community.
The need for a city owned Family Recreation Wellness Center is listed as a top priority in
the 2017 Parks Master Plan. The Recreation Opportunities Ad Hoc, in the Commission
work plan, identified the following important capital projects:
a. City owned gym/wellness center;
b. 10.5 acres available due to the golf course redesign;
c. the Skatepark;
d. the First Tee Golf Partnership;
e. the athletic fields maintenance;
f. a gender equity study.
In November 2021, the Commission discussed a city owned family
recreation/gym/wellness center which would be a public private partnership (model Junior
Museum) and unanimously recommended to the City Council that they direct staff and
the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) to assess and conduct public outreach on
a new gym project. Discussion to include location, site considerations, gym features and
requirements, construction and operations costs, funding timeline, demand assessment,
and prioritization of projects.
On March 7, 2022, the City Council passed a motion to direct staff and the Parks and
Recreation Commission to conduct public outreach on a new gym, including location,
siting, gym features, cost estimates, funding timeline, demand assessment and
prioritization of projects and to investigate fundraising.
While decisions and details are on-going, the Ad Hoc feels it is important to discuss the
steps needed for this endeavor to be successful. These include the following:
a. Support of the City Council, the Park and Recreation Commission, Recreation
and Park staff, stakeholders, users, the Palo Alto Friends of the Parks, the Palo
Alto Recreation Foundation and the Palo Alto community.
b. Creation of a “Friends” group, finalizing of corporate documents, including
articles of incorporation, by-laws, with 501 c3 status, to shoulder the
fundraising. The early identification of a “Lead Donor” in support of the project.
c. Confirmation of board members and advisory committee members, reflecting
the expertise and the diversity of our community.
d. City to contribute land for facility
e. Council decision about the best location for the facility
f. Fundraising, with funders directing their contributions only to the designated
design-build process in a multi-level recognition program. The Recreation and
Wellness Center of Palo Alto (RWCPA) requires a lead donor and other
combinations of funding including city funds.
g. Similar to the magic playground, there are ample naming opportunities. For
example, one could name certain wellness/recreation rooms, the actual court,
or designated equipment.
h. Still to be discussed are the operations of the Center, either by the City or by a
3rd party vendor patterned. Models could be the Baylands Golf Course or the
Aquatics Program.
Clearly there are many steps to this process, but the Ad Hoc believes that resources exist
in Palo Alto and this project will be attractive to donors who want to contribute to an
efficient, cost-effective project which will benefit the entire community.
Since November of 2019, ad hocs have discussed, with city staff and user groups, the
amenities of a city owned recreation wellness center. Facility would include 3 full sized
basketball courts.
Areas for the following sports – basketball, volleyball, pickleball, indoor soccer,
badminton, table tennis with appropriate lines on floors, drop down curtains to separate
the courts and equipment storage. Restroom, changing rooms. Administrative offices,
exercise rooms, meeting rooms, classrooms and weight room.
Coming out of COVID, we know that all in the community – especially our youth have
been greatly affected, some of the best medicine is exercise, wellness and sports. There
are also possibilities for programming grants for seniors, mental health initiatives,
especially for teens, and wellness opportunities for the community, especially for low
income and underserved individuals and groups.
In addition there are opportunities for the project to gain a Sustainability certification
award pre- or post- construction, through either the ISI Envision award or WELL health &
wellbeing certification.
4. GRANTS AND GRANT WRITERS
Fundraising requires expertise, finesse, and patience to organize activities and
complete grant applications to raise funds or otherwise solicit and gather monetary
donations or other gifts. Although grant writing is not the only fundraising tool or activity
available, it is a major source of funding and has proven to be an invaluable opportunity
to access numerous available funds required to initiate and/or expand programs and
services.
Grants change our world for the better and could be funded by private institutions,
nonprofits, and government entities. Example of currently several grants that the City of
Palo Alto PRC could benefit from e.g Quadratec Cares “Energize The Environment” Grant
Program (Trail building or restoration projects, Park beautification events, etc)
and Skatepark Construction project.
Other available grant resources can be found here on The National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA).
Grant applications can be time consuming, highly competitive with attendant pressure.
Considering the workload of City staff, the City will benefit greatly from a professional
grant writer who will help us focus on less time-consuming potential grant choices; provide
insight and technical support in preparing narratives and effectively streamlining and/or
steering the grant writing process in the right direction (especially meeting submission
deadlines).
The publicized 2021 median wage is $29.17 hourly and the average time required to
complete a grant application could range from 30-50 hours for a foundation grant.
Example of City Parks and Recreation Commissions that have benefited from grants,
include the City of Bell Gardens got the total project cost of $510,067 for the BG Keep
Parks Clean Beautification Project and The City of Berkeley got $591,666 for the
$946,666 Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park – Turtle Garden project.
The outcome of the grant application undoubtedly outweighs the cost of engaging a
professional grant writer.
As part of the Commission discussion, the Ad Hoc would like to be certain that we hear
from the City Attorney what Commissioners roles should be, what we can do and what
we cannot do as commissioners.
There is much to be discussed –as we continue to look for ways to continue to support
our parks and recreation programs in these challenging times, but these are important
discussions to continue Palo Alto’s commitment to the health and well being of our
community. The Ad Hoc looks forward to continuing the discussions.
DRAFT WEB PAGE INFORMATION
TITLE: Funding Opportunities to support City of Palo Alto Recreation and Parks
An Invitation for our community to learn about, easily participate and contribute funds to
support specific and direct park and recreation projects, easily and successfully and
ensure the funds directly support donor designated projects.
1. Palo Alto Recreation Foundation: http://www.parecfoundation.org
The Palo Alto Recreation Foundation (PARF) supports the City of Palo Alto Recreation
Division, and other local nonprofits, by creating, sponsoring, and funding various
recreation programs and special events for Palo Alto residents, visitors, and surrounding
neighborhoods. Such community activities promote social interaction, cultural
appreciation, and overall well-being, by creating memories and upholding traditions for
generations to come.
PARF was founded in 1986, in response to declining City funds being allocated to support
community events. PARF's founders did not want to lose precious traditions in Palo Alto,
such as the May Fete Children's Parade. PARF began raising funds to keep local
traditions alive, as well as create additional recreational programs and social connections,
in and around Palo Alto. PARF was, and still is today, dedicated to sustaining and
enhancing the extraordinary quality of life in Palo Alto.
2. Friends of Palo Alto Parks: https://www.friendsofpaparks.org
Dedicated to fostering greater public awareness and appreciation of our treasured assets.
Friends of the Palo Alto Parks works with the city of Palo Alto, private groups, other
nonprofits, and citizen organizations to preserve, maintain, and beautify our parks and
open spaces.
Other donation opportunities – outlined at https://www.friendsofpaparks.org
These volunteer opportunities to support Recreation and Parks programs- announced at
Commission meetings and via City Managers weekly report - park clean ups, tree
planting, special events, sports support, festivals, recognition events, city commissions,
open space, Foothill Preserve, Baylands, Teen Center and others.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Residents/Get-Involved/Volunteering
New Projects as developed, announced at Commission meetings.
Recent Success Stories - https://www.friendsofpaparks.org
Pickleball – New lines on courts, making it easier to see
Dog Parks – funding for amenities not in budget for dog parks
Cubberley Track – special fund for track upkeep and cleaning
Other Funding Sources: According to the 2017 Parks Master Plan, the City uses a variety
of funding sources to support park, trail, natural open space and recreation. These
sources are described on Appendix d-2 – d5 of the Master Plan, with a caution that the
City has more options for funding capital projects than it does for funding to fund the
operation, maintenance and programming of the system.
1. General Fund
2. Parkland Dedication Fees
3. Development Impact Fees
4. Grants
5. Public Private Partnerships
6. Donations
Future: Campaign for Parks:
- Park clean ups with neighborhood groups;
- One day 1x a year to clean;
- Local Food trucks provide bbq for those who clean; and
- Garbage Bag Sponsors – Green Waste or others
Utilize opportunities to talk about supporting the community by the following:
- Lawns Signs available to neighborhoods;
- Enjoy Catalogue information;
- Utility Bill special insert mailed to residents;
- Stakeholders support;
- Database of all our users/stakeholders;
- Info sent; and
- Volunteer recognition.
Paid advertising supporting the campaign for the parks and recreation programs:
- Post;
- PA Weekly; and
- Need to ask about non- profit rate for PARF/Friends of Parks – publicize
achievements and needs.